Younger People Are Angry

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Good thing this hippie was arrested before he threw a molotov.

 

http://i.imgur.com/5ANIV.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/pz1jt.jpg

 

 

In most Departments Officers who retire in good standing are allowed to keep their dress uniform and to display it at official events and memorial ceremonies. They are not allowed to use it for their political purposes. The insignia and uniform belong to the Department not to the retiree. He will almost certainly lose that uniform.

 

Additionally retirees are supplied an I.D. card which allows them to continue to carry, concealed if they wish, a handgun more or less regardless of them traveling outside the jurisdictional boundary of their Department. He will have that I.D. revoked if he is convicted of a crime.

 

I am certain he knew this. That he proceeded regardless may make him a man of concious.

[WaterMan]

I happen to agree with that. Where I lose them is where they apparently believe that an appropriate response to this is to sit in a park, strain municipal resources, and inconvenience their fellow citizens.

 

It's a non violent sit down protest. The strain on the municipal resources shouldn't be happening as 99%(punny) of them aren't acting as criminals. The amount of resources they are using is an example of government spending out of control. Why waste mace/rubber bullets/man power/gas for the cars on people that are sitting down or just standing around?

Edited November 19, 2011 by WaterMan

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It's a non violent sit down protest. The strain on the municipal resources shouldn't be happening as 99%(punny) of them aren't acting as criminals. The amount of resources they are using is an example of government spending out of control. Why waste mace/rubber bullets/man power/gas for the cars on people that are sitting down or just standing around?

 

 

I agree that confrontation gives them status they would not otherwise have. I question who seeks that confrontation as the protestors themselves seem to understand that without confrontation they are not particularly relevent.

 

I do know this, movements need to move. This one is stalled by its lack of a goal or direction.

[gbpfan1231]

It's an interesting exercise to try to sum up their message. Right wing propaganda has it that their message is "give me everything I want". In fact, that would be the message of the baby boomers more than any other group.

 

Here's a couple of one sentence attempts to sum up what is (or ought to be) their message:

 

Politicians and business are in cahoots to enrich each other and to hell with the vast majority

The economy is rigged to benefit relatively few rather than as many as possible

I guess I tend to disagree with you a bit and maybe I am missing your real point...

 

What is vast majority and what is realatively few or as many as possible? What specific things are you referring to when you say cahoots and rigged?

 

I come from the point of what I know and see around me. You seem like you have a decent job and you are not poor and have no issues feeding your family and taking the occasional vacation and it seems you live a good life. What did politicians and businesses do to you to stop you from becoming wealthy?

 

Look around you and when you see someone who lives a good life and is comfortable ask yourself if that person has made decent decisions in his/her life and I am guessing that answer is YES. Now when you see people that are living a tough life and poor and if you ask yourself that same question I am pretty sure that when you compare your answers to the other people you find that it usually comes down to decisions made in life more than politicians and businesses that have an influence.

 

If I look at the 20 families closest to me I see a range of success and for the most part it is people who work hard and make good decisions live a good life. I have friends who are lazy did not work hard in college - put little to no effort into work and they do not live as comfortable as others.

 

It sure does not seem to me by the actions of the OWS people that monday thru Friday they are hard at work and striving to make a better life for themselves.

 

In my opinion the biggest problem with people today is that they do not work or make decisions in life to better themselves - they think or assume that is the job of others. I am successful and live a comfirtable life - am I rich? Hell NO but I do know that it the biggest reason why I currently live a comfortable life is because of what I have done and part of that is that I have never wanted help or handouts.

 

I did not get any breaks on my mortgage - I did not take advanatge of the cash for clunkers - I have never recieved money from the government - kinda seems like the system is rigged against the people who make good decisions in life.

[WaterMan]

http://imgur.com/U6bXA

[Ursa Majoris]

More to chew over.

 

Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

 

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

 

It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.

 

The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20%-- raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms-- the most "rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent."

 

Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed-- and volatile-- source of household income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.

