By now you have known that liberal mayors across the country are ousting OWS from various encampments.
At one time, I asked why liberal mayors were turning against OWS if, as you opined, local businesses really liked OWS, and you expressed the possibility that maybe they sold out to corporate contributors.
Although the willingness of liberal mayors, like the mayor of Portland, LA, Oakland, NY, and other places to sell out does not speak well of the integrety of liberal politicians, if that is the case.
Now, SF has ordered the camp closed. It seems it is a health hazzard, partly due to the presence of human feces and canine disease.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/18/occupy-sf-camp-declared-public-health-nuisance-eviction-deadline-passes/
That is a straight line that is too obvious for me to bother with. I will just say that there have been several videos of OWS people relieving themselves in public, so this is not a surprise.
You had originally referred to an article saying that local businesses didn't mind OWS people. If you have access to the L.A. Times, today's paper has an article saying that OWS have been terrible neighbors.
When Villarogosa, and Pelosi & Co. first expressed sympathy for OWS, I thought it would be toxic for them. I didn't realize that I was literally correct.
Feces. Lovely.
-- Modified on 11/19/2011 4:10:48 PM
you had a better one than the ones I was thinking of. It would have been easy to play on the fecal aspect, as disgusting as that sounds, but working with the matter - much better
Quote :
The declaration came on Thursday, though city authorities so far are allowing the demonstrators to remain in the plaza. 
It is a pretty amazing state of affairs when a governmental agency issues orders and then does not follow up on them. I don't know if I recall anything like that.
There has to be some respect and/or fear of the rule of law. If people know that the government won't take its own orders seriously, it can be dangerous.
The declaration came on Thursday, though city authorities so far are allowing the demonstrators to remain in the plaza.
Because I say it does! Worship me! I will fertilize your crops. Or maybe I will just shit on your heads.
...to eliminate the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition their gov't for a redress of grievances.
If you want to find someone who is "pure" in their convictions, then you shouldn't look for a politician. It doesn't matter what political party they belong to. To be a politician, by default, means that you're a whore (no offense to sex workers).
OWS is as much a protest against liberal politicians as it is against conservative ones. Our government is now unreformable. We can either choose to live in a tyranny, or we can do something about it. Occupying is the last option left before wide spread violence is used. Given the dire situation we find ourselves in, I'd worry more about wide spread and blatant political corruption than the lack of porto-potties.
First, it doesn't matter if you phrase it as against liberals as much as it is against conservatives. Who ever they are, they are still deficating on the streets and creating other conditions that hurt people.
In any event, having some expertise in First Amendment law, althought "speech" is not limited to literal talking, and included press, movies, art, and other means of communicating, there are reasonable limits. You can argue for political change, but you may not move the demonstration into someone's home. You cannot disrupt a class. You cannot disrupt court proceedings.
Secondly, Willie, I assure you that I feel as strongly about the political and social things I believe in as you do. As do most of the conservative that I know. I feel there is as much danger on the left as you feel is on the right. In that way the left and the right are identical in feelings and passion.
But here is an important difference: The left frequently feels that its passion allows it to disrupt society, interrupt classes and meetings, block the streets so people can't get home or to work, deficate and urinate in public places, plaster graffiti, break windows, and 1,000 things to get attention.
The right will at times hold a rare demonstration, and when they do they almost never engage in that type of conduct. They had a Tea Party demonstration a few years ago in Beverly Hills that I drove by, and they had two cops. The park was pretty full, and two cops were all they needed, if that.
The number of disruptive actions by the true believers on the right is really miniscule. Why does the right engage in so little disruptive methods to bring attention to its view.
(PLEASE don't be silly and say they control the means of communication. YOu will just make me list all the leftist news media for the umpteenth time.)
If you want to find someone who is "pure" in their convictions, then you shouldn't look for a politician. It doesn't matter what political party they belong to. To be a politician, by default, means that you're a whore (no offense to sex workers).
