Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years for elbowing a police officer after he grabbed her boob, therefore left wing activists are just as violent as right wing activists and Darren Huff is automatically president   (gawker.com) divider line 270
    More: Strange, Occupy Wall Street, objections, Wall Street, activists, Zuccotti Park, right-wing  
•       •       •

3578 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 11:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-06 08:59:28 PM  
this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%
 
2014-05-06 09:10:02 PM  
Come on, you don't grab someone's boob unless she indicates that's okay. Not cool, Mr. Cop.
 
2014-05-06 09:29:40 PM  
Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.
 
2014-05-06 09:42:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


She sure taught the 1% a lesson.
 
2014-05-06 10:03:17 PM  
I don't remember seeing any boobs at those demonstrations worth grabbing.
 
2014-05-06 10:24:32 PM  

Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.


OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.
 
2014-05-06 11:35:32 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-06 11:39:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


You can lead a woman by the boob, but that won't make her think

/actually it's likely to piss her off
//but that's obvious
///I really had no point
 
2014-05-06 11:51:49 PM  

some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%


gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net


/I was a political prisoner; I kicked a giant mouse in the butt!
 
2014-05-06 11:54:32 PM  

Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.


Obama coordinated the nation-wide crackdown on the Occupy movement. He initiated the police abuse on you all. Then you voted for him again.

/useful idiots
 
2014-05-06 11:54:40 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.
 
2014-05-06 11:55:14 PM  
Looks like she got punched above her tit to me.

Whatever, 7 years is still way too long.
 
2014-05-07 12:03:41 AM  
Remember, boys and girls:

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Class warfare.

www.thedailysheeple.com

Not class warfare.
 
2014-05-07 12:05:57 AM  

Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.


Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

i75.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-07 12:06:28 AM  
she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.
 
2014-05-07 12:10:25 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: 7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


Normally elbowing is just a 2 minute minor penalty.

Go to the box, feel shame, then you get free.
 
2014-05-07 12:13:24 AM  
If they re-do the Occupy thing they should bring guns next time. Maybe then Fox News would cheer them on.
 
2014-05-07 12:19:39 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.


Yeah. I'm sure "I groped her boob. I groped it good." was a part of the report.
 
2014-05-07 12:20:51 AM  

gaspode: she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.


I've always wanted fight a line of riot police in full knight armor with a club and some people of my own. Like these two.

media2.s-nbcnews.com

The problem is I don't want to do any of the things or be in any of the situations that CAUSE riot cops to show up, nor do I want to be arrested nor physically hurt anyone. I just want to see how well sword vs nightstick. Just sparing unit to unit.
 
2014-05-07 12:25:25 AM  
I just can't make a judgement without a picture of the boob in question.
 
2014-05-07 12:27:28 AM  

TV's Vinnie: TuteTibiImperes: The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.

Yeah. I'm sure "I groped her boob. I groped it good." was a part of the report.


Eh, when arresting someone I don't expect the police to be super careful about not touching intimate areas.

If I'm ever arrested for being unruly in public I fully expect a police officer to grab my penis.
 
2014-05-07 12:27:34 AM  

Doc Daneeka: TuteTibiImperes: 7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

Normally elbowing is just a 2 minute minor penalty.

Go to the box, feel shame, then you get free.


Puck go down, go boom.
 
2014-05-07 12:30:31 AM  

TheBigJerk: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]


Well of course . The cops knew they wouldn't get shot at the OWS rallies for doing that. All power grows from the barrel of a gun, and all that.
 
2014-05-07 12:33:44 AM  

TheBigJerk: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]


And if OWS had some sort of central leadership, there would have been at least a 99% chance that the NYPD would have "found" 3 tons of meth (or something equally bad) in the leader's apartment, thus causing anyone who would have otherwise supported OWS to avoid them like the plague.


/at least until it was eventually revealed that the leader was railroaded by the NYPD Schutzstaffel
//and any officers who would have been involved in the plant-and-bust would have claimed they were Just Following Orders
i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-05-07 12:35:16 AM  
Neither side has much credibility.  I've seen videos of other officer's randomly grabbing people or attacking them at gatherings and then saying that the defendant did something to justify it.  Innocent until proven guilty is just words, the system is designed to convict you most effectively, and people for some unknown reason still put great stock in the testimony of police officers.  The article starts the scene with "as I'm walking her out"  WTF that's pretty late in the story to establish context.  Someone in the comments above says she was arrested for drunk in public, is that true? what was her BAC?
 
2014-05-07 12:41:03 AM  
No one would ever stage an injury
www.whudat.com
 
2014-05-07 12:43:35 AM  

Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.


Plus, it is dangerous and inimical to organize too early; this leads to a grassroots movement being taken over by opportunists. This is what is happening to the Anna Hazare movement in India right now.
 
2014-05-07 12:45:45 AM  

doglover: gaspode: she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.

I've always wanted fight a line of riot police in full knight armor with a club and some people of my own. Like these two.

[media2.s-nbcnews.com image 850x584]

The problem is I don't want to do any of the things or be in any of the situations that CAUSE riot cops to show up, nor do I want to be arrested nor physically hurt anyone. I just want to see how well sword vs nightstick. Just sparing unit to unit.


If we're talking riot cops with shields, then you're basically talking about attacking a phalanx with another phalanx, in which case maybe bringing spears would be better. Just sayin. Or cavalry. Or flank them.

Either way a sword would beat the living f*ck out of a cop's club, if wearing the proper armor. But cops tend to bring out the guns against swordsmen in plate. Good luck with that.
 
2014-05-07 12:51:21 AM  

js34603: Looks like she got punched above her tit to me.

Whatever, 7 years is still way too long.


The officer's testimony doesn't even make sense. He claims she asked another protestor "are you filming this," and then immediately and for no reason elbowed him. I guess she wanted to get the incriminating evidence on camera?

More likely, cop testalied. She asked about filming because she was being manhandled by aggressive cops. Cop grabs her tit (probably not specifically aiming for the tit) trying to restrain her, she reflexively elbows him.
 
2014-05-07 12:56:12 AM  

Baz744: js34603: Looks like she got punched above her tit to me.

Whatever, 7 years is still way too long.

The officer's testimony doesn't even make sense. He claims she asked another protestor "are you filming this," and then immediately and for no reason elbowed him. I guess she wanted to get the incriminating evidence on camera?

More likely, cop testalied. She asked about filming because she was being manhandled by aggressive cops. Cop grabs her tit (probably not specifically aiming for the tit) trying to restrain her, she reflexively elbows him.


Yeah, protesting attention whores have never prepped a camera before acting for it?
The medical reports show not bruises until her third trip to the hospital.  She might get more credibility if the marks had been visible as early as the cop's were.
 
2014-05-07 12:58:38 AM  

MFAWG: I just can't make a judgement without a picture of the boob in question.


Just read the article. There's a picture of it.
 
2014-05-07 01:07:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


How many cops got jailed for their unnecessary violence... lets take the average of what they got and give it to her.
 
2014-05-07 01:11:52 AM  

Spaz-master: Yeah, protesting attention whores have never prepped a camera before acting for it?


No. She wouldn't have prepped a camera to film her committing battery on a police officer. It's incoherent, and obviously false.

The medical reports show not bruises until her third trip to the hospital. She might get more credibility if the marks had been visible as early as the cop's were.

Citation needed.

BTW: your boy in blue couldn't even remember which of his eyes was supposedly injured. He kept pointing to the wrong one at trial.

He's also been involved in ticket fixing, which speaks directly to his character for truthfulness.
 
2014-05-07 01:17:31 AM  

Doc Daneeka: TuteTibiImperes: 7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

Normally elbowing is just a 2 minute minor penalty.

Go to the box, feel shame, then you get free.


www.wearysloth.com
oui, it is the circle of life
 
2014-05-07 01:18:47 AM  

firefly212: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

How many cops got jailed for their unnecessary violence... lets take the average of what they got and give it to her.


Officer Bovel should know: he's got at least two incidents of excessive force in his background.

So we're talking now about a cop with:

1) a known character for lying, and
2) a known character for violence.

Evidently, the Honorable Kangaroo presided over this court.
 
2014-05-07 01:23:16 AM  

some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%


This would only be bad if Putin did it I've been told America can do no wrong.
 
2014-05-07 01:26:58 AM  

firefly212: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

How many cops got jailed for their unnecessary violence... lets take the average of what they got and give it to her.


I'm down with her receiving paid vacation for this.
 
2014-05-07 01:42:24 AM  
Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?
 
2014-05-07 01:44:43 AM  

Spaz-master: No one would ever stage an injury
[www.whudat.com image 440x330]


Yeah, I think I'm in that camp.

Go OWS and all, but she had an interview right after this happened, showing off the boob injury, on the very uppermost part of her chest, in above-the-shirt-collar territory.

In the video, nothing ever blocks her green shirt anywhere near that area.

And that wasn't just a pull-away reactionary elbow -- she leaned down and used her full body mass to inflict injury as much injury as she could and ran to get away.

It doesn't help me to believe her when she went into attention-whore mode in a Democracy Now interview, talking about her long history of activism and saying she was one of the OWS organizers, then in court she said she just happened to be at the park looking for a friend and wasn't there to protest. She also told that interview she didn't remember anything before the incident and the subsequent "seizure" (sure, honey. Sure.), but then she suddenly remembered that it was a sexual assault she was protecting herself from.

Screw the cops for using force, but screw her, too. Every time a woman lies about sexual assault, it makes it tougher for those who *are* being assaulted to gain any credibility.
 
2014-05-07 01:52:25 AM  
From the Guardian:

But the jury didn't hear anything about the police violence that took place in Zuccotti Park that night. They didn't hear about what happened there on November 15, 2011, when the park was first cleared. The violence experienced by Occupy protesters throughout its entirety was excluded from the courtroom. The narrative that the jury did hear was tightly controlled by what the judge allowed - and Judge Ronald Zweibel consistently ruled that any larger context of what was happening around McMillan at the time of the arrest (let alone Bovell's own history of violence) was irrelevant to the scope of the trial.

In the trial, physical evidence was considered suspect but the testimony of the police was cast as infallible. Despite photographs of her bruised body, including her right breast, the prosecution cast doubt upon McMillan's allegations of being injured by the police - all while Officer Bovell repeatedly identified the wrong eye when testifying as to how McMillan injured him. And not only was Officer Bovell's documented history of violent behavior deemed irrelevant by the judge, but so were the allegations of his violent behavior that very same night....

It's impossible to understand the whole story by just looking at it one picture, even if it's McMillan's of her injuries. But that is exactly what the jury in McMillan's case was asked to do. They were presented a close up of Cecily McMillan's elbow, but not of Bovell, and asked to determine who was violent. The prosecutors and the judge prohibited them from zooming out.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/cecily-mcmillan -o ccupy-guilty-police-violence

Judge Ronald Zweibel ordered that McMillan, 25, a graduate student at the New School, be detained. He rejected a request from her lawyers for bail.

"I see absolutely no reason why a remand would be appropriate here," Martin Stolar, her lead attorney, told the judge. "She is not likely to be somebody to cut and run." Zweibel replied: "Remanded pending sentencing."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/occupy-wall-street-ceci ly -mcmillan-guilty-assaulting-police-officer

She was railroaded.
 
2014-05-07 01:54:57 AM  

Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.


This.  OWS unfortunately led to no direct changes, but they did effectively transform the terms of debate, very effectively.
 
2014-05-07 01:56:35 AM  

Cathedralmaster: She was railroaded.


I think it's more to the point that it doesn't matter if other chaos was happening or other people were being treated wrongly in order to determine if she, herself, had elbowed a cop in the face.
 
2014-05-07 01:57:53 AM  
Bovell was also in plain clothes and allegedly did not identify himself as a policeman when he decided to escort Ms. McMillan out. So some strange guy grabs you by the shoulder and starts hauling you away. What would you have done?
 
2014-05-07 01:59:29 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: a Democracy Now interview


pretty much all I need to know about this case
 
2014-05-07 01:59:37 AM  

UseLessHuman: Neither side has much credibility.  I've seen videos of other officer's randomly grabbing people or attacking them at gatherings and then saying that the defendant did something to justify it.  Innocent until proven guilty is just words, the system is designed to convict you most effectively, and people for some unknown reason still put great stock in the testimony of police officers.  The article starts the scene with "as I'm walking her out"  WTF that's pretty late in the story to establish context.  Someone in the comments above says she was arrested for drunk in public, is that true? what was her BAC?


Yup. There are too many people who believe that no cop would lie. Ever. About anything.
 
2014-05-07 02:02:12 AM  
That she's looking at seven years is ridiculous. Even if she did purposely elbow a cop, that's retarded. That she's getting railroaded makes this painful.

 Arm up next time, America.
 
2014-05-07 02:03:17 AM  

log_jammin: Lenny_da_Hog: a Democracy Now interview

pretty much all I need to know about this case


Suppose it would have been proper for me to post it for everyone to ignore.
 
2014-05-07 02:21:44 AM  

gaspode: she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.

 
2014-05-07 02:29:56 AM  
Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.
 
2014-05-07 02:36:33 AM  

fusillade762: If they re-do the Occupy thing they should bring guns next time. Maybe then Fox News would cheer them on.


Fox Propaganda would tell its flock either (or both) of two things:

* Them Smelly Hippies got guns.  Y'all better get yourselves some bigger ones.
or
* Them Smelly Hippies got guns.  Time to start banning some guns, like St. Ronald did when the Black Panthers started open carrying.
 
m00
2014-05-07 02:58:35 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: UseLessHuman: Neither side has much credibility.  I've seen videos of other officer's randomly grabbing people or attacking them at gatherings and then saying that the defendant did something to justify it.  Innocent until proven guilty is just words, the system is designed to convict you most effectively, and people for some unknown reason still put great stock in the testimony of police officers.  The article starts the scene with "as I'm walking her out"  WTF that's pretty late in the story to establish context.  Someone in the comments above says she was arrested for drunk in public, is that true? what was her BAC?

Yup. There are too many people who believe that no cop would lie. Ever. About anything.


Well if there is a false confession, isn't the suspect lying? If a cop questions you about a crime, you shouldn't lie and say you did it just to get attention. If you go to jail, it's on you.
 
2014-05-07 03:04:26 AM  

MFAWG: I just can't make a judgement without a picture of the boob in question.


assets.vice.com

There you go. With erect nipple. Yes, the cop totally made a fungrab. And yes, she was found guilty of felony assault. Which is BS--You grab a ladies boobs without asking, she will elbow you. We all know that.

Honestly, it's just the police making her an example.
 
2014-05-07 03:06:43 AM  
Wait--That's not her. Farking Vice magazine with their dumb photos...But still, that's a good representation. Sorry about that folks.
 
2014-05-07 03:08:12 AM  

m00: GreatGlavinsGhost: UseLessHuman: Neither side has much credibility.  I've seen videos of other officer's randomly grabbing people or attacking them at gatherings and then saying that the defendant did something to justify it.  Innocent until proven guilty is just words, the system is designed to convict you most effectively, and people for some unknown reason still put great stock in the testimony of police officers.  The article starts the scene with "as I'm walking her out"  WTF that's pretty late in the story to establish context.  Someone in the comments above says she was arrested for drunk in public, is that true? what was her BAC?

Yup. There are too many people who believe that no cop would lie. Ever. About anything.

Well if there is a false confession, isn't the suspect lying? If a cop questions you about a crime, you shouldn't lie and say you did it just to get attention. If you go to jail, it's on you.


THOSE STUPID OWS HIPPIES
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTESTING WASHINGTON INSTEAD
 
2014-05-07 03:08:24 AM  

whidbey: Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.


She'll probably get a short time in a jail and a long time suspended, which would piss her off as a professional protester to have jail time hanging over her head for the next few years.

And they're already talking about appealing, but I really doubt it will overturn anything. Most of what they're talking about was stuff that was disallowed because it was immaterial.

The video is pretty damning, and doesn't support her titty-twister tale.
 
2014-05-07 03:16:15 AM  

Wessoman: There you go. With erect nipple. Yes, the cop totally made a fungrab. And yes, she was found guilty of felony assault. Which is BS--You grab a ladies boobs without asking, she will elbow you. We all know that.

Honestly, it's just the police making her an example.


Did you watch the video in TFA? The bruise she later shows off is above acceptable necklines. In the video, nothing ever blocks the vibrant green of her t-shirt. A hand to the top of her boob (and really, if you're going to grope someone, why would you grope there?) would have been evident from that angle against that bright green, and it's just not there.
 
2014-05-07 03:38:14 AM  
Lenny_da_Hog:

And that wasn't just a pull-away reactionary elbow -- she leaned down and used her full body mass to inflict injury as much injury as she could and ran to get away.

That is what I would do to get away from someone assaulting me.
 
2014-05-07 03:50:29 AM  

some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%


whidbey: Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.


hurr durr derp derp derp.  How do appeals work? (hint: the appeals court only considers the law, not facts of the case already determined by the jury - what process or law did you think the judge missed or were you just hurr durring outrage?)

It's idiotic reasoning like yours that led her to court and felony conviction of violence.  I doubt she'll get any prison time that is beyond 3 months.  Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain to double down with a violent felony.  That will show up on any future traffic stop on the cops computer (they flag assault on a LEO for the rest of her life) and every single job background report.  Also, she loses her right to vote and is pretty much banned from international travel as most countries reject visits by violent felons.  Congratulations on turning the misdemeanor disorderly conduct plea bargain into convicted felon!  I hope she was silver spoon protester that has a fat lawyer bill so the taxpayer isn't funding any more of her stupidity.

But keep choking that chicken.  You and she need this bit of Faber wisdom: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."

How about a face full of STFU?. (she lost at court too).

www.arktimes.com
 
2014-05-07 03:56:09 AM  

lucksi: Lenny_da_Hog:

And that wasn't just a pull-away reactionary elbow -- she leaned down and used her full body mass to inflict injury as much injury as she could and ran to get away.

That is what I would do to get away from someone assaulting me.


It still goes beyond the lawyer's tale of "it was an accident." She formulated a strike to the face. It wasn't like she just jumped away and accidentally hit his face. And I still doubt the boob-grab story, between the video evidence and number of other continuity problems she has.
 
2014-05-07 04:10:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


I knew one of the folks interviewed heavily by various media organizations as an anointed 'spokesperson'.of OWS, they are a member of the 1%, and they most certainly tried to pass off that they were a member of the 99%.
 
2014-05-07 04:25:25 AM  
I FAIL to get outraged by possible outcomes. I guess I'm just not sure why getting angry about what might happen in an imagined scenario is part of engaging in real life.
 