 

No wonder the super wealthy plutocrats obtained the largest share of national income-- 25% of the nation's wealth- greater than any other industrial nation in the the period of 1979 to 2005. Make no mistake; after unemployment-- this disparity between the 1%-- 3 million-- or the 0.1%-- the 300,000-- and the other 312 million citizens of the U.S. has become the major theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement-- and an important national debate.

 

I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that " We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class-- or ultimately face increased social unrest.

[Square]

I happen to agree with that. Where I lose them is where they apparently believe that an appropriate response to this is to sit in a park, strain municipal resources, and inconvenience their fellow citizens.

I guess I don't really see how sitting in a park, straining municipal resources, and inconveniencing their fellow citizens makes that much of a difference if you actually agree with the main part of their message. Hey, it'd be nice if we could just all vote on proposal 15 and get the top 1% to stop buying politicians to benefit themselves and forgetting about the majority of Americans, but I don't think plutocracies put themselves on the ballot. I mean you say you agree with what Ursa summed up, but before that you said you don't really know what their "message" is. Despite the main point being fairly obvious from early on. Yea, a lot of hippies with bullhorns might have said numerous crazy things but extremists try to hijack a cause for personal gain the same way that political parties do. If you don't think that our country has a problem, then that's up to you. I've seen enough evidence to believe that the have's are buying the government and they are both lining their pockets at the expense of the majority of Americans. I think we all knew this was going on some, but to the extent where only the uber rich are actually increasing their take is unsustainable and dangerous.

[bushwacked]

I think it's safe to say the cop at UC Davis pepper spraying students brings instant fuel, and instant sympathy, for the OWS moment.

[bushwacked]

I do know this, movements need to move. This one is stalled by its lack of a goal or direction.

 

 

Meh,,,why do they "need to move?" Immediate political movement isn't the basis of OWS, as far as I can tell. The tea party was very successful in "moving." They "moved" in making the Repub POTUS nomination a real-life Monty Python skit. The tea party has also "moved" in Congress and now they have historically low approval.

 

While I agree hippies playing bongos can only do so much, I think you are missing the larger point and how it's moving the mainstream political mindset. I think's its hard to grab onto the OWS, but it's not any less palatable than the teatard thing. At least, that's the anecdotal impression I get from my 80 year old anti- hippie parents and objectively looking at the numbers.

[gbpfan1231]

I think it's safe to say the cop at UC Davis pepper spraying students brings instant fuel, and instant sympathy, for the OWS moment.

Not for me.

 

They were obviously not moving when LAW ENFORCEMENT asked them to disperse. So law enforcement pepper sprayed them and they still did not move.

 

Then seeing all the other bystanders trying to film and take pictures made me even more angry at these people. They are a bunch of useless hippies that would not take a job if offered one - no sympathy for them at all - Again - it comes down to decisions made in life - when I have police officers asking me to disperse I do - they did not and the consequence of that was pepper spray.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Meh,,,why do they "need to move?" Immediate political movement isn't the basis of OWS, as far as I can tell. The tea party was very successful in "moving." They "moved" in making the Repub POTUS nomination a real-life Monty Python skit. The tea party has also "moved" in Congress and now they have historically low approval.

 

While I agree hippies playing bongos can only do so much, I think you are missing the larger point and how it's moving the mainstream political mindset. I think's its hard to grab onto the OWS, but it's not any less palatable than the teatard thing. At least, that's the anecdotal impression I get from my 80 year old anti- hippie parents and objectively looking at the numbers.

 

 

Because this is the media age. The media will follow along only so long as we are amused or interested. As soon as they bore and annoy us the whole thing is over. That goes for social media too. The first dozen of so times we saw videos of tazerings on the net we al looked. Now when a new one comes along we are hardly interested or outraged. Same thing here. We are a people of a limited attention span and quite frankly this story is already stale and boring. To sustain it must move forward.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Not for me.

 

They were obviously not moving when LAW ENFORCEMENT asked them to disperse. So law enforcement pepper sprayed them and they still did not move.

 

Then seeing all the other bystanders trying to film and take pictures made me even more angry at these people. They are a bunch of useless hippies that would not take a job if offered one - no sympathy for them at all - Again - it comes down to decisions made in life - when I have police officers asking me to disperse I do - they did not and the consequence of that was pepper spray.

