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  
•       •       •

3568 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 11:47 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report