2014-05-07 04:29:40 AM  

tbeatty: some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%

whidbey: Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.

hurr durr derp derp derp.  How do appeals work? (hint: the appeals court only considers the law, not facts of the case already determined by the jury - what process or law did you think the judge missed or were you just hurr durring outrage?)

It's idiotic reasoning like yours that led her to court and felony conviction of violence.  I doubt she'll get any prison time that is beyond 3 months.  Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain to double down with a violent felony.  That will show up on any future traffic stop on the cops computer (they flag assault on a LEO for the rest of her life) and every single job background report.  Also, she loses her right to vote and is pretty much banned from international travel as most countries reject visits by violent felons.  Congratulations on turning the misdemeanor disorderly conduct plea bargain into convicted felon!  I hope she was silver spoon protester that has a fat lawyer bill so the taxpayer isn't funding any more of her stupidity.

But keep choking that chicken.  You and she need this bit of Faber wisdom: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."

How about a face full of STFU?. (she lost at court too).

[www.arktimes.com image 500x281]


tbeatty, the judge made some questionable decisions by not allowing the jury to hear that the officer in question has numerous violations on his record for excessive force, and has filed inaccurate police reports. In a case that hedged so heavily on testimony, as the video was not allowed into evidence, the judge made it a he said/she said case, but nixed the ability of the defense to point out that the officer in question has been caught lying before and using excessive force before. IMO, if she gets decent lawyers, she has a shot on appeal.
 
2014-05-07 04:30:41 AM  

Cathedralmaster: From the Guardian:

But the jury didn't hear anything about the police violence that took place in Zuccotti Park that night. They didn't hear about what happened there on November 15, 2011, when the park was first cleared. The violence experienced by Occupy protesters throughout its entirety was excluded from the courtroom. The narrative that the jury did hear was tightly controlled by what the judge allowed - and Judge Ronald Zweibel consistently ruled that any larger context of what was happening around McMillan at the time of the arrest (let alone Bovell's own history of violence) was irrelevant to the scope of the trial.

In the trial, physical evidence was considered suspect but the testimony of the police was cast as infallible. Despite photographs of her bruised body, including her right breast, the prosecution cast doubt upon McMillan's allegations of being injured by the police - all while Officer Bovell repeatedly identified the wrong eye when testifying as to how McMillan injured him. And not only was Officer Bovell's documented history of violent behavior deemed irrelevant by the judge, but so were the allegations of his violent behavior that very same night....

It's impossible to understand the whole story by just looking at it one picture, even if it's McMillan's of her injuries. But that is exactly what the jury in McMillan's case was asked to do. They were presented a close up of Cecily McMillan's elbow, but not of Bovell, and asked to determine who was violent. The prosecutors and the judge prohibited them from zooming out.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/cecily-mcmillan -o ccupy-guilty-police-violence

Judge Ronald Zweibel ordered that McMillan, 25, a graduate student at the New School, be detained. He rejected a request from her lawyers for bail.

"I see absolutely no reason why a remand would be appropriate here," Martin Stolar, her lead attorney, told the judge. "She is not likely to be somebody to cut and run." Zweibel replied: "Remanded pending sentencing."


She was railroaded.

 
2014-05-07 04:31:23 AM  
k, I farked that up.

/it cut off the bottom of the quote and I re-pasted it afterward.
 
2014-05-07 04:42:14 AM  
Yeah I can't see this standing on a appeal the judge disallowed too much that should have been allowed,
 
2014-05-07 04:44:48 AM  

tbeatty: Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain


She wasn't offered a misdemeanor plea bargain:

McMillan rejected an earlier offer from prosecutors for her to plead guilty to a charge of second-degree assault of a police officer, which would have still resulted in her being classed as a felon,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/occupy-wall-street-ceci ly -mcmillan-guilty-assaulting-police-officer
 
2014-05-07 04:51:44 AM  
firefly212:
tbeatty, the judge made some questionable decisions by not allowing the jury to hear that the officer in question has numerous violations on his record for excessive force, and has filed inaccurate police reports. In a case that hedged so heavily on testimony, as the video was not allowed into evidence, the judge made it a he said/she said case, but nixed the ability of the defense to point out that the officer in question has been caught lying before and using excessive force before. IMO, if she gets decent lawyers, she has a shot on ...

Good luck with that.  Assault cases are narrowly limited to the evidence of assault. The defense contends it was accidental, not that it didn't happen.  Prejudicial evidence is generally not allowed (i.e. her past convictions for alcohol or arrests or history of violence is not allowed either).  This isn't new law or outside the normal practice so it's chance of success is virtually 0.  Her best bet now is take it and apply for clemency or expungement terms.
 
2014-05-07 04:59:27 AM  
Seven years for throwing an elbow?
Pussies.
In hockey that's just a few minutes.
 
2014-05-07 05:02:01 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

Obama coordinated the nation-wide crackdown on the Occupy movement. He initiated the police abuse on you all. Then you voted for him again.

/useful idiots


You're right!!! Only Romney could have saved America from the Kenyan usurper.
 
2014-05-07 05:04:40 AM  
Also, it's disturbing how many are anti-populace and pro-cop.

I can't verify or deny this claim but we are being tested. Police state = almost here.
 
2014-05-07 05:08:54 AM  

inclemency: Also, it's disturbing how many are anti-populace and pro-cop.

I can't verify or deny this claim but we are being tested. Police state = almost here.


There's assholes in both camps.

It's almost like you can look at the evidence shown in the media reports and decide which is being an asshole in a given situation.
 
2014-05-07 05:20:03 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.


Well, not every group has an entire television channel devoted to promoting it like certain other diametrically opposed groups...
 
2014-05-07 05:20:39 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: inclemency: Also, it's disturbing how many are anti-populace and pro-cop.

I can't verify or deny this claim but we are being tested. Police state = almost here.

There's assholes in both camps.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-05-07 05:25:56 AM  
See, on Fark, this is how you do it: You read the headline, in the knowledge that it is complete bullshiat, and then you read TFA until you get to the "reveal".
In this case, the "reveal" is that this chick hasn't been sentenced at all - she has merely been convicted of something with a maximum sentence of seven years, which she is not going to get, or anywhere near, probably.
Time served, probation, stiff fine, most likely.
 
2014-05-07 06:05:02 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: 7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


Maybe even just time served.  This is one of those "I'm trying to do my job here, stop being a jackass" arrests, where the person being arrested probably wouldn't have been at all if she wasn't  trying to get arrested and the cops just wanted to get her drunk and belligerent ass out of the way before she hurt somebody.

If they gave her probation, they'd be wasting a probation officer's time.  They'll likely just put it on her record and let her head off.

// It's not strictly speaking necessarily "fair" in the strictly egalitarian sense, but in the larger moral sense I think the lesson here is don't intentionally be a douche.
 
2014-05-07 06:25:10 AM  

Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?



Because racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic cretins who fetishize a pro-corporate military state tend not to get maced, bludgeoned, unfairly prosecuted or trashed by the media.

Imagine if right-wingers were as oppressed as they think they are.
 
2014-05-07 06:46:53 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Because racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic cretins who fetishize a pro-corporate military state tend not to get maced, bludgeoned, unfairly prosecuted or trashed by the media.

Imagine if right-wingers were as oppressed as they think they are.


If you're comparing old Clive McRacist's grazing fee protests to OWS specifically, the difference in media coverage might have something to do with the fact that the grazing fee protest was unified and organized a specific, concrete issue with an actual legal argument (a kinda specious one, but one that suggested a specific re-interpretation/change in the law was desired) while OWS's line was basically "Some things aren't fair to like, some people, man.  Like, things maybe dealing with income, or something?  Or money, I guess banks have money, right?"

Getting the message out well enough to garner support is kind of dependent on having a message.  Same deal with a political movement and coherent goals.

// This is one of the ways the GOP is able to swing higher turnout than the Dems, as well.  Sure, their goals are  stupid, but they definitely have concrete, specific things they ostensibly want to accomplish.  "Repeal Obamacare" is an actual achievable thing that can verifiably be accomplished or not, for instance, and the Democrats haven't been putting anything similar forward.  Which is kind of a weird way for the message battle to be going, since in real terms the Dems have actually accomplished a few things here and there (mostly via Obama, the Dem congressmen are largely as useless as the GOP ones) and the Republicans haven't done jack shiat about jack shiat.
 
2014-05-07 06:48:25 AM  
If the prosecutor had a lick of sense the instant the boob grab thing came to light, especially with the picture of her being bruised in the area, the best course of action would've been to drop the charges. Especially in light of the offending officers past.
 
2014-05-07 07:13:49 AM  
Thanks for the clarity, subby. All the outrage on my facebook feed says it's a "sexual assault" leaving me to think the woman got raped. Good thing that euphemism is working in your favor, morons.
 
2014-05-07 07:14:33 AM  

WhyteRaven74: If the prosecutor had a lick of sense the instant the boob grab thing came to light, especially with the picture of her being bruised in the area, the best course of action would've been to drop the charges. Especially in light of the offending officers past.




Why?
If its not going to trigger a public response (which it probably won't) and neither the judge nor the jury call him on it, its just one more victory in the prosecutors ledger.
His interest is in tending to his scorebook, not justice for the accused.

/and people are too infatuated with having a system of laws to realize the execution of law has gone entirely off the rails.
 
2014-05-07 07:22:05 AM  

WhyteRaven74: If the prosecutor had a lick of sense the instant the boob grab thing came to light, especially with the picture of her being bruised in the area, the best course of action would've been to drop the charges. Especially in light of the offending officers past.


That would make sense if cops weren't typically treated as untouchable by the law.  But then everyone here knows that.
 
2014-05-07 07:29:12 AM  

King Something: TheBigJerk: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]

And if OWS had some sort of central leadership, there would have been at least a 99% chance that the NYPD would have "found" 3 tons of meth (or something equally bad) in the leader's apartment, thus causing anyone who would have otherwise supported OWS to avoid them like the plague.


/at least until it was eventually revealed that the leader was railroaded by the NYPD Schutzstaffel
//and any officers who would have been involved in the plant-and-bust would have claimed they were Just Following Orders
[i.kinja-img.com image 636x358]


Like the NATO 3?  Who went from terrorist masterminds with an arsenal of weapons including a mortar and explosives and coldly calculated plans that slowly devolved into maybe 4 molotov cocktails and some ren-fest toys and a willingness to do what the undercover police told them to do.

Of course the nato 3 were actually too stoned to even DO half of what they were told to do, let alone lead a protest.
 
2014-05-07 07:41:00 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Because racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic cretins who fetishize a pro-corporate military state tend not to get maced, bludgeoned, unfairly prosecuted or trashed by the media.


A couple big differences you are missing.

I thought the land they were on land they didn't need permits to gather on.

It was out in the middle of nowhere, so it wasn't bothering anyone.

I don't think they actually "did" anything just threatened (and don't get me wrong, imho they should have beens tomped for that, but I understand not wanting to cause a bloodbath).

If you aren't talking about bundy, then the issue is that they actually got permits, cleaned up, and leftw hent he protest was over.
 
2014-05-07 07:46:53 AM  

Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.


No. Viewing "the 1%" as the enemy is wrongheaded and divisive. There will always be a top 1% of earners; some of them are good, hard-working people, others are not. We need to examine the policies that prevent the wealth of the "99%" from rising as well, rather than demonize those who are prosperous. Income inequality isn't a problem per se*, it's a symptom of stagnant wages.

* - but it becomes a problem when combined with limitless campaign spending
 
2014-05-07 07:49:58 AM  
Can someone tell me how many days they actually occupied a building in Wall St.?

I can't seem to find a reference...
 
2014-05-07 07:50:04 AM  

GoldSpider: WhyteRaven74: If the prosecutor had a lick of sense the instant the boob grab thing came to light, especially with the picture of her being bruised in the area, the best course of action would've been to drop the charges. Especially in light of the offending officers past.

That would make sense if cops weren't typically treated as untouchable by the law.  But then everyone here knows that.



The modern term is "Dalit." Here is a picture:
upload.wikimedia.org
Or is that Dalek? The ones that roll around shouting "EXTERMINATE!" anyway.
 
2014-05-07 07:56:50 AM  

Wendy's Chili: No. Viewing "the 1%" as the enemy is wrongheaded and divisive. There will always be a top 1% of earners; some of them are good, hard-working people, others are not. We need to examine the policies that prevent the wealth of the "99%" from rising as well, rather than demonize those who are prosperous. Income inequality isn't a problem per se*, it's a symptom of stagnant wages.

* - but it becomes a problem when combined with limitless campaign spending


bulllshiattttttttt
You don't get 1 billion dollars by being a "good person." You do it on the backs of other people. Now whether the 1% term is too loose, fine. You could manage $300k a year without being completely evil. $10 million dollars a year? You are screwing several people over.

Do some of them work hard? Of course. Does that mean they deserve to make my annual salary in a day? fark noooooo.
 
2014-05-07 08:02:47 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".
 
2014-05-07 08:05:08 AM  

bdub77: doglover: gaspode: she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.

I've always wanted fight a line of riot police in full knight armor with a club and some people of my own. Like these two.

[media2.s-nbcnews.com image 850x584]

The problem is I don't want to do any of the things or be in any of the situations that CAUSE riot cops to show up, nor do I want to be arrested nor physically hurt anyone. I just want to see how well sword vs nightstick. Just sparing unit to unit.

If we're talking riot cops with shields, then you're basically talking about attacking a phalanx with another phalanx, in which case maybe bringing spears would be better. Just sayin. Or cavalry. Or flank them.

Either way a sword would beat the living f*ck out of a cop's club, if wearing the proper armor. But cops tend to bring out the guns against swordsmen in plate. Good luck with that.


It's better to take an indirect approach against such a force. Disable their vehicles, cut their lines of communication, flank their positions with numbers and they'll never even put up resistance to begin with. The problem is always that police are highly organized and protestors are not.

This would cause chaos, but really nothing is ever going to change without a little chaos.
 
2014-05-07 08:10:08 AM  

bdub77: doglover: gaspode: she leapt in the air and clocked him in the face full on. Unless you can PROVE sexual assault then that is assault 100% of the time. That said actual prison time would be utterly ridiculous.

I've always wanted fight a line of riot police in full knight armor with a club and some people of my own. Like these two.

[media2.s-nbcnews.com image 850x584]

The problem is I don't want to do any of the things or be in any of the situations that CAUSE riot cops to show up, nor do I want to be arrested nor physically hurt anyone. I just want to see how well sword vs nightstick. Just sparing unit to unit.

If we're talking riot cops with shields, then you're basically talking about attacking a phalanx with another phalanx, in which case maybe bringing spears would be better. Just sayin. Or cavalry. Or flank them.

Either way a sword would beat the living f*ck out of a cop's club, if wearing the proper armor. But cops tend to bring out the guns against swordsmen in plate. Good luck with that.


I'm now imagining a squad of riot police spotting the cavalry on the horizon and calling the sappers up to entrench before calling out square formation.

It's hilarious.

/BY FILES, RIGHT!  HALT!  WHEEL LEFT!  HALT!  SQUARE FORMATION!
 
2014-05-07 08:11:35 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

No. Viewing "the 1%" as the enemy is wrongheaded and divisive. There will always be a top 1% of earners; some of them are good, hard-working people, others are not. We need to examine the policies that prevent the wealth of the "99%" from rising as well, rather than demonize those who are prosperous. Income inequality isn't a problem per se*, it's a symptom of stagnant wages.

* - but it becomes a problem when combined with limitless campaign spending


What's preventing them from rising up as well is that a small number of already rich people are reaping all the rewards from increased productivity of working class labor necessary to make the economy function.

Kinda creates a conundrum doesn't it.
 
2014-05-07 08:12:40 AM  

liam76: Snatch Bandergrip: Because racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic cretins who fetishize a pro-corporate military state tend not to get maced, bludgeoned, unfairly prosecuted or trashed by the media.

A couple big differences you are missing.

I thought the land they were on land they didn't need permits to gather on.

It was out in the middle of nowhere, so it wasn't bothering anyone.

I don't think they actually "did" anything just threatened (and don't get me wrong, imho they should have beens tomped for that, but I understand not wanting to cause a bloodbath).

If you aren't talking about bundy, then the issue is that they actually got permits, cleaned up, and leftw hent he protest was over.


Corrections:

Both organizations usually got permits, but occasionally just squatted without permission; only one side ever got maced and beaten for it.  Also only one side had their permits revoked for basically no reason.

Most Tea Party rallies actually did block traffic, I live in Houston and a couple of days I had to find a new way to get home after work.

And if we're talking about Bundy, oh they did stuff.  In fact they basically robbed government agents at gunpoint.  But they were armed, old, and wore cowboy hats so it was okay.  If OWS had worn cowboy hats and carried guns...

Well actually the agent-provocateurs and/or the police would have started shooting, most likely, but it's hard to say for sure.
 
2014-05-07 08:15:44 AM  

Slappy McLongstockings: Can someone tell me how many days they actually occupied a building in Wall St.?

I can't seem to find a reference...


First of all, that would miss the point.  But the big "occupation" was a several week long gathering at Zuccotti Park.  Which technically belongs to Brookfield Holdings, a real estate company.

The real point, however, wasn't to disrupt wall street, but to be a visible, long-term statement.  Even if they got denigrated at every turn, we all had to look at them for about a month.  And then we talked about them for another 3.  And now we're seeing raises in the minimum wage, and the issues of wealth condensation and income inequality are not part of our public consciousness.

Not exactly "mission accomplished" but I guarantee it's better than what the chucklefarks who get on the internet to hate on them would come up with.
 
2014-05-07 08:17:09 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

Obama coordinated the nation-wide crackdown on the Occupy movement. He initiated the police abuse on you all. Then you voted for him again.

/useful idiots


no he didn't. that was all local police. and contrary to what you believe Obama is not the mayor and police chief of every city.
 
2014-05-07 08:20:03 AM  

BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".


They squandered their opportunity when they insisted on being a "leaderless movement" that "worked outside the system."

If you want to enact political change, you need a few politicians on your side. But when civil rights hero John Lewis tried to participate, he was denied because he committed the unforgivable sin of representing their progressive views in an actual legislative body.
 
2014-05-07 08:29:41 AM  

MayoSlather: Wendy's Chili: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

No. Viewing "the 1%" as the enemy is wrongheaded and divisive. There will always be a top 1% of earners; some of them are good, hard-working people, others are not. We need to examine the policies that prevent the wealth of the "99%" from rising as well, rather than demonize those who are prosperous. Income inequality isn't a problem per se*, it's a symptom of stagnant wages.