OWS is as much a protest against liberal politicians as it is against conservative ones. Our government is now unreformable. We can either choose to live in a tyranny, or we can do something about it. Occupying is the last option left before wide spread violence is used. Given the dire situation we find ourselves in, I'd worry more about wide spread and blatant political corruption than the lack of porto-potties.
featured uncivil behavior, including violent rhetoric, opposing views shouted down, reporters intimidated, etc. In one case in DC, Tea Partiers yelled racial epithets at Black Congressmen and one was spat on. I'm sure the Tea Partiers in Beverly Hills are more dignified, but they hardly represent the movement, any more than the OWS crowd represents what they call the 99%.
PS: The whole 99% thing is dumb anyway. For example, most Tea Partiers, I'm sure, are part of the so-called 99%. They certainly aren't millionaires
-- Modified on 11/20/2011 9:39:19 AM
I see you haven't forgotten the liberal news media talking points.... Easy to claim somebody spit at a black person. Easy to claim somebody called them an unkind name. But also easy to prove it actually happened, and not one single news media outlet has yet to do that. Not one piece of film, not one audio recording. Just some damn "un-named" source said so therefore since it matches the news media's point of view, it must have been true... when are you libs going to wake up and validate some of the BS coming out of the media you watch? Oh, I forgot, the message supports your predisposed point of view, so it must be right and since it came from the media, OMG it's gotta be a fact.... Ignorance is bliss.
They sow the seeds of their own destruction but are to ignorant to realize that.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid! Oops! Too late for you!
of Republican talking points. Don't you have any idea how obvious you are? Keep on living in your bunker. Beohner and McConnell appreciate your support.
The incident with the black congressman that was allegedly spat on was on video because of cell phones. There is a $100,000 reward for any video showing that or proving it. Unclaimed.
There may have been an occassional individual who was out of hand and rowdy, but it is nothing like the OWS. How many windows were smashed? How many buildings were defaced with graffiti? How many cops were attacked? (I saw video of one being pushed of his motorcycle.) How many people were taped urinating or deficating on public property? (I have see at least for with OWS) How many people were prevented from getting to work?
How much more of a comparison to you want me to make?
I happened to be driving by the one in BH, so that is the only one I saw. But go back and look at reports of any of the Tea Party rallies and compare the reports.
The behavior is completely different, and you have to ignore all of that to not see it.
PS: The whole 99% thing is dumb anyway. For example, most Tea Partiers, I'm sure, are part of the so-called 99%. They certainly aren't millionaires
-- Modified on 11/20/2011 9:39:19 AM
1) I've seen the footage and it's hard to be certain but you can see the Congressman react, then leave and come back with a police officer. It's pretty clear he believed he'd been spat upon, and he also said he was. Are you saying he lied?
2) Re urinating on public property, the Tea Partiers are all so old they don't camp out, so you can compare the two events. Also, most of them wear Depends, so they just pee in their pants.
3) If you have missed the reports of what went on at Tea Party rallies it ain't my fault. I suggest you watch the documentary "Right in America," then report back. And don't simply say it's biased because Nancy Pelosi's daughter produced it. Just watch the footage and what the people are saying. Frightening.
4) All the above do not have to be exact equivalents with the OWS. Just consider them on their own (except point #2, which was obviously a joke).
Just watch what the Tea Partiers say and do when Mitt Romney gets the nomination.
You say he reacts and comes back with a cop. But in spite of the fact that there is a reward, no one has bothered to try to claim it. Surely, there are 1,000 attorneys on the left who would take the case.
And you ask if a politician would lie. Do you really want me to answer if a hyper partisan politcian may say something that is untrue. Come on. Are you saying a politician would never lie?
I couldn't find the video you mentioned, but will look at it if you post a link. But is it really comparable to the violence in Oakland, to people deficating in the street, to scores of broken windows, to cops being assaulted.
I am not asking for "an exact equivalent. Just something comparable. I don't think signs are comparable, if that is what you are talking about. If it is, then the OWS crowd really takes the cake. "Jew Bankers, Get Out," Etc.
But anyone can hold up a sign at any rally. I want just something comparable to the violence and damage.
2) Re urinating on public property, the Tea Partiers are all so old they don't camp out, so you can compare the two events. Also, most of them wear Depends, so they just pee in their pants.
3) If you have missed the reports of what went on at Tea Party rallies it ain't my fault. I suggest you watch the documentary "Right in America," then report back. And don't simply say it's biased because Nancy Pelosi's daughter produced it. Just watch the footage and what the people are saying. Frightening.