 

Can you really look at the video of the police going back and forth spraying pepper spray in the faces of people sitting on the ground and think that it was justified somehow? If they are breaking the law then arrest them. I thought pepper spray was to subdue someone that was resisting arrest.

 

So what "consequence" in your opinion is going too far? Mace? German Shepards? Fire hoses?

 

My wife walked in while I was watching that video and she thought that it happened somewhere overseas. She was even more shocked when I told her that it happened here in CA.

 

I don't care if its OWS, the Tea Party or whatever group. When I see people being treated like that by the police I think it's wrong.

Edited November 22, 2011 by SayItAintSoJoe

[Boilerduff]

What the hell is wrong with the OWSers having solidarity with the guy that took the pot shot at the president? Moment of silence for him are you serious? Any legitimacy OWS may have had to me is over, not that there was a whole lot to start with.. Revering in an assasination attempt on our sitting president is unacepptable!

 

OWS'ers make police to be the bad guys, but they have no problem breaking the law. These guys in blue have risked their lives to protect us. My guessis if you do what the law enforcement people say, you won't get a baton to the head of pepper spray in the face. If you do not listen to the police, and after several warnings, continue to disobey, you got what you deserved, sitting standing or otherwise. Thank you police officers for helping to keep us safe.

 

Yes, the whole bad apple argument applies, there are bad cops. It's enevitiable. I don't think that is what we are dealing with at Davis. How out numbered were the police officers? Did the protesters listen to the policemen trying to do their jobs? I don't think they did.

It's time for these protesters to go away, and try to find some other legal way to express themselves.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

My guessis if you do what the law enforcement people say, you won't get a baton to the head of pepper spray in the face. If you do not listen to the police, and after several warnings, continue to disobey, you got what you deserved, sitting standing or otherwise.

 

The civil rights marchers in the 60’s that were peacefully protesting didn’t listen to police either when they were told that they could not march.

 

Did they get what they deserved?

 

The fire hoses and the dogs… did they deserve that?

[Yukon Cornelius]

The civil rights marchers in the 60’s that were peacefully protesting didn’t listen to police either when they were told that they could not march.

 

Did they get what they deserved?

 

The fire hoses and the dogs… did they deserve that?

dont forget those teenagers trying to go to school in the south a few years back.

[Ursa Majoris]

Can you really look at the video of the police going back and forth spraying pepper spray in the faces of people sitting on the ground and think that it was justified somehow? If they are breaking the law then arrest them. I thought pepper spray was to subdue someone that was resisting arrest.

 

So what "consequence" in your opinion is going too far? Mace? German Shepards? Fire hoses?

 

My wife walked in while I was watching that video and she thought that it happened somewhere overseas. She was even more shocked when I told her that it happened here in CA.

 

I don't care if its OWS, the Tea Party or whatever group. When I see people being treated like that by the police I think it's wrong.

This.

 

What really amazes me is the acquiescence of people like Boilerduff and GBP. I wonder what their limits are? I ask this seriously - where is the line drawn? Does any disobedience warrant an automatic pepper spray? Baton to the head? Incarceration without charge? What?

 

There are serious historical precedents to blind support of authority.

[SEC=UGA]

The civil rights marchers in the 60’s that were peacefully protesting didn’t listen to police either when they were told that they could not march.

 

Did they get what they deserved?

 

The fire hoses and the dogs… did they deserve that?

 

Technically, yes. The cops went a little overboard, just a tad, but, when you unlawfully assemble...

 

The major difference to me is that I agreed with what the civil rights protesters were fighting for, they were fighting to be treated like the rest of the US populace.

 

Further, the civil rights protesters could articulate their position and clearly state their grievances. Their positions, for the most part, were moderate and made sense.

 

OWS on the other hand... well, let me just say, when you appoint a dog as the head of your group, you have a tendency to lose some legitimacy.

Edited November 22, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[SEC=UGA]

This.