* - but it becomes a problem when combined with limitless campaign spending

What's preventing them from rising up as well is that a small number of already rich people are reaping all the rewards from increased productivity of working class labor necessary to make the economy function.

Kinda creates a conundrum doesn't it.


No, not at all. The distribution of wealth in our country is a function of our business regulations, trade policies, labor and immigration laws, and social safety net. If we want to change those things, we need to put people in office who want to change them. If a member of the dreaded "1%" works to help achieve that goal--as many of them do--I don't see how they can be viewed as an enemy.
 
2014-05-07 08:31:04 AM  

TheBigJerk: Both organizations usually got permits, but occasionally just squatted without permission; only one side ever got maced and beaten for it. Also only one side had their permits revoked for basically no reason.


Did tea party ever squat?

I don't believe there was ever a permit for Zucatti park, or for the Occupy oakland. Could be wrong.

And before we get any futher into this, I don't like the idea of pairing them as equal or equivalent elements. I don't in any support for the backwards assclownage that is the tea party. They are pretty much a mouthpiece for th extreme wing for the republican party.

TheBigJerk: Most Tea Party rallies actually did block traffic, I live in Houston and a couple of days I had to find a new way to get home after work.


Did they have a permit to block traffic?
That woudl be news to me and if you have a lin of a tea party protest blocking traffic sans permit, I would be interested in reading it.


TheBigJerk: And if we're talking about Bundy, oh they did stuff. In fact they basically robbed government agents at gunpoint. But they were armed, old, and wore cowboy hats so it was okay.


They "basically" robbed them by having cows do what they have done for 15+ years. As I said above, I am fine with feds escalating it if they are threatening them with guns. I think he is a complete asshat and if he was put down whiel threatening people stopping him from stealing I would probably have a laugh over it.


TheBigJerk: If OWS had worn cowboy hats and carried guns...

Well actually the agent-provocateurs and/or the police would have started shooting, most likely, but it's hard to say for sure


Do you really think the differences in hwo they were treated is due to politics? I don't think Obama is some crazy socialist as you hear portrayed on Fox news, but I am pretty sure his politics fall more in line with OWS then Bundy, and his Bozos. It seems silly to say that it is their politics that drove how they were treated, and my mistake if that isn't what you were saying, but if it isn;t I am confused as to your point.
 
2014-05-07 08:40:26 AM  

red5ish: Seven years for throwing an elbow?
Pussies.
In hockey that's just a few minutes.


i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-05-07 08:41:48 AM  
Maybe they could let Bernie Madoff out, to make room for her.

He could then go on and do what he's good at, managing the police pension fund.
 
2014-05-07 08:46:12 AM  

Wendy's Chili: BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".

They squandered their opportunity when they insisted on being a "leaderless movement" that "worked outside the system."

If you want to enact political change, you need a few politicians on your side. But when civil rights hero John Lewis tried to participate, he was denied because he committed the unforgivable sin of representing their progressive views in an actual legislative body.


It really seems to work out great when a grassroots movement hands the reigns over to the power structure, doesn't it?  Yeah, Lewis would have been a great asset.  He also would have necessarily quelled the actual voice of OWS.

The problem wasn't how they conducted themselves, it's how people just outright HATED them for some reason.  The PR campaign against them was absolutely incredible and had nothing to do with whether they had a "leader" or not.

What's stupid is to continue to denigrate them for OUR mistakes.
 
2014-05-07 08:50:39 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?


Because racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic cretins who fetishize a pro-corporate military state tend not to get maced, bludgeoned, unfairly prosecuted or trashed by the media.

Imagine if right-wingers were as oppressed as they think they are.


If the Occupy movement spent more time organizing and less time, dealing drugs, looting and robbing nearby local businesses, shiatting in public everywhere and raping each other, they would have accomplished more. Remember the "No Rape Zones" OWS had to put in place.  She probably got fondled more by her Occupy crowd than the pig officer.

Once the crime and filth got out of hand, Obama laid down the hammer. The DOJ coordinated a nation-wide crackdown on the movement promptly ending it and making it a mere footnote in a random history book. The mace spraying and beatings we saw the cops issue were all on the hands of Eric Holder.

Then you battered children vote them all back into office.
 
2014-05-07 08:51:59 AM  

Wendy's Chili: No, not at all. The distribution of wealth in our country is a function of our business regulations, trade policies, labor and immigration laws, and social safety net. If we want to change those things, we need to put people in office who want to change them. If a member of the dreaded "1%" works to help achieve that goal--as many of them do--I don't see how they can be viewed as an enemy.


Well you managed to describe some of the methods how the extremely wealthy are able to suckle off the teat of the proletariat. But the rich are the enemy, nothing will ever change if the poor don't actively fight the class warfare fought against them for decades.

Our legislative process is intractable and broken, largely due to monied interests. No real change will arise from conventional means.
 
2014-05-07 08:58:26 AM  
This is bullsh*t.

BeesNuts: It really seems to work out great when a grassroots movement hands the reigns over to the power structure, doesn't it? Yeah, Lewis would have been a great asset. He also would have necessarily quelled the actual voice of OWS.


True. OWS was able to be as effective as it was because there were no real "leaders" for their enemies to target. While I think Lewis with his civil right experience might in other times been a help, here he would have been nothing but a hindrance as he was part of the power structure these people were protesting. He would have also given their enemies a target that could be torn down, and as the face of the movement, discredited.

How badly would the Civil Rights marches, boycotts, sit-ins and other forms of non-violent protests of the 1950's and 60's be portrayed by today's corporate owned media? If the depictions, spin and bullsh*t they spewed regarding OWS were used against Medgar Evers, DR. King, Rosa Parks and others of that era we would still have Jim Crow laws right now.
 
2014-05-07 09:00:06 AM  

BeesNuts: The problem wasn't how they conducted themselves, it's how people just outright HATED them for some reason. The PR campaign against them was absolutely incredible and had nothing to do with whether they had a "leader" or not.


You didn't need a PR campagn to hate them.

I like a lot of the big ideas about the problems with wealth inequality on the US, and how much power big banks, or more importantly the rich have.

However when they advocate a system like "progressive stack" where priority to speak is based upon race or sex, yes there is plenty of reason to hate them.

A group claiming the have the right to unilaterally control public property, plenty of reason to hate them.
 
2014-05-07 09:00:55 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.


Meanwhile, Rand supporters can stomp on peaceful protester's heads

cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com
 
2014-05-07 09:01:26 AM  
Real dilemma is, if we execute all the dirty pigs, we will be left with only...
*Puts on sunglasses*
The 1%
 
2014-05-07 09:04:51 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Nemo's Brother: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

Obama coordinated the nation-wide crackdown on the Occupy movement. He initiated the police abuse on you all. Then you voted for him again.

/useful idiots

no he didn't. that was all local police. and contrary to what you believe Obama is not the mayor and police chief of every city.


http://theoldspeakjournal.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/obama-administrat io n-coordinated-local-police-crackdowns-on-occupy-encampments-nationwide /
 
2014-05-07 09:05:00 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: The problem wasn't how they conducted themselves, it's how people just outright HATED them for some reason. The PR campaign against them was absolutely incredible and had nothing to do with whether they had a "leader" or not.

You didn't need a PR campagn to hate them.

I like a lot of the big ideas about the problems with wealth inequality on the US, and how much power big banks, or more importantly the rich have.

However when they advocate a system like "progressive stack" where priority to speak is based upon race or sex, yes there is plenty of reason to hate them.

A group claiming the have the right to unilaterally control public property, plenty of reason to hate them.


Well, YOU didn't need a PR campaign.  You farking WERE the PR campaign.  "They were dealing drugs shiatting on cop cars and US flags, throwing things at police and raping each other!"  Seems like you remember every false story that came out about them.  Weird.  I bet if you'd paid as close attention to what they were saying, they would've been more effective.

But it's not your fault, it's theirs.
 
2014-05-07 09:07:57 AM  

BeesNuts: liam76: BeesNuts: The problem wasn't how they conducted themselves, it's how people just outright HATED them for some reason. The PR campaign against them was absolutely incredible and had nothing to do with whether they had a "leader" or not.

You didn't need a PR campagn to hate them.

I like a lot of the big ideas about the problems with wealth inequality on the US, and how much power big banks, or more importantly the rich have.

However when they advocate a system like "progressive stack" where priority to speak is based upon race or sex, yes there is plenty of reason to hate them.

A group claiming the have the right to unilaterally control public property, plenty of reason to hate them.

Well, YOU didn't need a PR campaign.  You farking WERE the PR campaign.  "They were dealing drugs shiatting on cop cars and US flags, throwing things at police and raping each other!"  Seems like you remember every false story that came out about them.  Weird.  I bet if you'd paid as close attention to what they were saying, they would've been more effective.

But it's not your fault, it's theirs.


Also it was private property.  Also the "progressive stack"?  You're now zeroing in on the way they were communicating with one another?  A way they all agreed ahead of time was appropriate for them?  As a reason to "hate" them?
 
2014-05-07 09:09:40 AM  

BeesNuts: Well, YOU didn't need a PR campaign. You farking WERE the PR campaign. "They were dealing drugs shiatting on cop cars and US flags, throwing things at police and raping each other!"


Dealing drugs and shiatting on cop cars did go on in OWS protests.

I don't think any rapes were ever confirmed.

Of course I didn't bring that up in my comments as to why I dislike the protest. So unless you want to point to a link where I did say that was the problem I am going to go ahead and assume it is because you don't want to adress my point and are just lying again (as usual).
 
2014-05-07 09:10:49 AM  
yeah ows was a long term political protest that focused the national political narrative on wealth inequality issues and really the only people that see it as some kind of failure and only mention the debauchery that occurred are just mostly water carriers for oligarchs anyway so their opinion on most political subjects is a joke and not just this.
 
2014-05-07 09:11:44 AM  

BeesNuts: Also it was private property.


I was talking abotut he movement in general.

And them taking over private property in NYC makes it that much worse.


BeesNuts: Also the "progressive stack"? You're now zeroing in on the way they were communicating with one another? A way they all agreed ahead of time was appropriate for them? As a reason to "hate" them


Yeah, I don't like racism or sexism, call me crazy.
 
2014-05-07 09:12:38 AM  
It's stuff like this that makes me feel not so sad when a cop gets iced, sad as that is and seems.
Police need to back it off a notch or risk extrajudicial consequences from one of these aggrieved parties or demographic members.
 
2014-05-07 09:20:48 AM  
Yeah, that's not a "reflexive" elbow, regardless of where the cop grabbed her. Doesn't mean that the cop didn't have her by the boob, but her claim that it was pure reflex is pure bullshiat.
 
2014-05-07 09:23:22 AM  

Headso: yeah ows was a long term political protest that focused the national political narrative on wealth inequality issues and really the only people that see it as some kind of failure and only mention the debauchery that occurred are just mostly water carriers for oligarchs anyway so their opinion on most political subjects is a joke and not just this.


You think OWS is in the minority when it comes to concern over wealth inequality issues?

Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?

Just trying to understand what it is you don't understand?
 
2014-05-07 09:26:34 AM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, that's not a "reflexive" elbow, regardless of where the cop grabbed her. Doesn't mean that the cop didn't have her by the boob, but her claim that it was pure reflex is pure bullshiat.


You live in Utah, according to your bio. Try being a woman riding the subway or train in NYC, Philly, DC or even farking Tokyo (where they have all female rail cars) and having that type of sh*t happen every day.

It most definitely was a reflex. You don't put up with that sh*t, ever, from anybody.
 
2014-05-07 09:28:06 AM  

mrshowrules: Headso: yeah ows was a long term political protest that focused the national political narrative on wealth inequality issues and really the only people that see it as some kind of failure and only mention the debauchery that occurred are just mostly water carriers for oligarchs anyway so their opinion on most political subjects is a joke and not just this.

You think OWS is in the minority when it comes to concern over wealth inequality issues?

Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?



Conservatives are only concerned that the inequality is not unequal enough.
 
2014-05-07 09:34:21 AM  

mrshowrules: Headso: yeah ows was a long term political protest that focused the national political narrative on wealth inequality issues and really the only people that see it as some kind of failure and only mention the debauchery that occurred are just mostly water carriers for oligarchs anyway so their opinion on most political subjects is a joke and not just this.

You think OWS is in the minority when it comes to concern over wealth inequality issues?

Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?

Just trying to understand what it is you don't understand?


Those questions seem out of context based on my post but I'd say yeah their level of concern regarding wealth inequality issues would certainly be in the minority based on the fact that millions of people voted for Mitt Romney and millions more voted for Obama who did things like extend tax cuts for the wealthy and take it easy on banksters.. Conservative think tanks are trying to push wealth inequality even further.
 
2014-05-07 09:42:39 AM  

rewind2846: Mikey1969: Yeah, that's not a "reflexive" elbow, regardless of where the cop grabbed her. Doesn't mean that the cop didn't have her by the boob, but her claim that it was pure reflex is pure bullshiat.

You live in Utah, according to your bio. Try being a woman riding the subway or train in NYC, Philly, DC or even farking Tokyo (where they have all female rail cars) and having that type of sh*t happen every day.

It most definitely was a reflex. You don't put up with that sh*t, ever, from anybody.


No, a reflex would be an elbow shooting out, not a bend down and jump up into the elbow. She didn't just whip out her elbow, she put her body behind it. Crouch down, and spring up, arching the back into launching that elbow isn't a "reflex". Regardless of boob grabbage or not, and regardless of whether this is an extreme sentence or not, that is not a reflexive action.
 
2014-05-07 09:46:50 AM  
Yet the government continues to do jack shiat about the Bundy brigade.
 
2014-05-07 09:48:25 AM  
And that "zoomed in, slow motion" view isn't going to help ANYbody, whether it's the lady in question or the cop. Seriously, that is the best footage they can come up with? I'm sure the folks on CSI can "enhance" it...
 
2014-05-07 09:54:01 AM  

BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".


1. I don't give money to unorganized strangers.

2. I fully admit I am selfish to the extent that even though I agree with their overall message, I am not going to quit my job to go play drums in the park with them.

3. Now that you've shamed the rest of us: what did you do for occupy?
 
2014-05-07 09:55:53 AM  

mrshowrules: Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?


Their only concern with wealth inequality is that people are talking about it. Conservative think tanks' raison d'être is to conjure up justifications for policies that aggravate inequality.
 
2014-05-07 09:56:00 AM  

Headso: mrshowrules: Headso: yeah ows was a long term political protest that focused the national political narrative on wealth inequality issues and really the only people that see it as some kind of failure and only mention the debauchery that occurred are just mostly water carriers for oligarchs anyway so their opinion on most political subjects is a joke and not just this.

You think OWS is in the minority when it comes to concern over wealth inequality issues?

Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?

Just trying to understand what it is you don't understand?

Those questions seem out of context based on my post but I'd say yeah their level of concern regarding wealth inequality issues would certainly be in the minority based on the fact that millions of people voted for Mitt Romney and millions more voted for Obama who did things like extend tax cuts for the wealthy and take it easy on banksters.. Conservative think tanks are trying to push wealth inequality even further.


How are my questions out of context?

67% of Americans think this is an issue, 54% of Republicans think this is an issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distrib ut ion.aspx

LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.
 
2014-05-07 09:56:41 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: Well, YOU didn't need a PR campaign. You farking WERE the PR campaign. "They were dealing drugs shiatting on cop cars and US flags, throwing things at police and raping each other!"

Dealing drugs and shiatting on cop cars did go on in OWS protests.

I don't think any rapes were ever confirmed.

Of course I didn't bring that up in my comments as to why I dislike the protest. So unless you want to point to a link where I did say that was the problem I am going to go ahead and assume it is because you don't want to adress my point and are just lying again (as usual).


A guy, possibly affiliated with OWS, possibly just there, shat on one cop car.  I'm sure drug dealing went on, but again, just because a drug dealer notices a 'target rich environment' doesn't mean the occupy movement was "dealing drugs, looting and robbing nearby local businesses, shiatting in public everywhere and raping each other."

Which I now realize wasn't something *you* said in this thread.  But I do seem to remember you spending inordinate amounts of energy making sure everyone knew how useless they were, back in 2011.  A quick inspection confirms that yes, you were one of the "Oh I agree with them 100%, but everything they do is wrong and illegal and while the police weren't always correct for spraying them with pepper spray, arresting them en masse and hitting them with stuff, it's what happens when you break the law." people.  To be fair though, you were also a "fark the tea party idiots" guy too.  So you're consistent there.
 The main point I'm trying to make is that there was a concerted effort to avoid conversation about what OWS was saying by pointing out everything they were doing.  You were part of that effort, and remain such to this day.  This contrasts nicely with the TP because they were given a nationwide platform on cable news to say whatever they wanted.  And then there would be about 4 hours of "analysis" about it where their position would get repeated ad nauseum.
 
2014-05-07 10:02:48 AM  

Wendy's Chili: mrshowrules: Do you think Conservative think tanks are not concerned with wealth inequality issues?

Their only concern with wealth inequality is that people are talking about it. Conservative think tanks' raison d'être is to conjure up justifications for policies that aggravate inequality.


What I was fishing for.  Go to Heritage, CATO, whatever, and you will find articles, 30 page reports and editorials on how there is "nothing to see here".  They doth protest to much and they are concerned that the DNC might get some traction with this.  Essentially, their main counter point is that poor people still have refrigerators, access to Internet and are not starving to death in the streets yet so everything is copacetic.
 
2014-05-07 10:03:25 AM  

Smackledorfer: BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".

1. I don't give money to unorganized strangers.

2. I fully admit I am selfish to the extent that even though I agree with their overall message, I am not going to quit my job to go play drums in the park with them.

3. Now that you've shamed the rest of us: what did you do for occupy?


I spoke with them.  I'm not saying you should have thrown your whole life behind them.  The problem is with people who would get on the internet and talk about how shiatty OWS was, then go to work, and talk about how dumb those kids were, and then go to the bar and yuck it up with their friends, but wouldn't take the time to even try to listen to what they were saying.  What they were trying to do was predicated on the idea that really, most people agree with them.  Which most people, turns out, did.  What they didn't anticipate, and what I still don't understand is why people so giddily attacked something they agree with.
 
2014-05-07 10:08:09 AM  

mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

My point about OWS is they did have an impact at the time focusing the debate on these issues and they are still felt but I still think most people are pretty apathetic about it in general.
 
2014-05-07 10:14:49 AM  

rewind2846: This is bullsh*t.