4) All the above do not have to be exact equivalents with the OWS. Just consider them on their own (except point #2, which was obviously a joke).
Just watch what the Tea Partiers say and do when Mitt Romney gets the nomination.
I found it on the first click and here it is. I do not believe you will find any equivalence at all, but it is frightening how bigotted and ignorant so many of them were (and are).
As for your argument about the spitting incident, you take the easy way out as usual by asking a rheotical question about whether a politician would lie. Just look at the existing video. You can see him flinch. It was probably nothing quite so obvious as someone hocking a loogie at him, and just someone spitting as he talked so the question is, was it on purpose? We'll never know. You clearly want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Tea Partier. I wonder why?
PS: If there was an OWS sign saying "Jew Bankers, Get Out" then that's despicable, too. There are plenty of people in the "Right in America" docu using the "N word." Equally despicable. Which is my entire point.
First, I tried to look for it, but the key words were so common I could not find it between all the stuff that came up. I admit I am bad at this searching stuff. It comes with age and not being of the techno generation. Sorry. Thanks for sending it.
Second, the only thing that came up on the link you sent was the trailer, so I hope I am not missing something.
But if that is what you are talking about there is a world of difference. The trailer has a bunch of people talking. Yes, they are emotional. Yes, they say things that aren't favorable. You can agree with them or not, but there is no violence. There is no vulgarity. There is no graffiti. There is no defacation or urination. There are no broken windows. It was a bunch of people complaining about politics. To compare that to the violence, attacking police, graffiti on people's property, not letting people go to home because you are blocking the main route out of NYC, breaking window, shitting in public, etc is just amazing.
As to the congressman - I honestly can't say what someone flinching means. I have had experiences where someone is shouting and sprays me, not spitting, but just getting sprayed. I think that is common enough so that we can agree it is something that happens. Flinching is about as ambiguous as it can be.
How ever you want to characterize it, no one tried to claim the $100,000. That says more to me than the ambiguous act of someone flinching.
I did not ask the rhetorical question if a politician would lie. You impliedly asked me.
I fully admit that I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the Tea Party. Are you implying that you are such a neutral observed that you do not do the same for OWS? Come on. At least be honest.
As for your argument about the spitting incident, you take the easy way out as usual by asking a rheotical question about whether a politician would lie. Just look at the existing video. You can see him flinch. It was probably nothing quite so obvious as someone hocking a loogie at him, and just someone spitting as he talked so the question is, was it on purpose? We'll never know. You clearly want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Tea Partier. I wonder why?
PS: If there was an OWS sign saying "Jew Bankers, Get Out" then that's despicable, too. There are plenty of people in the "Right in America" docu using the "N word." Equally despicable. Which is my entire point.
I find you a link you are too lazy to look for and you complain it's only a trailer and don't bother to look further. Then you create an entire rebuttal based only on the trailer. One thing's for sure. You are in the right profession.
Here's one reason why the OWS rallies are not even larger.
The trailer was the only thing on the page that had anything, unless you expect me to buy the film. I clicked all around.
I said I was bad at this. Help me. Don't send me a link to the link. Send me a link to what you want me to see. Click on the right link, and send me that address.
You send me hunting, and then are upset when I don't find it.
As to spitting, I found one. If that is the congressman there is something very funny. You can see the guy shouting really close to him, and the congressman flinches. As I said, if some flinches it is ambiguous, but there are two things that argue against flinching.
First, if someone spits on another person, the most natural thing in the world would be to wipe it off. He doesn't. He doesn't look at his chest to see if it is there. He does nothing that someone would normally do. It is like Holmes commenting on the unusual behavior of the dog, and when Watson asks "what unusual behavior, he didn't do anything?" Holmes responds, noting that if someone had been there the dog would have barkes.
I think if someone is spit on, they would wipe it off.
Secondly, he has his guard there. If someone spit on him, it would be an assault. A security person seeing an assault on a congressman, and he doesn't do anything is kind of incredible.
Anyway, send me the link. Not a link to a link.
First,
But it is like Sherlock Holmes saying the funny thing was the dog that didn't bark.
Here's one reason why the OWS rallies are not even larger.