 

What really amazes me is the acquiescence of people like Boilerduff and GBP. I wonder what their limits are? I ask this seriously - where is the line drawn? Does any disobedience warrant an automatic pepper spray? Baton to the head? Incarceration without charge? What?

 

There are serious historical precedents to blind support of authority.

 

There is a point at which civil disobedience has ramifications, it is part of the game. The intent of civil disobedience is to target the power structure, to force it to react to said disobedience. At some point those participating in the disobedience are going to be arrested, maced, hosed, batoned, etc... They will then point to the fact that they were merely sitting there, minding their own business and the oppressive regime against which they are fighting silenced them, brutally and without cause.

 

These protesters know what they are about to reap, they went into this full cognizant that at some ultimate point, there would be action taken by the authority. What they don't realize is that when authority reacts it can be quite discomforting.

 

Pepper spray, I believe, is the nicest, least damaging means for officers to disperse protesters. It is non-lethal, the effects wear off relatively quickly, and it keeps the recipient in a state where they are less dangerous to the officers so that the protest doesn't escalate into a more serious confrontation. Batons, tasers, even physically/forcefully removing people can lead to much more serious injuries and confrontations.

[Jimmy Neutron]

This.

 

What really amazes me is the acquiescence of people like Boilerduff and GBP. I wonder what their limits are? I ask this seriously - where is the line drawn? Does any disobedience warrant an automatic pepper spray? Baton to the head? Incarceration without charge? What?

 

There are serious historical precedents to blind support of authority.

 

Bingo.

 

I also think the media is taking the public for a ride with the "coverage" of these events. Much like the tea party, the movement is being misrepresented by the press and cast in a light that does not reflect the general character of participants. "Nothing to see here, just some fringe whackos..."

[Redfish]

Technically, yes. The cops went a little overboard, just a tad, but, when you unlawfully assemble...

 

The major difference to me is that I agreed with what the civil rights protesters were fighting for, they were fighting to be treated like the rest of the US populace.

 

Further, the civil rights protesters could articulate their position and clearly state their grievances. Their positions, for the most part, were moderate and made sense.

 

OWS on the other hand... well, let me just say, when you appoint a dog as the head of your group, you have a tendency to lose some legitimacy.

 

While I agree with your comparison to the Civil Rights protesters, I want to add one thing: At the time, the CR guys were viewed as renegades and hellions when judged against the norms of the era. Same thing may apply to the overall purpose of OWS now. Twenty years from now, we may look back and be thankful that the serious-minded among this group started a revolution that led to more accountability from our elected officials and a higher level of corporate responsibility. Now, some generalizations about the perspective from which I approach this whole thing:

 

Me:

 

Conservative dude, tending toward libertarian

Not quite 1%, but certainly in the top 3%

Big believer in work ethic, self-made breaks, persistence and self-reliance

Huge supporter of the Constitution, including free speech and assembly

Try to be open-minded when listening to opposing viewpoints

Very concerned about socialist/marxist leanings in the current administration and the apparent half of our society that think they should be given more

 

OWS:

 

Overall, probably a good thing if it leads to some accountability and increases the pressure on our elected officials to actually legislate

Good spotlight to increase awareness about the evils of money in politics and the influence of special interest (of any kind)

I perceive the movement to be a few legitimately thoughtful citizens that seek this accountability, accidentally coupled with a bunch of diptacos that want to rabble rouse, get arrested, experience the Woodstock feeling and try to get some extra free stuff. Also a concentration of anarchist punks that would oppose anything if they viewed it as status quo or mainstream.

I think they are protesting in the wrong place: should be in DC

The satellite movements in other cities are chaotic, disorganized and worthless

If I met everyone in Zucotti Park, I would have nothing but disdain for 95% of them, but I would still support their right to assemble and protest

If they are assembling on private property, have been asked to leave and refuse, they should have their butts kicked.

[gbpfan1231]

Can you really look at the video of the police going back and forth spraying pepper spray in the faces of people sitting on the ground and think that it was justified somehow? If they are breaking the law then arrest them. I thought pepper spray was to subdue someone that was resisting arrest.

 

So what "consequence" in your opinion is going too far? Mace? German Shepards? Fire hoses?