BeesNuts: It really seems to work out great when a grassroots movement hands the reigns over to the power structure, doesn't it? Yeah, Lewis would have been a great asset. He also would have necessarily quelled the actual voice of OWS.

True. OWS was able to be as effective as it was because there were no real "leaders" for their enemies to target. While I think Lewis with his civil right experience might in other times been a help, here he would have been nothing but a hindrance as he was part of the power structure these people were protesting. He would have also given their enemies a target that could be torn down, and as the face of the movement, discredited.

How badly would the Civil Rights marches, boycotts, sit-ins and other forms of non-violent protests of the 1950's and 60's be portrayed by today's corporate owned media? If the depictions, spin and bullsh*t they spewed regarding OWS were used against Medgar Evers, DR. King, Rosa Parks and others of that era we would still have Jim Crow laws right now.


OWS and the Tea Party started at roughly the same time.  The teabaggers organized themselves effectively, stayed on message, wrangled some powerful people to back them, and managed to get people who represented their views into office.

While it's unlikely that OWS would have been able to get support from the big money interests, they could have done a better job putting out a clear message.  We all heard 'wealth inequality is bad' but there was no clear list of things that needed to be fixed or clear plans on how to fix them. The Civil Rights movement had leaders and a clear message.

I don't think OWS was a failure, but I do think there was a lot of wasted opportunity.  Appointing an official spokesperson, someone well groomed and clean-cut as to not scare middle America, and having that person do the talking head circuit hammering on a well developed set of talking points would have exposed more people to their message and gotten more people on their side. Sometimes it's better to work within the system.

For my part I have a job and bills so I couldn't camp out in a park somewhere, but I'll exercise my right to vote in every election I can.  That needs to be the new push _
- get out and vote, even (especially) in the midterms.  Make the youth vote count. Flip districts, get all of that farming red off the map.
 
2014-05-07 10:15:04 AM  

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".

1. I don't give money to unorganized strangers.

2. I fully admit I am selfish to the extent that even though I agree with their overall message, I am not going to quit my job to go play drums in the park with them.

3. Now that you've shamed the rest of us: what did you do for occupy?

I spoke with them.  I'm not saying you should have thrown your whole life behind them.  The problem is with people who would get on the internet and talk about how shiatty OWS was, then go to work, and talk about how dumb those kids were, and then go to the bar and yuck it up with their friends, but wouldn't take the time to even try to listen to what they were saying.  What they were trying to do was predicated on the idea that really, most people agree with them.  Which most people, turns out, did.  What they didn't anticipate, and what I still don't understand is why people so giddily attacked something they agree with.


First, if all you did was walk up to a few and say hello, then you did nothing at all. Which is fine; as I said I did nothing beyond agree with their message and argue at the water cooler.

Second, the group you are blaming now seems different from the one you blamed in the earlier post. Not a goalpost I guess, but certainly a huge shift just occurred.
 
2014-05-07 10:21:02 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


I actually talked to one of their local leaders.  I said they should have two demands, three at the most.  Something like "re-institute the Glass Steagall Act, CCC or similar to repair infrastructure, bail out those who have really tried to pay off their mortgages..." stuff like that.  I lost consciousness at about hour two of his response.
 
2014-05-07 10:23:14 AM  

BeesNuts: A guy, possibly affiliated with OWS, possibly just there, shat on one cop car. I'm sure drug dealing went on, but again, just because a drug dealer notices a 'target rich environment' doesn't mean the occupy movement was "dealing drugs, looting and robbing nearby local businesses, shiatting in public everywhere and raping each other."


I never sadi theyw ere dealing drugs, I said it went on during the protests.


BeesNuts: "Oh I agree with them 100%, but everything they do is wrong and illegal


Fixed that to reflect what I actually said.

You are lying again when you say "everything they do is wrong and illegal".

You linked what I said, you know you are pulling it out of your ass.

BeesNuts: and while the police weren't always correct for spraying them with pepper spray, arresting them en masse and hitting them with stuff, it's what happens when you break the law." people.


One true thing, holy shiat that is amazing.

When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

BeesNuts: The main point I'm trying to make is that there was a concerted effort to avoid conversation about what OWS was saying by pointing out everything they were doing.


The point you are making is that you will lie about what people said and what they are saying now to aqvoid any conversation on if OWS made the right moves.


BeesNuts: You were part of that effort, and remain such to this day.


I ma and have been open to conversations on theri goals.

The only people sidetracking it now is clowns like yourself who biatch, lie and whine abotu how unfair media was about their actions instead oftalking about goals.

One of your very few honest comments was that I support their goals, yet you are sitting here crying and lying abotu what I said with regards tot ehir actiosn rather than discussing their goals.
 
2014-05-07 10:24:35 AM  

Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.


Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"
 
2014-05-07 10:26:59 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"


Also, never underestimate the power of racism in American politics. It's tragic the number of poor white people who vote for the GOP because they don't want black people getting handouts.
 
2014-05-07 10:27:03 AM  
WILL EVERYONE JUST SETTLE DOWN!


the Wealthy and Big Business have a Police State to finish setting up, and you all keep interrupting.  please stop it.


--a concerned Citizen.
 
2014-05-07 10:28:09 AM  

Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.

I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

My point about OWS is they did have an impact at the time focusing the debate on these issues and they are still felt but I still think most people are pretty apathetic about it in general.



Why do people who think the National debt is the biggest problem, have such a fear of taxes.  Because their is no cure for stupid.

Regardless, the majority of Americans are concerned with the growing wealth gap.  However, you try and spin this, it is not a minority position.  The fact that the current democratic reality prevents solutions, is another subject.  Maybe if OWS would have been more focused, organized and vigilant on this one issue, they might have gotten some traction.  I don't know.

The GOP is afraid that they will lose votes on this subject.  The DNC thinks they can gain votes with this subject.  To whatever extent his is true or false, the outcome should become obvious as the wealth/income gap continues to grow.
 
2014-05-07 10:28:52 AM  

lilbjorn: Yet the government continues to do jack shiat about the Bundy brigade.



well, he is wealthy, you know.  how would that look if Wealthy people in 'murica had to follow the law??


geez!
 
2014-05-07 10:29:55 AM  

mrshowrules: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

Meanwhile, Rand supporters can stomp on peaceful protester's heads

[cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com image 850x425]


some heads are less equal than others.
 
2014-05-07 10:30:29 AM  

King Something: TheBigJerk: Dafatone: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

Actually, I think their impact in terms of moving the conversation was pretty substantial.

Nabb1 just used the term "the 1%".  That wasn't really in the common vocabulary before OWS.  Not that it was unheard of, but almost everybody today knows what it refers to.  That's actually a pretty large victory, simply to carve out a notion of the very (not super, but very) rich as a class, in a way that emphasizes their minority.

Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]

And if OWS had some sort of central leadership, there would have been at least a 99% chance that the NYPD would have "found" 3 tons of meth (or something equally bad) in the leader's apartment, thus causing anyone who would have otherwise supported OWS to avoid them like the plague.


/at least until it was eventually revealed that the leader was railroaded by the NYPD Schutzstaffel
//and any officers who would have been involved in the plant-and-bust would have claimed they were Just Following Orders
[i.kinja-img.com image 636x358]


oh my god how is that picture a real thing? How did nobody realize how freaking stupid that is.
 
2014-05-07 10:30:33 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"


Good point.  There should be two elected Governments.  One for social issues and one for economic issues.
 
2014-05-07 10:31:49 AM  

js34603: Looks like she got punched above her tit to me.

Whatever, 7 years is still way too long.



it's not too long to send a message to the little people about who is in charge.

learn the Golden Rule: in 'murica, those with the Gold make up the Rules.(as they go along)
 
2014-05-07 10:33:25 AM  

BitwiseShift: Maybe they could let Bernie Madoff out, to make room for her.

He could then go on and do what he's good at, managing the police pension fund.



the only reason bernie man is in prison is because he stole from wealthy people.  you don't do that in 'murica.

if he had stolen only from the middle/working classes, he'd be a free man today.
 
2014-05-07 10:34:10 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"


I agree they are not as concerned with wealth inequality as they are about abortion and gay people, same deal with democrats electing what are basically republicans from the 90s. And then almost everyone shops at big box stores and supermarkets and eats fast food and all these places pay their employees shiat wages.
 
2014-05-07 10:36:36 AM  

mrshowrules: Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"

Good point.  There should be two elected Governments.  One for social issues and one for economic issues.



there are already two governments. one is the one you see (the facade), and the other, hidden behind the scenes, consists of Billionaires and their billionaire big oil/banker buddies who actually run things.

ain't Freedom great!
 
2014-05-07 10:47:08 AM  

Wessoman: MFAWG: I just can't make a judgement without a picture of the boob in question.



There you go. With erect nipple. Yes, the cop totally made a fungrab. And yes, she was found guilty of felony assault. Which is BS--You grab a ladies boobs without asking, she will elbow you. We all know that.

Honestly, it's just the police making her an example.


Or she had the worst lawyer in the state.
 
2014-05-07 10:48:50 AM  

Smackledorfer: BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: BeesNuts: TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.

You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted".

1. I don't give money to unorganized strangers.

2. I fully admit I am selfish to the extent that even though I agree with their overall message, I am not going to quit my job to go play drums in the park with them.

3. Now that you've shamed the rest of us: what did you do for occupy?

I spoke with them.  I'm not saying you should have thrown your whole life behind them.  The problem is with people who would get on the internet and talk about how shiatty OWS was, then go to work, and talk about how dumb those kids were, and then go to the bar and yuck it up with their friends, but wouldn't take the time to even try to listen to what they were saying.  What they were trying to do was predicated on the idea that ...


I think I've been consistent.  People, that is the aggregate of all of us, agreed with the message.  People, again as an aggregate, spent massive amounts of time and energy talking about OWS.  The Majority, that is that loudest most numerous voices, were those which denigrated the movement, either their style, or some other slight.

If The Majority, had used their energy to voice support for what they ostensibly support, the movement would have been more successful.  It seems awfully strange to me to see people complaining about how they weren't successful because of their style of doing things, when I see the main reason for their lack of success as the people who complained about their style of doing things.

Sort of, "Loud Noises Everyone Agrees With!"
"This will never work!  Stop."
*stops.  doesn't work.*
"WHY DID YOU LISTEN TO US!?"
 
2014-05-07 10:54:06 AM  

mrshowrules: Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"

Good point.  There should be two elected Governments.  One for social issues and one for economic issues.


I don't know about all that. Think about all the people you know who describe themselves as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative". We all be able to get gay married, but none of us will be able to afford the wedding.

There's also a large contingent of socially conservative economic populists out there. That's why Rick Santorum scares me. He dipped his toes into the economic populism pool toward the end of the 2012 primaries, and he recently came out in not-complete-opposition to raising the minimum wage. People brush him off because of his paleoconservative social views, but they forget that many in middle America share those views. If he gets the nod and the Democrats nominate someone with strong ties to Wall Street, like Clinton or Cuomo, we're going to have an interesting fight on our hands.
 
2014-05-07 10:57:22 AM  
This is great news. Hopefully the judge sentences her to the full seven years to send a message that assault against public servants cannot be tolerated.
 
2014-05-07 11:01:40 AM  

tbeatty: hurr durr derp derp derp.


At least you're honest for once about the real substance of your posts. It's kind of refreshing.

Debeo Summa Credo: This is great news. Hopefully the judge sentences her to the full seven years to send a message that assault against public servants cannot be tolerated.


Yes, Adolf.
 
2014-05-07 11:02:27 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This is great news. Hopefully the judge sentences her to the full seven years to send a message that assault against public servants cannot be tolerated.


fake fiscal conservative has no problem spending a half a million dollars to jail a single protester but will pitch a fit about spending a fraction of that to feed a single needy child over that same time period.
 
2014-05-07 11:02:36 AM  

liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.


heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.
 
2014-05-07 11:03:27 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: A guy, possibly affiliated with OWS, possibly just there, shat on one cop car. I'm sure drug dealing went on, but again, just because a drug dealer notices a 'target rich environment' doesn't mean the occupy movement was "dealing drugs, looting and robbing nearby local businesses, shiatting in public everywhere and raping each other."

I never sadi theyw ere dealing drugs, I said it went on during the protests.


BeesNuts: "Oh I agree with them 100%, but everything they do is wrong and illegal

Fixed that to reflect what I actually said.

You are lying again when you say "everything they do is wrong and illegal".

You linked what I said, you know you are pulling it out of your ass.

BeesNuts: and while the police weren't always correct for spraying them with pepper spray, arresting them en masse and hitting them with stuff, it's what happens when you break the law." people.

One true thing, holy shiat that is amazing.

When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

BeesNuts: The main point I'm trying to make is that there was a concerted effort to avoid conversation about what OWS was saying by pointing out everything they were doing.

The point you are making is that you will lie about what people said and what they are saying now to aqvoid any conversation on if OWS made the right moves.


BeesNuts: You were part of that effort, and remain such to this day.

I ma and have been open to conversations on theri goals.

The only people sidetracking it now is clowns like yourself who biatch, lie and whine abotu how unfair media was about their actions instead oftalking about goals.

One of your very few honest comments was that I support their goals, yet you are sitting here crying and lying abotu what I said with regards tot ehir actiosn rather than discussing their goals.


Ok, it's entirely possible you just really like to argue with people.  Whatever.  I mentioned that I got your position *in this thread* confused with another.  I'll name him if it makes you feel better.  Nemo's Brother.

That doesn't absolve you of your strange position on OWS.  You're very open to their goals, sure.  I think we all are, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or in a position to gain from the status quo.  Then why do you only comment vaguely on those goals, but very specifically on the failings of the movement?  When people, myself included, were trying to engage in discussion about their goals, it was like running into a solid wall of ridicule.  Now you wanna talk about their goals?  What did you think of Strike Debt/Rolling Jubilee?  The Other 98% in Manhattan?  You want to talk about capital gains tax reform, or common sense regulation of the financial sector?  You never seem to want to talk about those things.

But you do support their goals.
 
2014-05-07 11:04:25 AM  

Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.

I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.


Because people are too stupid to realize they have a right to be part of the ruling class. Occupy's headless strategy (which had to be concocted by someone) rendered the movement pointless. It could easily have become a party, built a platform, and elected nobody candidates to local offices. Instead they were focused on bullshiat like how to fight the cops.
 
2014-05-07 11:04:43 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: The video is pretty damning, and doesn't support her titty-twister tale.


Dude, after having to suffer through pages of you defending that cop who maced the protesters in California, any judgment or opinion from you regarding OWS is highly suspect.

Yes, I know you hated those hippies and how dare they.

Tough shiat.
 
2014-05-07 11:06:04 AM  

BeesNuts: If The Majority, had used their energy to voice support for what they ostensibly support


They would have been drowned out by all the morons (and I suspect you were one of them) crying that unilatterally occupying parks for days on end, blocking traffic, refusing to disperse, etc all falls under peaceable assembly and that people stopping them are symptoms of a police state and a conspiracy to shut down the message.

OWS got attention, and their "fans" and them instead of using that attention to work towards their goals they made it about supporting occupy as legal protest, and rejecting having a main message.
 
2014-05-07 11:07:25 AM  

whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.


And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...
 
2014-05-07 11:08:41 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: If The Majority, had used their energy to voice support for what they ostensibly support

They would have been drowned out by all the morons (and I suspect you were one of them) crying that unilatterally occupying parks for days on end, blocking traffic, refusing to disperse, etc all falls under peaceable assembly and that people stopping them are symptoms of a police state and a conspiracy to shut down the message.

OWS got attention, and their "fans" and them instead of using that attention to work towards their goals they made it about supporting occupy as legal protest, and rejecting having a main message.


This means you're not really familiar with their message.
 
2014-05-07 11:08:53 AM  

BeesNuts: whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.

And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...


assets-s3.usmagazine.com
 
2014-05-07 11:09:45 AM  

Headso: BeesNuts: whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.

And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...

[assets-s3.usmagazine.com image 640x482]


preeeeetty much.
 
2014-05-07 11:11:31 AM  

BeesNuts: Headso: BeesNuts: whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.

And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...

[assets-s3.usmagazine.com image 640x482]

preeeeetty much.


Whatever. You're obviously a masochist for continuing the discussion.
 
2014-05-07 11:13:22 AM  

whidbey: BeesNuts: Headso: BeesNuts: whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.

And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...

[assets-s3.usmagazine.com image 640x482]

preeeeetty much.

Whatever. You're obviously a masochist for continuing the discussion.


Like you're one to talk.
 
2014-05-07 11:17:42 AM  

BeesNuts: whidbey: BeesNuts: Headso: BeesNuts: whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.

And liam, I want you to know I have nothing to do with this guy...

[assets-s3.usmagazine.com image 640x482]

preeeeetty much.

Whatever. You're obviously a masochist for continuing the discussion.

Like you're one to talk.


Dude, we're actually on the same side. You're not going to win the argument here. You are engaging someone who can't stand real democracy in action, and that's why his comments are ultimately defending the police state.

Typical of most OWS haters. At least here.
 
2014-05-07 11:17:54 AM  
BeesNuts:

The problem wasn't how they conducted themselves, it's how people just outright HATED them for some reason.

Because they committed the unforgivable vile crime of mildly inconveniencing them.
 
2014-05-07 11:21:21 AM  

whidbey: liam76: When people break the law and resist cops when they are arrested for it, I am ok with police using more force.

heil heil heil heil HEIL

Dude, you went there.


No you went there because you are too simple to honestly resopond to any idea you don't like so you continually Godwin things.

If somebody says they are ok with police using force after a protest blocks traffic, refuses to disperse, and actively resists and your first respons is to cry Nazi, you have issues.


BeesNuts: That doesn't absolve you of your strange position on OWS.


Nothing stragen about it.

I can like a groups goals, but not support them having stupid idea on what constitutes peaceable assembly.


BeesNuts: When people, myself included, were trying to engage in discussion about their goals, it was like running into a solid wall of ridicule.


You mean like in this thread where you immedaitely defended the movements methods blamed everyone else for failing and didn't mention anything specific about heir goals?


BeesNuts: Now you wanna talk about their goals?


Now? WIth you ? Not really.

You lied about my position (and only just now admitted it) and then when called out on it searched through my posts and lied about what Is aid in the past.

Now you are pretending you did want to talk about their goals, but you very Boobies (and every subsequesnt post) has been you defending their methods.
 
2014-05-07 11:23:21 AM  

liam76: If somebody says they are ok with police using force after a protest blocks traffic, refuses to disperse, and actively resists and your first respons is to cry Nazi, you have issues.


Yeah. I have issues with people who support police brutality. Most of us want less of it our society. You're stating that it's sometimes OK. Especially with hippies, apparently.
 
2014-05-07 11:23:59 AM  

Wendy's Chili: mrshowrules: Wendy's Chili: Headso: mrshowrules: LIke I said, I'm not sure what your point is about OWS but if you are concerned with the growing income/wealth gap, you are in the majority.


I disagree, how can people be that concerned with wealth inequality if they are electing the people they elect and shopping at the places they shop. it's easy to say you are concerned in a poll but then you go out and vote with both your wallet and your ballot for growing wealth inequality.

Wedge issues. They're called "wedge issues" because they drive a wedge between individuals who would otherwise agree with each other. Many conservative voters see their votes for Republicans as votes to end abortion, stop gay marriage, or protect the Second Amendment. I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"

Good point.  There should be two elected Governments.  One for social issues and one for economic issues.

I don't know about all that. Think about all the people you know who describe themselves as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative". We all be able to get gay married, but none of us will be able to afford the wedding.

There's also a large contingent of socially conservative economic populists out there. That's why Rick Santorum scares me. He dipped his toes into the economic populism pool toward the end of the 2012 primaries, and he recently came out in not-complete-opposition to raising the minimum wage. People brush him off because of his paleoconservative social views, but they forget that many in middle America share those views. If he gets the nod and the Democrats nominate someone with strong ties to Wall Street, like Clinton or Cuomo, we're going to have an interesting fight on our hands.


Another good point.  Santorum is probably one of the few Republicans that could pull off the "working man's champion" with some credibility.

I just never understood how homophobia got linked with less taxes for the rich

Conversely how:  cutting fossil fuel burning means you have to be for affirmative action
 
2014-05-07 11:26:33 AM  
Article: An Occupy Wall Street activist faces up to seven years in prison

Headline: Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years

I say this with all sincerity - fark you to whichever mod greenlit this. Seriously. I know that inaccurate and misleading headlines are often used for humor, or hyperbole, or clickbait, but this is just some stupid shiat right here.
 
2014-05-07 11:27:26 AM  

BeesNuts: This means you're not really familiar with their message


Maybe, but then your whole point of most people agreeing with them is wrong.

I agree that the level of economic inequality in the US is wrong.

I agree that the level private money on govt politics is wrong.

I agree that the way many industries are getting rich at the expense of the american public and govt is wrong.

And in case that comes off as a bit teatardy-ish I thinnk higher taxes on the rish and better financial regulation, and incentives for green energy is the way to fix it.

That is why I say I agree with them in general. Now if that isn't their main message. If there main message is closer to "communes run by consensus shoudl be how we run the US" then fark them (but still hats off for getting economic inequality in the political lexicon for the average joe).

whidbey: You are engaging someone who can't stand real democracy in action


Real democracy in action according to whidbey-mob rule by people he likes.
 
2014-05-07 11:27:33 AM  

Cathedralmaster: tbeatty: Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain

She wasn't offered a misdemeanor plea bargain:

McMillan rejected an earlier offer from prosecutors for her to plead guilty to a charge of second-degree assault of a police officer, which would have still resulted in her being classed as a felon,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/occupy-wall-street-ceci ly -mcmillan-guilty-assaulting-police-officer


Has tbeatty ever made a simple assertion of fact that in fact turned out to be a fact?

If so, I don't recall seeing it.
 
2014-05-07 11:29:28 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Article: An Occupy Wall Street activist faces up to seven years in prison

Headline: Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years

I say this with all sincerity - fark you to whichever mod greenlit this. Seriously. I know that inaccurate and misleading headlines are often used for humor, or hyperbole, or clickbait, but this is just some stupid shiat right here.


OWS is a football that some of Fark's centrist-right to right-leaning posters love to kick around.

It just wasn't the kind of democracy they approve of. Too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.
 
2014-05-07 11:31:11 AM  

whidbey: Yeah. I have issues with people who support police brutality. Most of us want less of it our society. You're stating that it's sometimes OK. Especially with hippies, apparently


A crowd won't disperse and the cops use pepper spray, not police brutaltiy.

Casually walking by and spraying pepperspary in the face of people who are calmly standing behind police barricades, police brutality.

I know this si diddicult for you to get, but not every instance of police force is "police brutality". In fact Crusier12 has me on ignore because I generally come down so harshly on topics like police brutality.
 
2014-05-07 11:33:57 AM  

Wendy's Chili: I can't imagine very many go to the polls thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to make things more unequal!"


I'll butcher this quote, and I cannot attribute it to someone off the top of my head, but 'liberals want a just world where people are properly rewarded for effort and labor, while conservatives think we already have that world'.

So no, they don't go to the polls in the interests of making things unequal. They go to the polls because they think things are fair and equal, and that any tinkering makes things less equal.


Though in talking to people one of the oddest things I've noticed is that conservatives tend to be the first people to say sports players are overpaid and the last people to say a CEO is. Which is odd because the sports player is earning money in the most voluntary and honest of economic systems, as well as providing the clear most valuable role in the industry: playing the goddamn sport.  Moreover, I have gotten my supervisor to admit, on about four occasions after prolonged discussion, that his initial ranting about greedy players (he defends owners making bank though) is wrong, but a couple weeks after such a discussion he reverts to the previous talking points, almost as though new memories have not been formed. I have a similar recurring conversation with a couple guys who misquote Obama's books ('if war came between muslims and America, I would choose muslims' or some shiat like that is their misquote): they use it, they get shown what the actual quote is, they grudgingly admit it is not so bad to say that we shouldn't put arabs in internment caps like we did to japanese during ww2, and then a while later they revert to the previous status.


Conclusion: the modern conservative who votes for the republican party doesn't know wtf they want or wtf they are talking about. That is kind of a wedge issue in and of itself. They will of course look you straight in the eye and agree they want everything to be fair and balanced.  Then they will explain to you why it is easy for poor people to save for college, why racism doesn't exist in the justice system or in hiring practices, why women deserve any lower pay they may receive, and why pretty much all scientists not working for the oil companies are in it for all the fortune, popularity, fame, and chicks showing their titties that they can handle.


This seems absurd, and if you'd talked to me fifteen years ago and told me this would be my experience today I would laugh you out of the room.  I would NOT have agreed that one party so dominated the vote of the delusional, ignorant, and stupid. But here we are.
 
2014-05-07 11:34:43 AM  

mrshowrules: Another good point. Santorum is probably one of the few Republicans that could pull off the "working man's champion" with some credibility.

I just never understood how homophobia got linked with less taxes for the rich

Conversely how: cutting fossil fuel burning means you have to be for affirmative action


Coalition building: it's how you get things done in a democracy.

Although some people would argue that camping in a park, doing jazz hands, and shouting "MIC CHECK" in front of a banker's townhouse is the better method.

/ducks
 
2014-05-07 11:36:01 AM  

whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: The video is pretty damning, and doesn't support her titty-twister tale.

Dude, after having to suffer through pages of you defending that cop who maced the protesters in California, any judgment or opinion from you regarding OWS is highly suspect.

Yes, I know you hated those hippies and how dare they.

Tough shiat.


Put up or shut up.

Oh, wait. I'll save you the time.

Show me, asswipe.

I never defended the cops. I've always said that cops should be patient long before using weapons with any protesters.

An elbow to the face is the end of patience.

Just because I like OWS doesn't mean everyone involved is innocent of everything all the time. This chick has serious problems with her story, and if you'd actually watch the video, you'd see that.


Now apologize and stop making things up.
 
2014-05-07 11:36:41 AM  

liam76:

I know this si diddicult for you to get, but not every instance of police force is "police brutality". In fact Crusier12 has me on ignore because I generally come down so harshly on topics like police brutality.


You're not doing it here.
 
2014-05-07 11:38:02 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Show me, asswipe.

I never defended the cops. I've always said that cops should be patient long before using weapons with any protesters.


Whatever you were trying to do, you failed miserably. I will always remember 20 posters or so trying to convince you that you were wrong and you digging it. You never apologized, you never capitulated.

You have a long LONG way to go before I trust you on this subject.
 
2014-05-07 11:38:46 AM  
digging it=digging in

whatever
 
2014-05-07 11:39:37 AM  

Wendy's Chili: mrshowrules: Another good point. Santorum is probably one of the few Republicans that could pull off the "working man's champion" with some credibility.

I just never understood how homophobia got linked with less taxes for the rich

Conversely how: cutting fossil fuel burning means you have to be for affirmative action

Coalition building: it's how you get things done in a democracy.

Although some people would argue that camping in a park, doing jazz hands, and shouting "MIC CHECK" in front of a banker's townhouse is the better method.

/ducks


LOL.

Re: coalation building

I wonder what would happen if the DNC proposed a ban on elective abortions, combined with social assistance for young mothers and single-payer health care.
 
2014-05-07 11:42:54 AM  

whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: Show me, asswipe.

I never defended the cops. I've always said that cops should be patient long before using weapons with any protesters.

Whatever you were trying to do, you failed miserably. I will always remember 20 posters or so trying to convince you that you were wrong and you digging it. You never apologized, you never capitulated.

You have a long LONG way to go before I trust you on this subject.


That's the link to the actual Fark thread, in which both you and I participated, where I consistently say that cops should be patient before using any type of weapon.

That's the very thread you just lied about. I just checked it. The link works. Take it, search for my name, and apologize.

You're a lying liar. You do this often. Just stop it.
 
2014-05-07 11:43:00 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: This chick has serious problems with her story, and if you'd actually watch the video, you'd see that.


it's tough to tell what is happening in that video, you really can't tell if someone is grabbing her right before she does that flying elbow move off the top rope...
 
2014-05-07 11:44:08 AM  

jso2897: See, on Fark, this is how you do it: You read the headline, in the knowledge that it is complete bullshiat, and then you read TFA until you get to the "reveal".
In this case, the "reveal" is that this chick hasn't been sentenced at all - she has merely been convicted of something with a maximum sentence of seven years, which she is not going to get, or anywhere near, probably.
Time served, probation, stiff fine, most likely.


Lying?  In MY sensationalist greenlight-bait headline?
 
2014-05-07 11:47:03 AM  

whidbey: liam76:

I know this si diddicult for you to get, but not every instance of police force is "police brutality". In fact Crusier12 has me on ignore because I generally come down so harshly on topics like police brutality.

You're not doing it here.


I am, you are just refuse to see a difference between use of force and police brutality.
 
2014-05-07 11:51:42 AM  

BeesNuts: I think I've been consistent.


I don't consider the people described in the first quote to be the same as those in the second.

"You know, if people spent as much time and energy throwing support behind them instead of ho-humming about the lack of organization, if we'd spent as much time and energy listening to what they were saying instead of complaining about how their message was confusing, and spent as much time and energy distilling that message instead of acting all concerned and sharing "helpful" ideas about how they "should be doing things"... their potential might not have been so "wasted". "

"The problem is with people who would get on the internet and talk about how shiatty OWS was, then go to work, and talk about how dumb those kids were, and then go to the bar and yuck it up with their friends, but wouldn't take the time to even try to listen to what they were saying."

Honestly, the former paragraph describes me quite well.  The latter describes people I spent too much time arguing with on fark on that very issue. They absolutely lacked organization, their message was indeed jumbled, and I have indeed discussed ways they could have improved.  They weren't shiatty, nor were they stupid, nor did I make fun of them at the bar.

Why does it matter that you have shifted? Because in both cases you are blaming this group as "the majority" who are somehow directly responsible for all of OWS's failings.  But the former group describes me just as well as it does you, yet you pat yourself on the back for talking with them.

Don't get me wrong, the latter group you describe does exist: people who didn't take five minute to look into the movement watched ten minutes of fox news and repeated talking points.  However, it is a given that said group exists.  Any movement has two options: 1. Do better with the media and handling of their message, or 2. Blame the listener.   OWS and its biggest supporters overwhelmingly chose option 2, and almost went out of their way to alienate potential supporters.
 
2014-05-07 11:51:55 AM  

Headso: Lenny_da_Hog: This chick has serious problems with her story, and if you'd actually watch the video, you'd see that.

it's tough to tell what is happening in that video, you really can't tell if someone is grabbing her right before she does that flying elbow move off the top rope...


Her lawyer calls the bruise *above* her breast, in the neckline area, "the smoking gun." She shows off the "hand-shaped" bruise (above her shirt's neckline) in the Democracy Now interview at about 2:15.

You can see from the evidence video that the bright green shirt is never occluded in that area.

In that Democracy Now interview, she also states she was there because she's been involved with the organization of OWS and goes into a long list of her activism, but in court, she said she was just there to find a friend between bar-hops and wasn't there to protest.

She has credibility issues.
 
2014-05-07 11:54:53 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Headso: Lenny_da_Hog: This chick has serious problems with her story, and if you'd actually watch the video, you'd see that.

it's tough to tell what is happening in that video, you really can't tell if someone is grabbing her right before she does that flying elbow move off the top rope...

Her lawyer calls the bruise *above* her breast, in the neckline area, "the smoking gun." She shows off the "hand-shaped" bruise (above her shirt's neckline) in the Democracy Now interview at about 2:15.

You can see from the evidence video that the bright green shirt is never occluded in that area.

In that Democracy Now interview, she also states she was there because she's been involved with the organization of OWS and goes into a long list of her activism, but in court, she said she was just there to find a friend between bar-hops and wasn't there to protest.

She has credibility issues.


And the police constantly lie too so we are back to square one on that. In the video the cop she elbows obviously didn't grab her but it's possible she was grabbed.
 
2014-05-07 11:57:05 AM  

whidbey: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Article: An Occupy Wall Street activist faces up to seven years in prison

Headline: Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years

I say this with all sincerity - fark you to whichever mod greenlit this. Seriously. I know that inaccurate and misleading headlines are often used for humor, or hyperbole, or clickbait, but this is just some stupid shiat right here.

OWS is a football that some of Fark's centrist-right to right-leaning posters love to kick around.

It just wasn't the kind of democracy they approve of. Too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.


"It's simple. It's the right's fault"
-whidbey on everything.
 
2014-05-07 11:58:25 AM  

Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?


Because most of us believe in the Rule of Law, and believe that violence only begets more violence.

Could the world be changed by armed 'leftists'?  Maybe.  But it wouldn't be the change we want.

I'd sooner die myself than kill another person, in all but situations of pure, instinctual self defense.
 
2014-05-07 11:58:56 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: Show me, asswipe.

I never defended the cops. I've always said that cops should be patient long before using weapons with any protesters.

Whatever you were trying to do, you failed miserably. I will always remember 20 posters or so trying to convince you that you were wrong and you digging it. You never apologized, you never capitulated.

You have a long LONG way to go before I trust you on this subject.

That's the link to the actual Fark thread, in which both you and I participated, where I consistently say that cops should be patient before using any type of weapon.

That's the very thread you just lied about. I just checked it. The link works. Take it, search for my name, and apologize.

You're a lying liar. You do this often. Just stop it.


Not lying about anything. Though I will say that by skimming that link, it's a different thread.

You got your ass handed to you in the other one. Perhaps that isn't relevant here at all, but it still formulated quite an opinion.
 
2014-05-07 12:01:55 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

Obama coordinated the nation-wide crackdown on the Occupy movement. He initiated the police abuse on you all. Then you voted for him again.

/useful idiots


I don't think you're all that useful.
 
2014-05-07 12:03:19 PM  
So some police officer tries to rape her and she is arrested for trying to defend herself.
 
2014-05-07 12:03:57 PM  

Mobutu: Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?

Because most of us believe in the Rule of Law, and believe that violence only begets more violence.

Could the world be changed by armed 'leftists'?  Maybe.  But it wouldn't be the change we want.

I'd sooner die myself than kill another person, in all but situations of pure, instinctual self defense.


We're a violent species. Obviously it is ideal to temper our violence and work within legal frames. But that doesn't always work, and it all breaks down frighteningly easily. It's fine to be a pacifist, just be prepared to bend and ultimately be subservient to people who are not afraid of using violence.
 
2014-05-07 12:11:28 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Lenny_da_Hog: Show me, asswipe.

I never defended the cops. I've always said that cops should be patient long before using weapons with any protesters.

Whatever you were trying to do, you failed miserably. I will always remember 20 posters or so trying to convince you that you were wrong and you digging it. You never apologized, you never capitulated.

You have a long LONG way to go before I trust you on this subject.

That's the link to the actual Fark thread, in which both you and I participated, where I consistently say that cops should be patient before using any type of weapon.

That's the very thread you just lied about. I just checked it. The link works. Take it, search for my name, and apologize.

You're a lying liar. You do this often. Just stop it.


Dude, you're pissing up a rope here - the only two colors in his world are black and white. And if you pick the wrong one in any given situation you might as well have just copypasted some teabgger derp from American Thinker

Veering back on topic, I agree with your analysis - what I see in that video is someone intentionally winding up a full body elbow strike and trying to bolt away.Even if he did grab her boob while arresting her (and I don't think he did, either, but that's a weaker conclusion), that elbow was not a reflexive reaction.

That said, seven years seems a bit much to me, but I won't lose any sleep over it if she gets the max or close to it
 
2014-05-07 12:11:33 PM  

whidbey: Not lying about anything. Though I will say that by skimming that link, it's a different thread.

You got your ass handed to you in the other one. Perhaps that isn't relevant here at all, but it still formulated quite an opinion.



Put up or shut up, liar. It's not a different thread. That's a thread showing me consistently saying the cops at the actual event that you actually just cited were actually in the wrong. The thread in your imagination does not count as a Fark thread.

It's relevant because you just made it relevant. You're making shiat up, and now you've been shown point-blank that you're a bald-faced liar, and you "seem to remember" something that never happened.

Your seeming to remember does not outweigh the actual link to the actual thread that shows me saying exactly the opposite of what you just attributed to me.

It's very simple: You never saw me defending the cops in the California pepper spray incident or in any other similar situation, because it never happened.

Just apologize and move on.
 
2014-05-07 12:12:51 PM  

Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?


Lol wat.

It's the right-wing protesters who claim tyranny and victimization for being held to any sort of accountability.  See: Bundy's son, the "political prisoner" who assaulted 2 cops.

Meanwhile, peaceful, unarmed OWSers are routinely teargassed, beaten, wrongfully arrested and sexually assaulted, yet they've lasted longer than any other modern protest movement.
 
2014-05-07 12:13:46 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Put up or shut up, liar. It's not a different thread. That's a thread showing me consistently saying the cops at the actual event that you actually just cited were actually in the wrong. The thread in your imagination does not count as a Fark thread


It's still real to him!
 