 

My wife walked in while I was watching that video and she thought that it happened somewhere overseas. She was even more shocked when I told her that it happened here in CA.

 

I don't care if its OWS, the Tea Party or whatever group. When I see people being treated like that by the police I think it's wrong.

Give me a break. I have also heard that that was pepper spray that may have been diluted - if you watch the video it sure did not look like it had a huge effect on those people.

 

So what are the police supposed to do? You don't think they tried repeatedly to have these people move and disperse in a nice peaceful way. Yes I am pretty sure they did.

 

I am ok with them using pepper spray - would I be ok with them beating them with a baton or using tasers - no.

 

So let me throw it back on you - what should they do? You seem to be against it but have no other solution?

 

Again - put yourself in that situation - if I am told by police to move I move!!!! If you don't then you should expect some sort of consequence and I am pretty sure these people knew that pepper spray was one of the consequences they might get and they still did not move.

[gbpfan1231]

This.

 

What really amazes me is the acquiescence of people like Boilerduff and GBP. I wonder what their limits are? I ask this seriously - where is the line drawn? Does any disobedience warrant an automatic pepper spray? Baton to the head? Incarceration without charge? What?

 

There are serious historical precedents to blind support of authority.

So your solution is just let them sit and no problem with letting people disobey law enforcement?

 

It was pepper spray!!! Not a baton to the head not incarceration without charge - man you really like to just throw things out there to try and put words into peoples mouths.

 

These people were asked to leave - what is your solution - maybe send them a nice sweet little letter??

[Boilerduff]

This.

 

What really amazes me is the acquiescence of people like Boilerduff and GBP. I wonder what their limits are? I ask this seriously - where is the line drawn? Does any disobedience warrant an automatic pepper spray? Baton to the head? Incarceration without charge? What?

 

There are serious historical precedents to blind support of authority.

And here is my answer.

 

It's not blind support of authority. It's respect for that authority and the rules of law. IMO, It was anything but an automatic pepper spray.

 

My point was simply this. Assemble, peacfully and get your point across. No one is supressing them. They can file for permits and peacfully assemble leagally, but they aren't. Free speech is protected in this country, and I believe they have the right to do so. It took two months for the OWS'ers to get removed from zucotti. That wasn't restraint in the handling of the protesters? You make it sound like the first day they were there they were getting beaten. They got their point across. Now organize and use the proper channels to do what you need to. What good comes from this, enciting violence from the police to get your point across?

 

I saw some other video of the pepper spray incident, there were warnings that it was coming. They stood there and shook the cans for a while. Enough for everyone one in the sitout to cover thier faces and eyes. Wrap themselves up in scarves. It looked as if they were told, get up or we're going to spray you. Repeatedly. If spraying is so bad they had time to get up and leave! Reassemble the next day, and when they come back, do what they ask! Move to a different location! Do it again, and again. You can get the attention that you are seeking, and not get sprayed, or put the police in a position that makes them forcibly remove people from a park at which they were not supposed to be. IMo, the police didn't want to do this, but they were sent to do the job of upholding the laws and rules in place.

 

I think if you resist the police, in a confrontational manner, you should expect to have them return in kind. I think we should defend those who defend us, police and rescue personel much like we do soldiers (or at least some of us, not aimed at you Ursa) . You want to say that sitting there is not confrontational, and undeserving of pepper spray, that is your right. I see people who are specifically ignoring the rules and laws of our country, ignoring those that enforce it, causing the police to elevate their tactics to do their jobs.

 

By your argument, Where should the protesters stop? Is it ok, to flip a news van, since we need to go up against the man? Should they bring clubs to ward off the evil supressors? Maybe guns knives and molotov cocktails?? Perhaps a civil war over the fact that they don't want to pay student loans back? Where does the protesters responsibility for their actions begin?

 

To equate this to the civil rights movement is disrespectful of what that was.

 

I hope that sheds some light on my positon.

[Savage Beatings]

How many Tea Party rallies ended up with people being batoned or pepper sprayed?

[bushwacked]

How many Tea Party rallies ended up with people being batoned or pepper sprayed?