2014-05-07 12:15:09 PM  
Every time those damn Tea Party people get together there's all that rape, rampant drug use, violence, vandalism, anarchy, arrests...oh wait....
 
2014-05-07 12:16:15 PM  
And also:

BeesNuts: Sort of, "Loud Noises Everyone Agrees With!"
"This will never work!  Stop."
*stops.  doesn't work.*
"WHY DID YOU LISTEN TO US!?"


Case in point, this is NOT what the first group you described said. They never said stop, they said 'you need clearer messages, better media handling, and better organizing".  I don't know how my taking time to talk to them would have changed this in any way. Who was them? Where was I supposed to speak with them? Who was I supposed to support for a legislative position that backed their ideas?

Don't get me wrong, if I cared more about the topic I guess I might have done more. But that is life. People have lives to live and mortgages to pay, and we cannot all get on the back of the bus in protest. The people who do feel strongly enough to do so and get in that situation need to understand this and work with our lazy asses, or they may as well stay home too. Is that sad? Sure. Is it reality? Yea. Even the tea party understood that. Sure it wasn't as grassroots, but neither did it turn away politicians who wished to join the movement.


The media is to blame too of course, but without pushing the names of a few leaders of the movement to get out there and run for office or show up for interviews, even a sympathetic media would be hard pressed to do a whole lot different. Had they picked random people out of the crowds they may have made OWS look even worse.
 
2014-05-07 12:21:30 PM  

whidbey: Not lying about anything. Though I will say that by skimming that link, it's a different thread.

You got your ass handed to you in the other one. Perhaps that isn't relevant here at all, but it still formulated quite an opinion.


You realize how shiatty you look right now right? Are you self-aware enough for that much?
 
2014-05-07 12:22:08 PM  

Warlordtrooper: So some police officer tries to rape her and she is arrested for trying to defend herself.


That sounds just as dumb as extreme as saying she was arrested for violently trying to assault an officer.  The truth is in between (and I'm sure I don't know what happened).

I always thought there was an understanding that if you fought back against an officer, you get the shiat kicked out of you. I think she did fight back and got her lumps but to press charges on top of that is completely unnecessary IMHO.  I hope she get's a slap on the wrist from the judge (figuratively)
 
m00
2014-05-07 12:25:06 PM  

Fenstery: If the ows croud had a clue they would have protested in Washington against the people who are responsible for perpetuating the wealth inequality


You mean the lobbyists who are actually in charge of government? Like... say.... Wall Street?
 
2014-05-07 12:25:48 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Well, she faces up to 7 years, I doubt she'll get sentenced to that.

The NYT has a more detailed account of what happened.  She was drunk, yelling at another officer, which led the assaulted officer to try to lead her away.

7 years would certainly be excessive.  Time served and a probation would be about right.

She sure taught the 1% a lesson.

OWS had some great ideas and a ton of energy, but no direction and abysmal organization.  It's a shame that the potential there was mostly wasted.  They helped get the conversation started, but it could have been so much more if someone had managed to take charge, distill the message into some accessible soundbites, and do some halfway decent PR work to focus the media.


They were more interested in the internal dynamics of their increasingly irrelevant "movement" then they were in affecting any sort of actual change.

I agreed with their core message, but the people involved were clowns.
 
2014-05-07 12:30:02 PM  

Fenstery: It was a lost opportunity since they focused on the people benefiting from the problem rather than focusing on any specific solution to the problem and putting pressure on those who could actually affect change.


No it wasn't.

They brought the attention to policy-makers and said, "Fix it. It's broken."

Most Americans can't tell you how budgets and policies are made. They do know when the outcomes are affecting them negatively. Just because the OWS people didn't have all the solutions doesn't mean it was a waste of time.

In fact, if they would have drawn up specifics, the message would likely have been bogged down in the mud of everyone attacking those specifics, instead of looking at the crappy outcome of the status quo.
 
2014-05-07 12:34:35 PM  

whidbey: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Article: An Occupy Wall Street activist faces up to seven years in prison

Headline: Occupy Wall Street protester sentenced to seven years

I say this with all sincerity - fark you to whichever mod greenlit this. Seriously. I know that inaccurate and misleading headlines are often used for humor, or hyperbole, or clickbait, but this is just some stupid shiat right here.

OWS is a football that some of Fark's centrist-right to right-leaning posters love to kick around.

It just wasn't the kind of democracy they approve of. Too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.


Wow.  Whidbey doesn't approve of Fark's centrist-right (every one else would call them leftt-wing) because too many people with their own minds not wanting to do it their way.

Cluestick:  Twelve New York City jurors unanimously found her guilty (including 8 grope aware women).  In less than three hours.  Hundred weren't charged.  Sorry, but this violent extremist reaped what she sowed after assaulting a blue-collar union person.  She's less than one percent of those arrested.
 
2014-05-07 12:35:28 PM  

mrshowrules: but to press charges on top of that is completely unnecessary IMHO.


It is entirely necessary.  If you want to see why I will politely remind you what happens when a person gets arrested but never charged in court in these situations: it becomes, in the minds of the people arguing, an indisputable proof that police had no cause to take any action ever, and therefore they are automatically in the wrong.

So the result is the growing trend that in any law enforcement action where the investigated/detained/what-have-you individual is grumpy enough to make a stink about it later, he gets cited for as much as legally possible. No breaks are given, because the second a break is given there is a paperwork trail that doesn't support the actions the cop took in the first place.

If I get pulled over for a broken tail light, I don't even get cited for it.  If someone gets pulled over for one and refuses to talk beyond calling the guy a pig and screaming about his fourth amendment rights, you bet your ass he gets a ticket. Some of that is merely the attitude test, but a lot of it is ass-covering on the part of the officer involved too. The first question asked when the story goes to the press later (likely with a repaired tail light) is going to be "if he REALLY pulled him over for the tail light, why didn't he issue a ticket, AHA it is lies all the way down"


Police lack the ability to take a fight to the press in these matters. This woman can go on tv and say whatever she feels like and then change her story in court. She can show whatever edited version of video she wants, for the clips that she wants.  The police department has one option: take the fight to court and prove her guilt. Which makes sense, I don't think we want our police departments going full-bore media smearing on everyone they arrest. They aren't supposed to be using the media to establish guilt and subsequently taint as many jury pools as possible. That is a freedom that only the defendant has. Our justice system sucks bad enough without prosecutors still in office going full nancy grace 24/7.
 
2014-05-07 12:36:30 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: They brought the attention to policy-makers and said, "Fix it. It's broken."


Even Newt was spending the primary attacking the rich guys. That would never have happened without OWS.
 
2014-05-07 12:36:47 PM  
Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.
 
2014-05-07 12:37:46 PM  

udhq: Frank N Stein: Why are leftist protestors such pushovers in the country compared to rightist protestors?

Lol wat.

It's the right-wing protesters who claim tyranny and victimization for being held to any sort of accountability.  See: Bundy's son, the "political prisoner" who assaulted 2 cops.

Meanwhile, peaceful, unarmed OWSers are routinely teargassed, beaten, wrongfully arrested and sexually assaulted, yet they've lasted longer than any other modern protest movement.


Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them
 
2014-05-07 12:39:36 PM  

udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.


And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds.....

The fact is that the government treats conservative protest movements with kid gloves, and liberal protest movements with ACTUAL tyranny and brutality.
 
2014-05-07 12:44:00 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Sometimes it's better to work within the system.


How so? How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them? Anyone put forth as a spokesperson would either be destroyed through accusations, dirty tricks and innuendo (no one is perfectly clean), or co-opted by all the money flowing through that system from the opposition.  I'm still wondering if the Powers That Be thought that OWS were just a bunch of ineffectual flower children banging drums, why the concerted (and expensive) effort to destroy them? Could they have been right all along, and that's what scared The Powers so badly? Is that why they are still a topic of discussion today?

Billy Bathsalt: I actually talked to one of their local leaders. I said they should have two demands, three at the most. Something like "re-institute the Glass Steagall Act, CCC or similar to repair infrastructure, bail out those who have really tried to pay off their mortgages..." stuff like that. I lost consciousness at about hour two of his response.


Have you ever thought that the problems they were protesting were A. of many different types B. very complex C.more than just a few D. all of the above?  I'm sorry if all the sh*t that's wrong can't be boiled down to a few soundbites or a slogan for t-shirts and bumper stickers so that those in Flyoverville with attention spans rivaling goldfish don't have to think so hard. The types of issues they have in some cases have been festering for decades, and in that festering they have wrapped in on themselves like the world's largest ball of twine. Add to that the fact that there are people whose wealth and power depend on that ball of string being as tightly wound and knotted as possible, and the problems multiply.

The world is a very very complex place, and humanity makes it more complicated with each passing day.
 
2014-05-07 12:45:51 PM  

udhq: udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children, after they opened fire on the cops."  I just can't get anything right today.

And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds8.....

The fact is that the government treats conservative protest movements with kid gloves, and liberal protest movements with ACTUAL tyranny and brutality.


FTFY.
 
2014-05-07 12:48:44 PM  

Frank N Stein: Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them


It's only "being pushed over" if you let it silence the protest.  Any cursory reading of history shows that liberals are willing to make sacrifices to bring to moral depravity of their oppressors under the microscope.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not even willing to endure mild discomfort for what they believe in.  There were no lawn chairs at Kent State or Birmingham or Delhi.
 
2014-05-07 12:50:21 PM  

udhq: Hey, does anybody remember that time a bunch of white conservative nutters told the government to pound sand, and the government just left them alone because they didn't want to start anything?

Oops, did I say "white conservative"?  Sorry, I meant "black liberal." And by "left them alone", I meant "dropped a bomb on them, killing 5 children."  I just can't get anything right today.


The one where the government later called its own act unconscionable and paid out millions in damages?

I know you want to make this a full on left vs. right argument, and I despise these idiot ranchers and their ethos.  However, we also have WACO, where a bunch of right-wing nutters got taken out (depending on which story you want to believe, I guess - though I would find it amusing if the farkers who don't trust the cops or government ever will take their word for it in this thread at this time that the fire was an accident because it suits the narrative of the moment).  

Now we have today, where the government is taking the time and care reduce the chance of such an incident occurring again.  It isn't because Bundy is a right-wing, it is because the government finally learned its lesson and has other methods to use and hopefully the maintained patience to use them.  I won't take two actions 20 years apart and conclude that 20 years of government response have been based on left vs. right wing politics unless you bring me more information supporting it.  The FBI itself, even under Bush, was concluding that right-wing hate groups posed the most likely threat of domestic terrorism. If the FBI and other government agencies are so compromised by right/left bias, why would those reports exist?

And honestly, when it is possible, I prefer my law enforcement to take their sweet time.  We had a barricaded gunman in the area last summer and the cops just blocked the street for 12 hours and he got tired and gave up.  Could the cops have stormed in and won? Sure.  But why not just hang back and do nothing a while if the guy barricaded in his house is not doing anything at the moment?  They should not have bombed MOVE, and they probably made the right decision not to press for a shootout in the Bundy incident.
 
2014-05-07 12:55:09 PM  

udhq: And don't even get me started on the treatment of so-called "eco-terrorists" who have never killed ANYONE on record, vs. the treatment of pro-life terrorists who have killed hundreds.....


Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers.  Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?
 
2014-05-07 01:03:05 PM  
Has anyone pointed out that OWS was stupid because the dirty hippies in the park all sold drugs with their iPhones and that a literal interpretation of the "1%" would include three million people who are not all exactly identical to each other in every way, and therefore every criticism of wealth inequality is invalid?
 
2014-05-07 01:07:12 PM  

Smackledorfer: I know you want to make this a full on left vs. right argument, and I despise these idiot ranchers and their ethos. However, we also have WACO, where a bunch of right-wing nutters got taken out (depending on which story you want to believe, I guess - though I would find it amusing if the farkers who don't trust the cops or government ever will take their word for it in this thread at this time that the fire was an accident because it suits the narrative of the moment).


If you honestly believe that government agents set 3 separate fires with accelerants within the Waco compound, then there's really nothing more to discuss.  I'll take the ruling of multiple independent investigations over the conspiracy theories based on the words of a psychotic pedophile who wanted nothing more than martyrdom, and repeatedly said as much.

I for one, prefer to live in a country where the rule of law is enforced without regard to the political views or weapons ownership of the suspect.  If someone thinks they have a right to violently oppose the rule of law, they should be met with overwhelming force.  Otherwise, you get situations like in Bunkerville, where a small patch of the United States has essentially come under the rule of a 3rd-world style warlord.
 
2014-05-07 01:08:32 PM  

rewind2846: How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them?


This is extremely vague, and I am not sure how to respond without you saying I put words in your mouth.  But the simplest answer is: our political system's greatest failure is lack of participation by the people.

rewind2846: Anyone put forth as a spokesperson would either be destroyed through accusations, dirty tricks and innuendo (no one is perfectly clean),


Tons of people make it through massive levels of scandal. It is by no means guaranteed that anyone tying themselves to OWS would immediately or easily destroyed.  Conservatives cannot even succeed in destroying Al Sharpton. You think they would easily wipe out someone taking the populist view on income inequality?

Also, while everyone has SOME dirt on them, not everyone has major skeletons in their closet. If the tea party movement has shown us anything, it is that if anything it is even harder to successfully tear apart the people riding these political waves.


rewind2846: or co-opted by all the money flowing through that system from the opposition.


Which is why we have to keep working within the system. Our grandparents shouldn't have gotten lazy, our parents shouldn't have been too busy, and we shouldn't write the system off now.  If Elizabeth Warren turns into a shill, we should be prepared to replace her.  Any democratic system, whether direct or otherwise, requires vigilance. One cannot logically point to the bad results when people are not vigilant and say the system is broken any more than republicans can reasonable cut funding to a program and later say "check it out, that program cannot work, hurpity derp".

And what system, exactly, would you replace representative democracy with? How would it perform better? Given the current problems we face could have been prevented by a more vigilant and informed voting base, in which direction is the solution?


Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.  Because the only way to change it significantly from without is a popular revolt and the creation of a new government. I doubt you are that nutty though.
 
2014-05-07 01:13:07 PM  

Smackledorfer: Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers. Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?


All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.
 
2014-05-07 01:16:27 PM  

udhq: If you honestly believe that government agents set 3 separate fires with accelerants within the Waco compound,


I highly doubt it is the case, but I doubt it more on occam's razor grounds than anything else.

You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair".  Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.

udhq: If someone thinks they have a right to violently oppose the rule of law, they should be met with overwhelming force.


So you support the bombing against MOVE, then, and wish subsequently that the Bundy incident had resulted in a shootout?


Of course, maybe someone who comes in late to a thread about an OWS protester arrested and charged and spins off into a frenzy about MOVE and ELF is just trolling to begin with or needs his meds tweaked.
 
2014-05-07 01:26:17 PM  

rewind2846: TuteTibiImperes: Sometimes it's better to work within the system.


How so? How could they justify "working within the system" when that very system is what failed them?


They could justify it by reading a farking book. Our nation has faced seemingly intractable problems in the past, and with the exception of the Civil War, we've always been able to address them within the liberal republican democratic system that our founders constructed.

Our grandparents had it harder than us during the Depression, but they still managed to summon the political will to change things. They wanted a new deal, so they supported and elected candidates that would give it to them.

Our generation isn't special; we're just the latest players in an ongoing struggle. Throwing up your hands and walking away from the process only helps those you oppose.
 
2014-05-07 01:37:48 PM  

Fenstery: The Larch: Has anyone pointed out that OWS was stupid because the dirty hippies in the park all sold drugs with their iPhones and that a literal interpretation of the "1%" would include three million people who are not all exactly identical to each other in every way, and therefore every criticism of wealth inequality is invalid?

No

It was stupid because they focused on the people benefitting from the problem not the solution

It would be as if the global warming crowd totally focused on who is benefiting from oil sales instead of calls for regulation, taxes, conservation, alternate energy, and so on. You know things that could mitigate the global warming impacts


Thank you! I imagined I had already heard every dishonest talking point designed to shutdown conversation with illogical fallacies. I'm glad you contributed another one.
 
2014-05-07 01:47:32 PM  

Smackledorfer: You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair". Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.


I haven't said anything about a conspiracy among law enforcement, you're the one making crazy, Art Bell-ish claims about Waco.  You're either responding to someone else's posts, or simply debating the things you wish I had said, because it's easier than debating the things I actually said,

I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.

And while I don't want the Bundy ranch to bombed, I wouldn't object to more of a law-enforcement presence in the area as a statement that despite your guns, you still fall under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.
 
2014-05-07 02:02:51 PM  

udhq: I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.


Is "pointing out" code for lying about the magnitude of anti-abortion deaths?

Is "pointing out" also code for ignoring things like Waco?
 
2014-05-07 02:05:40 PM  

udhq: Frank N Stein: Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them

It's only "being pushed over" if you let it silence the protest.  Any cursory reading of history shows that liberals are willing to make sacrifices to bring to moral depravity of their oppressors under the microscope.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not even willing to endure mild discomfort for what they believe in.  There were no lawn chairs at Kent State or Birmingham or Delhi.



Any cursory look into history will show that conservatives, or "the right" if you will, have also fraught and died for their beliefs. Especially in Europe. But at the risk of sounding like I'm moving goalposts, I'd like to clarify that I meant liberals in this country in contemporary times are too beholden to pacifism, and thus have essentially made themselves pushovers. 
Of course I'm sure some will jump to say "well, look at the civil rights movement. Doesn't that prove that non violence works?". Well, who continues to make up the largest portion of incarcerated people? Who continues to have high levels of poverty? 
Above all, non violent civil disobedience serves the power structure. It makes it easy to control a movement, and makes it easy to essentially disband it once a few token concessions are made
Now, there's nothing inherently violent about having guns at a protest. But it does send a clear message that the person carrying will kill another if they must. Meanwhile, OWS protesters were beaten and arrested, and the movement is all but dead.
 
2014-05-07 02:30:17 PM  

liam76: Is "pointing out" code for lying about the magnitude of anti-abortion deaths?

Is "pointing out" also code for ignoring things like Waco?


If anything I low-balled anti-abortion deaths.  You forget the thousands of women who have died because they were intimidated away from medical facilities, and into dangerous, back-alley procedures.

Also, I don't think you're making the point you think you are about Waco.  A lot of people use "Waco" as shorthand for violence by an overbearing government, when in reality it was a right-wing nut job murdering 75 people so he didn't have to face charges for his pedophilia.
 
2014-05-07 02:39:16 PM  

Smackledorfer: Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.


The system that infuses politics will billions (with a B) of dollars before a single vote is even cast. That in itself skews the result.
The system that has engineered the increase of wealth in a segment of the population unseen since the gilded age.
The system that takes what few rights the people have to privacy, to self determination, and to personhood and hands them over to corporations.
The system that actually gives legal rights to those same corporations.
The system that will try a person under 18 as an adult, but will not give that same person the rights as an adult.

I could go on all day, but I know exactly what I mean by "the system" and so did the OWS people I still communicate with. It's a shame that you don't.
The opportunities, faith and promise in this nation most of their parents and their parents parents enjoyed are goner, shipped away, bought up or sold off by people who now own more and more of everything, from the media to food production to water to medical care.

This is the most educated generation that has ever been here, people who followed the paradigms this society and their parents prompted them to, yet still they find themselves at 30 worse off than those parents were when they started in the workforce. I can hear it in my niece and her late 20-something friends... they are scared. None owns a house. Only one that I know of has a child. Just a few have 401(k) accounts, others don't bother or can't get them. My parents bought their first house at 22 in 1964, my brother bought his first at 26 in 1990, with neither of them having attended college.

And it's not that they don't want to settle down, it's that they know they can't. Any day now the job they have will dry up, and they will have to move - no house for you. When the job goes, so will school for the kids - no friends for you. They have also seen what "downsizing" has done to many of their parents, people who thought that they would actually be able to retire but who will now be working until they die. Go look at your local fast food joint and count all the middle aged (and older) people behind the counter for proof. 30 years ago the only one you would have seen was the manager.

There's your system, where the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder have made sure to remove as many of the rungs below them on their way up, and have used that power and money to make sure that not only do they stay where they are, but that no one makes any new rungs.
 
2014-05-07 02:46:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: Any cursory look into history will show that conservatives, or "the right" if you will, have also fraught and died for their beliefs. Especially in Europe. But at the risk of sounding like I'm moving goalposts, I'd like to clarify that I meant liberals in this country in contemporary times are too beholden to pacifism, and thus have essentially made themselves pushovers.
Of course I'm sure some will jump to say "well, look at the civil rights movement. Doesn't that prove that non violence works?". Well, who continues to make up the largest portion of incarcerated people? Who continues to have high levels of poverty?
Above all, non violent civil disobedience serves the power structure. It makes it easy to control a movement, and makes it easy to essentially disband it once a few token concessions are made
Now, there's nothing inherently violent about having guns at a protest. But it does send a clear message that the person carrying will kill another if they must. Meanwhile, OWS protesters were beaten and arrested, and the movement is all but dead.


Your not entirely wrong in this point, but I would still disagree on the best long-term strategy for social change.

Yes, African American people are still not equal.  But I can't think of another example in human history where a subjugated people have come so far in such a relatively short length of time.

On the other hand, take Israel; Most people in the world community acknowledged the moral legitimacy of the modern state of Israel amid it's founding in 1948. And though I wouldn't place the blame for the ongoing conflict on their shoulders alone, their embrace of violence and militarism has created a shift wherein I believe we're inevitably heading towards a 2 state solution.  That would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

Or look at Bundy.  He clearly sees himself as an American version of the Tienanmen Square tank man.  Most of the public, however, see him as a thug using his weapons to steal from the American people.  He may have bought himself a few weeks of time due to our inherent cultural biases, but because he resorted to using the threat of violence, he is clearly not going to go down in history as the hero he seems to think he is.
 
2014-05-07 03:09:19 PM  

Fenstery: Worked for suffrage, civil rights, gay rights.


Those are easy things to verbalize.

Suffrage: Give women suffrage.
Civil rights: Codify civil rights.
Gay rights: Codify gay rights.

Economic policy is a maze of tax laws, benefits laws, spending practices, deceptive and misleading propaganda, lobbyists, etc., etc. Lawmakers are supposed to be able to find solutions to these complex problems.

It's like going to IT to say, "My computer is broken. It's not working right." You shouldn't have to be able to say you have a bad RAM module in slot 3 before it gets fixed. You should be able to describe the problem and let the expert figure out how to fix it.
 
2014-05-07 03:11:10 PM  

firefly212: tbeatty: some_beer_drinker: this is outrageous. she is a political prisoner of the 1%

whidbey: Maybe she'll get parole after a couple of years.

But yeah, this is bullshiat. I would be appealing the fark out of this ruling.

hurr durr derp derp derp.  How do appeals work? (hint: the appeals court only considers the law, not facts of the case already determined by the jury - what process or law did you think the judge missed or were you just hurr durring outrage?)

It's idiotic reasoning like yours that led her to court and felony conviction of violence.  I doubt she'll get any prison time that is beyond 3 months.  Her problem is turning down a misdemeanor plea bargain to double down with a violent felony.  That will show up on any future traffic stop on the cops computer (they flag assault on a LEO for the rest of her life) and every single job background report.  Also, she loses her right to vote and is pretty much banned from international travel as most countries reject visits by violent felons.  Congratulations on turning the misdemeanor disorderly conduct plea bargain into convicted felon!  I hope she was silver spoon protester that has a fat lawyer bill so the taxpayer isn't funding any more of her stupidity.

But keep choking that chicken.  You and she need this bit of Faber wisdom: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."

How about a face full of STFU?. (she lost at court too).

[www.arktimes.com image 500x281]

tbeatty, the judge made some questionable decisions by not allowing the jury to hear that the officer in question has numerous violations on his record for excessive force, and has filed inaccurate police reports. In a case that hedged so heavily on testimony, as the video was not allowed into evidence, the judge made it a he said/she said case, but nixed the ability of the defense to point out that the officer in question has been caught lying before and using excessive force before. IMO, if she gets decent lawyers, she has a shot on ...


exactly she has every right to appeal that the judge decided those elements incorrectly

The is like a perfect storm of the LEO appology brigade meeting the faulty FARK law license brigade.
 
2014-05-07 03:15:07 PM  

udhq: Smackledorfer: You, otoh, trust "independent agencies" while ranting about a conspiracy level of bias within those very agencies. That is my point.

You aren't really making any logical argument beyond pointing to two events 20 years apart and screaming "why can't we bomb them too, no fair". Well, I don't want a government so incapable of change that it feels the need to repeat a terrible action against a group on side because it wants to be fair to the other side.

I haven't said anything about a conspiracy among law enforcement, you're the one making crazy, Art Bell-ish claims about Waco.  You're either responding to someone else's posts, or simply debating the things you wish I had said, because it's easier than debating the things I actually said,

I have, on the other hand, pointed out our cultural bias that accepts violence against blacks and liberals, but not against whites and conservatives.

And while I don't want the Bundy ranch to bombed, I wouldn't object to more of a law-enforcement presence in the area as a statement that despite your guns, you still fall under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.


That last paragraph is quite the walkback from 'smash with overwhelming force'.

And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.

A more sane explanation is that they've simply gotten better over the twenty years since MOVE, and not a twenty year bias.
 
2014-05-07 03:16:11 PM  

udhq: Smackledorfer: Please get started. Tell us how great ELF is and the details of unequal treatment of abortion bombers and eco-bombers. Which pro-life terrorists were treated well after killing hundreds, and which big name eco-terrorists received excessive responses after bombing stuff and setting fires?

All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.


This is an insanely idiotic response.
 
2014-05-07 03:17:44 PM  

rewind2846: Smackledorfer: Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.

The system that infuses politics will billions (with a B) of dollars before a single vote is even cast. That in itself skews the result.
The system that has engineered the increase of wealth in a segment of the population unseen since the gilded age.
The system that takes what few rights the people have to privacy, to self determination, and to personhood and hands them over to corporations.
The system that actually gives legal rights to those same corporations.
The system that will try a person under 18 as an adult, but will not give that same person the rights as an adult.

I could go on all day, but I know exactly what I mean by "the system" and so did the OWS people I still communicate with. It's a shame that you don't.
The opportunities, faith and promise in this nation most of their parents and their parents parents enjoyed are goner, shipped away, bought up or sold off by people who now own more and more of everything, from the media to food production to water to medical care.

This is the most educated generation that has ever been here, people who followed the paradigms this society and their parents prompted them to, yet still they find themselves at 30 worse off than those parents were when they started in the workforce. I can hear it in my niece and her late 20-something friends... they are scared. None owns a house. Only one that I know of has a child. Just a few have 401(k) accounts, others don't bother or can't get them. My parents bought their first house at 22 in 1964, my brother bought his first at 26 in 1990, with neither of them having attended college.

And it's not that they don't want to settle down, it's that they know they can't. Any day now the job they have will dry up, and they will have to move - no house for you. When the job goes, so will school for the kids - no friends for you. They have also seen what "downsizing" has done to many of their parents, people who thought that they would actually be able to retire but who will now be working until they die. Go look at your local fast food joint and count all the middle aged (and older) people behind the counter for proof. 30 years ago the only one you would have seen was the manager.

There's your system, where the people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder have made sure to remove as many of the rungs below them on their way up, and have used that power and money to make sure that not only do they stay where they are, but that no one makes any new rungs.


The point.

You--------------->
 
2014-05-07 03:22:36 PM  
I think this case proves that no matter how blatantly a police officer lies in court, a jury will believe him. Motherfarker couldn't even remember which side he got hit on.

Serve on juries, don't believe cops.
 
2014-05-07 03:27:53 PM  

Smackledorfer: The point.


Well, maybe I should have used fewer words. Or shorter ones. Sorry.
 
2014-05-07 03:35:48 PM  

rewind2846: Smackledorfer: The point.

Well, maybe I should have used fewer words. Or shorter ones. Sorry.


Very well, I am busy for a bit but if you prefer I'll explain paragraph by paragraph why your response missed the point entirely.

Would you like that?
 
2014-05-07 03:45:00 PM  

Fenstery: Pick your billionaire. Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Buffet, Oprah, Geffen, Koch, Bloomberg, Lucas. They didn't get there by removing rungs for others to advance. In fact, many created new ladders or higher rungs in their industries.


Bezos made his fortune on the backs of poorly compensated warehouse employees, and Bloomberg by extracting rents on Wall Street.

And the Kochs... I don't know the details of their business operations, but removing rungs on the economic ladder seems to be their favorite pastime.
 
2014-05-07 03:48:26 PM  

Fenstery: Lenny_da_Hog: Fenstery: Worked for suffrage, civil rights, gay rights.

Those are easy things to verbalize.

Suffrage: Give women suffrage.
Civil rights: Codify civil rights.
Gay rights: Codify gay rights.

Economic policy is a maze of tax laws, benefits laws, spending practices, deceptive and misleading propaganda, lobbyists, etc., etc. Lawmakers are supposed to be able to find solutions to these complex problems.

It's like going to IT to say, "My computer is broken. It's not working right." You shouldn't have to be able to say you have a bad RAM module in slot 3 before it gets fixed. You should be able to describe the problem and let the expert figure out how to fix it.

Ok
How about global warming?
That is more complex with more moving parts.

There they were able to come up a set of recommendations: alternate energy, conservation, carbon tax and credits and so on.

They didn't just whine "oh look all those oil companies and countries are benefiting from this!"


Considering climate change was discovered by a body of scientists (experts), it's a different sort of issue. Those scientists came up with the eventual necessary measures to curb it.

Still, just because protesters in the past *have* offered solutions to solve problems doesn't mean that any protests that *don't* are somehow a waste of time. Pointing out symptoms without knowing the disease just means that somebody else needs to find and treat that disease, it doesn't mean the symptoms are unimportant.
 
2014-05-07 03:52:38 PM  

Fenstery: Oh. And your IT analogy doesn't really work because (usually) IT feels the responsibility to actually solve the problem.

To use your analogy what do you do when IT is an integral part of the problem? You don't get anywhere by complaining to the CEO that your computer is broken.

OWS should have taken this to washington and forced the dialog on the tax code, the lack of regulations on finance and whatever else could improve the income inequality issue


OWS was a nationwide series of mostly local protesters who probably couldn't afford to take a long trip to Washington only to be quietly ignored or patronized by legislators.

Instead, they very cost-effectively brought the issue to the news, as protests will do. They got noticed, cheap.

What OWS accomplished was to make other people who thought, "You know, maybe I'm getting screwed by current policy" know that they weren't imagining things -- that there were a lot of other people thinking the same thing. That increased the dialogue and direction of economic policy. That is not a waste of time.
 
2014-05-07 04:26:25 PM  

Smackledorfer: Very well, I am busy for a bit but if you prefer I'll explain paragraph by paragraph why your response missed the point entirely.

Would you like that?


Please do. Use plenty of space so that I may refute your explanation, with quotes and reasoning from my friends who participated in OWS here on the west coast.

Fenstery: Pick your billionaire. Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Buffet, Oprah, Geffen, Koch, Bloomberg, Lucas. They didn't get there by removing rungs for others to advance. In fact, many created new ladders or higher rungs in their industries.


Notice that the majority of the billionaires you chose are liberals. They are not the ones cutting the rungs out BECAUSE they are liberals... that's part of what makes them liberals. Unfortunately, that label doesn't fit the majority of famous (and infamous) people in their category, and those are the ones whom OWS is protesting. It's the same as when the right tries to portray wealthy people as "the hated" and everyone else as "the envious", when what they cannot understand is that the 99% don't "envy" the 1%, what they don't like is when that 1% uses their power and money to run the lives of the 99%.

Take the Koch brothers for example... they already have more money than anyone can even count in a lifetime, yet instead of doing good works or helping people or just chillin' on a private island on a bed of hundred dollar bills, what do they do? They spend millions on campaigns to lie about Climate Change. They spend more millions on republican conservative candidates and campaigns, many of who are TeaParty candidates who want to outlaw abortion, repeal or eliminate the minimum wage, welfare, EBT and the ACA, inject their religion (and only their religion) into every facet of american life and law, and more. In essence, remaking the country and by extension the world in their own image of "Atlas Shrugged".

And why? Because they are assholes, and they can.

So yeah, it's not Speilberg or Streisand or Ellison who are being protested, and no one is being protested because they are rich... it's how they got their money and more importantly what they are doing with that money that is the catalyst for protest. They are being protested for being assholes.
 
2014-05-07 04:26:39 PM  

Smackledorfer: And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.


Again, you seem to be arguing against what you wish I was saying rather than what I've actually said.  It's much easier to win an argument when you are making up both sides, isn't it?

You're the only one here talking about law-enforcement conspiracies, I'm simply saying that societies in general tend to be biased towards the status quo.  Existing social conditions tend not to have happened by accident, so threats to that status quo (more often than not presented as liberalism) tend to be met with greater fear, hostility, and yes, violence than protest movements advocating a present or previous status quo.

And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument
 
2014-05-07 04:28:53 PM  

udhq: And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument against the point I am making.


(last line cut off)
 
2014-05-07 04:30:04 PM  

TheBigJerk: Especially considering the media, rather than organizing things directly and boosting them, was actively trying to bury them.

[i75.photobucket.com image 500x336]


Now if you are to consider that picture you posted and the general trend of police militarization, I am amazed there are so many on the left that want to get guns out of the hands of citizens.  The gun issue is probably the singular issue the right wingers are correct about.  I think your picture puts the exclamation point as to why.  Yes there was an issue of favoritism, but that isn't everything.  Police are not going to play the paramilitary beat-down game against a group of protesters that can actually fight back if pushed into a corner.  They just are not.

I'd like you to imagine how the OWS protests might have went if we where as heavily armed and ready to brandish said arms as the teatards.  Yes some bad stuff might have happened, and yet I think the police might have handled the whole affair FAR differently.  Instead they knew they had a monopoly of force and used that knowledge to further the aims of the 0.1%.

Yeah we have the moral high ground.  The moral high ground has yielded victory in the past... back when we had a real independent press.  But the 0.1% now control the media so that isn't exactly going to get us anywhere this time.  And as much as some on the left like to say how guns are useless versus our military... I'd point out that our military is used to kill the poor people of OTHER countries.  Because the servicemen are largely recruited from the poor of this country if can't really be used against us easily.  That is where the police come in.  Well the police don't have cruise missiles.  We can stand up and say enough is enough.

Next time we have a OWS type rally/protest/etc - we need to come armed.  This isn't about making threats or promoting violence.  It is about making it well known that we will defend ourselves this time, should the tragic need arise.  It is a sad statement of fact about the state of the world and even America "the land of the free," but we may well be past the time that meaningful change can occur by pretty words alone.  When talking about guns, I think the left needs to wake the fark up to reality.
 
2014-05-07 04:37:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: All you need to know is that on September 10, 2001, it was the official position of the Bush administration that eco-terrorist groups were the #1 target of federal anti-terrorism efforts.

This is an insanely idiotic response.


It also has the unfortunate distinction of being 100% true.
 
2014-05-07 04:42:25 PM  

Fenstery: You said it "increased the dialog and direction of economic policy". Did anything actually change with regard to the economic policy?


In any other movement that you mentioned, like civil rights or climate change, did policy change overnight or did it take several years?

It's become a political issue. That's the first step. 

65% -- According to a Pew Research poll from December 2013, that's the number of Americans who think the income gap between the rich and the poor has grown in the last three years. Of those 65 percent of respondents, only 3 percent think that's a good thing. A month later, President Obama geared a large part of his State of the Union address toward that 65 percent of the population:
 
2014-05-07 05:01:22 PM  

udhq: If anything I low-balled anti-abortion deaths. You forget the thousands of women who have died because they were intimidated away from medical facilities, and into dangerous, back-alley procedures.


Those aren't deaths at the hand of "anti abortion terrorists", which was your claim.

Admit it, you pulled a number out of your ass and were grossly wrong.


udhq: Also, I don't think you're making the point you think you are about Waco. A lot of people use "Waco" as shorthand for violence by an overbearing government, when in reality it was a right-wing nut job murdering 75 people so he didn't have to face charges for his pedophilia


I am not debating that they are responsible, I am pointing out the fact that the govt was raiding a "right wing white" group using force, and were prepared for a shootout (which they got to an extent). You are wrong about the govt having double standards on actions like this based off the race or political leaning of the groups in questions.
 
2014-05-07 05:08:39 PM  

udhq: Smackledorfer: And again since you are slow: I brought up waco as an example of how the gov still uses that force against right wingers.

I mentioned the conspiracy of them lighting the fire because you insist that these government agencies knowlingly discriminate against libs.

Again, you seem to be arguing against what you wish I was saying rather than what I've actually said.  It's much easier to win an argument when you are making up both sides, isn't it?

You're the only one here talking about law-enforcement conspiracies, I'm simply saying that societies in general tend to be biased towards the status quo.  Existing social conditions tend not to have happened by accident, so threats to that status quo (more often than not presented as liberalism) tend to be met with greater fear, hostility, and yes, violence than protest movements advocating a present or previous status quo.

And I don't know how bringing up a right-wing religious conservative who murdered 75 people to avoid prosecution for child-sex abuse somehow constitutes an argument


You don't consider the multuple LE agencies working together to, using your examples, drop bombs on nutty liberals but retreat from crazy cowboys, spanning a period of over two decades, topped off with the claim that they are biased against elf but somehow friendlier to abortion clinic bombers, to be a conspiracy?

Odd.
 
2014-05-07 05:35:59 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Not lying about anything. Though I will say that by skimming that link, it's a different thread.

You got your ass handed to you in the other one. Perhaps that isn't relevant here at all, but it still formulated quite an opinion.


Put up or shut up, liar. It's not a different thread. That's a thread showing me consistently saying the cops at the actual event that you actually just cited were actually in the wrong. The thread in your imagination does not count as a Fark thread.

It's relevant because you just made it relevant. You're making shiat up, and now you've been shown point-blank that you're a bald-faced liar, and you "seem to remember" something that never happened.

Your seeming to remember does not outweigh the actual link to the actual thread that shows me saying exactly the opposite of what you just attributed to me.

It's very simple: You never saw me defending the cops in the California pepper spray incident or in any other similar situation, because it never happened.

Just apologize and move on.


It wasn't the thread I was talking about.

it's this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6749096/73187037#c73187037

And in this case, I was incorrect-- you didn't defend the officer doing the pepper spray. But you did defend the use of police cracking down on the protesters. You got your ass handed to you. Handily.

That's all. Doesn't really change any opinions.
 
2014-05-07 06:04:01 PM  

whidbey: It wasn't the thread I was talking about.

it's this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/6749096/73187037#c73187037

And in this case, I was incorrect-- you didn't defend the officer doing the pepper spray. But you did defend the use of police cracking down on the protesters. You got your ass handed to you. Handily.

That's all. Doesn't really change any opinions.


And you're still lying.

Nowhere in that thread did I ever defend the use of police.

I stated simply that the UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling the police, as had been asserted by someone else. I repeatedly said that it was poor judgment on her part, and never once said the police were justified in their actions. Those were all words put in my mouth by droolers like you.

Nobody "handed my ass to me" -- they just repeatedly mischaracterized what I had said, just as you, the lying liar, did here. You wanted an enemy, and regardless of the fact that we agree on 90% of most subject matter, you concentrate on those little niches you don't understand because I'm not part of your brainless collective.

It doesn't matter whether it was popular or not -- it was the truth. The UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling police after students did not comply with policy. It was a dickish move, and the cops made it more dickish, but she did not violate the law by calling the police.

Your inability to understand complex topics isn't my concern. Stop making shiat up, and stop taking unrelated vendettas from thread to thread, and stop lying about it.

It's that easy.
 
2014-05-07 06:34:00 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You wanted an enemy, and regardless of the fact that we agree on 90% of most subject matter, you concentrate on those little niches you don't understand because I'm not part of your brainless collective.

It doesn't matter whether it was popular or not -- it was the truth. The UC Chancellor violated no laws by calling police after students did not comply with policy. It was a dickish move, and the cops made it more dickish, but she did not violate the law by calling the police.

Your inability to understand complex topics isn't my concern. Stop making shiat up, and stop taking unrelated vendettas from thread to thread, and stop lying about it.

It's that easy.


Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here. You do have some amazing contradictions.

I do apologize however, for rudely bringing that thread up in an unrelated fashion. For what it's worth.
 
2014-05-07 06:56:04 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Nobody "handed my ass to me" -- they just repeatedly mischaracterized what I had said, just as you, the lying liar, did here.


It's whidbey, it is all he has got.

whidbey: Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here.


He said "your".

Are you dishonest enough to pretend that means "the progressive" or are you deluded enough to think you are some sort of ringleader in the progressive movement justifying conflating the two.
 
2014-05-07 06:58:30 PM  

whidbey: Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here. You do have some amazing contradictions.

I do apologize however, for rudely bringing that thread up in an unrelated fashion. For what it's worth.


It would mean more if you actually learned something from it going forth.

By the way, the progressive movement isn't the brainless collective I was talking about. It was the brainless Fark collective -- the ones who can't understand that disagreeing with one nuance of a larger event doesn't make all aspects of the Tea Party attributable to whomever is disagreeing.

I think it's funny, from a sociological vantage, just how many Pol-Tab Farkers think I'm a conservative, only because idiots like you will spend so much time putting words in my mouth after seeing those tiny nuances disputed, even when we agree on the larger issues.
 
2014-05-07 08:34:26 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: Well then all I can say is that your absolute insistence on the progressive movement as a "brainless collective" is going to earn you a lot of well-earned hostility here. You do have some amazing contradictions.

I do apologize however, for rudely bringing that thread up in an unrelated fashion. For what it's worth.

It would mean more if you actually learned something from it going forth.

By the way, the progressive movement isn't the brainless collective I was talking about. It was the brainless Fark collective -- the ones who can't understand that disagreeing with one nuance of a larger event doesn't make all aspects of the Tea Party attributable to whomever is disagreeing.

I think it's funny, from a sociological vantage, just how many Pol-Tab Farkers think I'm a conservative, only because idiots like you will spend so much time putting words in my mouth after seeing those tiny nuances disputed, even when we agree on the larger issues.


I got called a 'well known conservative troll' the other day myself.

I guess being well known is nice?
 
2014-05-07 09:54:49 PM  

liam76: They "basically" robbed them by having cows do what they have done for 15+ years. As I said above, I am fine with feds escalating it if they are threatening them with guns. I think he is a complete asshat and if he was put down whiel threatening people stopping him from stealing I would probably have a laugh over it.


Ah, no.  "The government" seized cattle which were wandering around on public property.  Thanks to Bundy's own court testimony he couldn't be sure those cows were his despite having his brand, but everybody knew they were his and that the government had legal right and court order to claim them, which they did.  The Bundy Crew showed up with guns and "took them back" by threatening the unarmed government employees and stole what was no longer theirs.

If I showed up at the IRS with a gun and demanded my money back, I'd just be committing armed robbery.  But different rules apply for different political animals

And really?  Bringing "Obama's a leftist" into it?  Even though he's
A: Right-of-center?
B: Not indicative of which political class is privileged and which political class is abused?
 
2014-05-07 10:09:18 PM  

Fenstery: rewind2846: Smackledorfer: Ranting about THE POWERS (two can play at unnecessary capitalizing) is a little silly to begin with, but I suspect you don't even know what you mean when you use a nebulous term like "the system" the way you do.

The system that infuses politics will billions (with a B) of dollars before a single vote is even cast. That in itself skews the result.
The system that has engineered the increase of wealth in a segment of the population unseen since the gilded age.
The system that takes what few rights the people have to privacy, to self determination, and to personhood and hands them over to corporations.
The system that actually gives legal rights to those same corporations.
The system that will try a person under 18 as an adult, but will not give that same person the rights as an adult.

I could go on all day, but I know exactly what I mean by "the system" and so did the OWS people I still communicate with. It's a shame that you don't.
The opportunities, faith and promise in this nation most of their parents and their parents parents enjoyed are goner, shipped away, bought up or sold off by people who now own more and more of everything, from the media to food production to water to medical care.

This is the most educated generation that has ever been here, people who followed the paradigms this society and their parents prompted them to, yet still they find themselves at 30 worse off than those parents were when they started in the workforce. I can hear it in my niece and her late 20-something friends... they are scared. None owns a house. Only one that I know of has a child. Just a few have 401(k) accounts, others don't bother or can't get them. My parents bought their first house at 22 in 1964, my brother bought his first at 26 in 1990, with neither of them having attended college.

And it's not that they don't want to settle down, it's that they know they can't. Any day now the job they have will dry up, and they will have to move - no h ...


Actually several of them engages in unethical/illegal activities while moving to the top.  Outsourcing, lobbying for lax H1 Visa applicants and environmental regulations, legal bullying, tax evasion/manipulation, monopolies, third-world slave labor, and trademark trolling.

That isn't all of them, of course, and now that they are on top they are admittedly better global citizens. But to get on top, they had to climb upon stories of corpses.
 
2014-05-07 11:50:02 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It would mean more if you actually learned something from it going forth.


Oh fark off.

*favorited!*

You arrogant fark.
 
2014-05-07 11:50:55 PM  

liam76: It's whidbey, it is all he has got.


*favorited!*
 
2014-05-07 11:52:58 PM  
Oh I see. Another trolling fark Filter.

Both of you are no longer worthy of discussion anymore as far as I'm concerned. I hope that's a lot clearer.
 
2014-05-07 11:54:24 PM  
Wow. Never mind.
 
2014-05-08 12:38:19 AM  

MFAWG: I just can't make a judgement without a picture of the boob in question.


www.popularresistance.org
 
2014-05-08 04:15:55 AM  

whidbey: hurr durr derp derp derp.  I shiat on the threads by linking to other threads and then get mad when people complain about my threadshiatting.


You ARE the braintrust of the mindless collective.  Congratulations! Are you hall monitor of the special needs home this week?
 
2014-05-08 05:07:19 AM  

Frank N Stein: udhq: Frank N Stein: Seems to me that being beaten and sexually assaults is being pushed the fark over pretty hard. Meanwhile, rightist protestors carry around guns openly and the police are scared to fark with them

It's only "being pushed over" if you let it silence the protest.  Any cursory reading of history shows that liberals are willing to make sacrifices to bring to moral depravity of their oppressors under the microscope.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not even willing to endure mild discomfort for what they believe in.  There were no lawn chairs at Kent State or Birmingham or Delhi.


Any cursory look into history will show that conservatives, or "the right" if you will, have also fraught and died for their beliefs. Especially in Europe. But at the risk of sounding like I'm moving goalposts, I'd like to clarify that I meant liberals in this country in contemporary times are too beholden to pacifism, and thus have essentially made themselves pushovers.


They are only pushovers if they don't get up after being pushed over. And then do it again and again. The OWS needs to regroup and try again.
 
2014-05-08 05:29:48 AM  

whidbey: Wow. Never mind.


Your ego won't allow it.

I'll bet you'll be refreshing with the option checked and trying to get another "zinger" on an imaginary enemy before the end of the month.
 
2014-05-08 06:50:49 AM  

TheBigJerk: Ah, no. "The government" seized cattle which were wandering around on public property.


And why were they seized? Because he was stealing the use of govt land.

TheBigJerk: If I showed up at the IRS with a gun and demanded my money back, I'd just be committing armed robbery. But different rules apply for different political animals


No. This woudl be the IRS taking your car and then deciding not to if you had a hundred or so nuts with gubns talking abotu how you theyw ere readyt o die defending yoru car, and willing to put the women up front to get shot and make the govt look bad.

Lets be clear here, I hate Bundy and clowns with him, and woudl have absolutley no problem if they were shot for their BS, I am just adult enough to admit that most politicians aren't going to want a mess that is likely to turn that violent on their hands.


TheBigJerk: And really? Bringing "Obama's a leftist" into it? Even though he's
A: Right-of-center?
B: Not indicative of which political class is privileged and which political class is abused


In the context of this conversation (american politics) he is "leftist".
When somebody is says that the govt treats right wing nuts with kid gloves and only uses force with left wingers, they are bringing up what our leaders think of these groups.

tbeatty: whidbey: hurr durr derp derp derp.  I shiat on the threads by linking to other threads and then get mad when people complain about my threadshiatting.

You ARE the braintrust of the mindless collective.  Congratulations! Are you hall monitor of the special needs home this week?


It isn't just the threadshiatting, it is the linking other threads and lying about what is in them.
 
2014-05-08 07:25:18 AM  

Fenstery: Wendy's Chili: Fenstery: Pick your billionaire. Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Buffet, Oprah, Geffen, Koch, Bloomberg, Lucas. They didn't get there by removing rungs for others to advance. In fact, many created new ladders or higher rungs in their industries.

Bezos made his fortune on the backs of poorly compensated warehouse employees, and Bloomberg by extracting rents on Wall Street.

And the Kochs... I don't know the details of their business operations, but removing rungs on the economic ladder seems to be their favorite pastime.

Yes. It is clear that you don't know anything about their business operations if you think that is their favorite pastime.


What do their business operations have to do with their pastime? Do you know what pastime means?

You also don't seem to know how bloomberg made his money

At Salomon Brothers... on Wall Street. Exactly as I said.

As for bezos, meh. Based on what you wrote I bet you never bought anything from amazon or any other online retailer.

Aside from Instant Video, which, correct me if I'm wrong, does not come from a warehouse, no, I have never bought anything from Amazon. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Also, they're not going to sleep with you.

...ok, maybe Bloomberg will.
 
2014-05-08 07:29:03 AM  

Smackledorfer: And also:

BeesNuts: Sort of, "Loud Noises Everyone Agrees With!"
"This will never work!  Stop."
*stops.  doesn't work.*
"WHY DID YOU LISTEN TO US!?"

Case in point, this is NOT what the first group you described said. They never said stop, they said 'you need clearer messages, better media handling, and better organizing".  I don't know how my taking time to talk to them would have changed this in any way. Who was them? Where was I supposed to speak with them? Who was I supposed to support for a legislative position that backed their ideas?

Don't get me wrong, if I cared more about the topic I guess I might have done more. But that is life. People have lives to live and mortgages to pay, and we cannot all get on the back of the bus in protest. The people who do feel strongly enough to do so and get in that situation need to understand this and work with our lazy asses, or they may as well stay home too. Is that sad? Sure. Is it reality? Yea. Even the tea party understood that. Sure it wasn't as grassroots, but neither did it turn away politicians who wished to join the movement.


The media is to blame too of course, but without pushing the names of a few leaders of the movement to get out there and run for office or show up for interviews, even a sympathetic media would be hard pressed to do a whole lot different. Had they picked random people out of the crowds they may have made OWS look even worse.


Will it make you feel better if I say I wasn't talking about people being apathetic as the problem, but people claiming to support the message while actively undermining it?

I really just ran out of farks to give about how people feel about my perception of why they weren't more successful.
 
2014-05-08 07:53:08 AM  

liam76: TheBigJerk: Ah, no. "The government" seized cattle which were wandering around on public property.

And why were they seized? Because he was stealing the use of govt land.


And who told you that?
Just think on that for a moment...
 
2014-05-08 09:28:39 AM  
She says he sexually assaulted her and has photographic evidence of her massive hand shaped tit-bruise from the encounter.  I don't really see why there's a problem with her trying to throw all the force she could handle into elbowing him in the face if that's true.

Haven't seen the video but frankly police tell the most self-serving lies in their sworn statements that I think we should give more credence to the accused than police.  They don't have an institution coaching them on lying and cheating, and protecting them from the consequences of their own criminal actions.
 
2014-05-08 10:58:32 AM  

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: And also:

BeesNuts: Sort of, "Loud Noises Everyone Agrees With!"
"This will never work!  Stop."
*stops.  doesn't work.*
"WHY DID YOU LISTEN TO US!?"

Case in point, this is NOT what the first group you described said. They never said stop, they said 'you need clearer messages, better media handling, and better organizing".  I don't know how my taking time to talk to them would have changed this in any way. Who was them? Where was I supposed to speak with them? Who was I supposed to support for a legislative position that backed their ideas?

Don't get me wrong, if I cared more about the topic I guess I might have done more. But that is life. People have lives to live and mortgages to pay, and we cannot all get on the back of the bus in protest. The people who do feel strongly enough to do so and get in that situation need to understand this and work with our lazy asses, or they may as well stay home too. Is that sad? Sure. Is it reality? Yea. Even the tea party understood that. Sure it wasn't as grassroots, but neither did it turn away politicians who wished to join the movement.


The media is to blame too of course, but without pushing the names of a few leaders of the movement to get out there and run for office or show up for interviews, even a sympathetic media would be hard pressed to do a whole lot different. Had they picked random people out of the crowds they may have made OWS look even worse.

Will it make you feel better if I say I wasn't talking about people being apathetic as the problem, but people claiming to support the message while actively undermining it?

I really just ran out of farks to give about how people feel about my perception of why they weren't more successful.


Fair enough.
 
2014-05-08 11:01:27 AM  

Super_pope: She says he sexually assaulted her and has photographic evidence of her massive hand shaped tit-bruise from the encounter.  I don't really see why there's a problem with her trying to throw all the force she could handle into elbowing him in the face if that's true.

Haven't seen the video but frankly police tell the most self-serving lies in their sworn statements that I think we should give more credence to the accused than police.  They don't have an institution coaching them on lying and cheating, and protecting them from the consequences of their own criminal actions.


1. Watch the video.
2. What kind of boob fondler leaves a hand shaped bruise? That is like me accusing the neighbor of breaking down my door and supplying a front door that has a cartoonish neighbor-shaped hole cut out.
 
2014-05-08 11:21:45 AM  

Smackledorfer: What kind of boob fondler leaves a hand shaped bruise?


I dunno, but cops beat their wives at twice the rate of other Americans, and have a host of other incredibly damning statistics about raping/hurting/killing people at DRAMATICALLY higher rates per-capita than anyone else.

When someone says they did something violent and inappropriate the default position should probably be that they did.
 
2014-05-08 11:48:39 AM  

Super_pope: I dunno, but cops beat their wives at twice the rate of other Americans, and have a host of other incredibly damning statistics about raping/hurting/killing people at DRAMATICALLY higher rates per-capita than anyone else.

When someone says they did something violent and inappropriate the default position should probably be that they did.


That was pretty stupid.  Even if cops were saints, criminals aren't, so you would always see a large amount of complaints against them relative to the amount of bad things the cop actually do (fwiw I agree, due to the nature of the job position attracting authoritarians is quite likely to mean they have double the normal rate of domestic violence). So no, it does not become "probable" that any complaint against a cop is accurate.  That is absurd on its face. In this particular case we have a woman who also has shown willingness to lie about why she was there in the first place: first in an interview saying she was there to protest, then later saying she was just walking along minding her own business. She is exactly the type of person who would lie about what the cop did.


That said, all claims against police should be investigated. I am not in any way saying complaints against them should be dismissed.  Not only should they not be above the law in any case, they should be held to a greater level of investigate inquiry than others.

Read Lenny's posts in this thread. Better yet, watch the actual video.
 
Displayed 270 of 270 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report