Warning, it's about 45 minutes long. It is basically footage and interviews with a large number of people at Tea Party rallies, but also other footage. Not all the people are heated, but many are. Not all of them use racial epithets but some do. I can't recall if the ugliest stuff comes from Tea Partiers or not, as it's been a while since I saw this.
As for the spitting video, if you want to be skeptical, fine. There's more than one way to view this. And, as I said, I don't allege the person spat in the way someone "hocks a loogie," but was possibly spitting excessively while they were venting. Did they do this as a way to cover themselves and be able to deny they were spitting? It's possible. Be that as it may, it was an ugly incident which also included the use of the "N word." That can't be denied or obscured.
Okay, first, I did not see the whole thing. As you said it is 45 minutes long and sadly I have to work.
I did skip and fast forward two minutes at a time, so I had a general idea. I would see someone talking, and fast forward to where the next person was and slow down. I may have missed some stuff, so if there is something in particular, let me know the time frame and I will address anything you want. (You have to admit, sending a 45 minute video without earmarking it is a little hard for the working class.)
As to the merits, yes, it shows some people who are upset, angry, and saying some dumb things. If you want to find dumb in any group, that is easy. Yes, there is the silly comparison to Hitler, but the left did that 1,000 times with Bush. Remember the MoveOn.org ad showing Bush morphing into hitler?
It has a very small number that may use racial epitaths, but that is the same as "Jew Bankers out." My favorite was during the last Lebanon war when a rally in SF featured a sign, "Nazi Kikes, Out of Lebanon." In any event, when you make a video, you film 200 hours and pick your 45.
But the most that you have is angry people saying some silly and offensive things. To say that is similar is mindboggling.
I have been asking things that OWS has done, for people smashing windows, painting graffiti on buildings, urinating and deficating on the street, blocking bridges so people can't take on one road from NYC to Brooklyn, pushing cops off motorcyles, setting fires, closing business, creating such hazardous conditions that liberal mayors like in L.A., NY, SF, Oakland, Portand, and a bunch of other places say this is a health hazzard and a nuicance.
And you show me people at a rally. Or you show me a cracker sitting on a porch saying something dumb. Or people singing a stupid ditty. (That was a pretty stupid ditty, but it ain't no broken window.
I really and astounded that you think that link shows comparable conduct to what has been flying.
As I say, if you want me to address any one segment in particular, let me know when it starts.
But short of that I can't see anything comparable.
One last question: Just to clarify, do you think that any of the things like the stupid ditty or offensive language is similar to smashing windows? You may think it is the same, in which case, we just have a respectful disagreement. I don't.
As for the spitting video, if you want to be skeptical, fine. There's more than one way to view this. And, as I said, I don't allege the person spat in the way someone "hocks a loogie," but was possibly spitting excessively while they were venting. Did they do this as a way to cover themselves and be able to deny they were spitting? It's possible. Be that as it may, it was an ugly incident which also included the use of the "N word." That can't be denied or obscured.
First of all, none of the Tea Party gatherings involved long-term camping out. If they had, you'd have similar sanitation problems. As for broken windows, I don't support that, but it was a small minority of the protesters. So fundamentally, as to most of the OWS and Tea Party gatherings, what you have are people saying stupid and offensive things. That is the comparison that's valid to me. If you can't accept that we'll have to agree to disagree.
I never asked for exact. Just something similar. In life, and law, there are analogies. Taking is similar to talking. Talking is not similar to breaking things. Yes, the OWS and the Tea Party saying silly things are comparable, but that is not what I was ever talking about.
Tea Party says silly things. OWS says silly things. OWS smashes windows. Sets fires. Shits in the park.
Again, if you think saying something stupid is comparable to smashing windows, then we will just have to disagree.
The long term aspect is irrelevant.With all due respect, you are seeking an excuse. Grafitti is not the result of long term. Smashing windows is not the result of long term. They are there two months so they have to smash a window?
Even the sanitation is not because of long term. There is a video of a OWS person crapping on a police car. That is not because they were there for two months and didn't have a Porta Potty. If that was the case, he could have gone behind a bush.
There is another video of someone crapping in the street. Again, not long term. He could have gone behind a bush.
Someone took a piss in the lobby of the Bank of America in L.A. That is not long term. If he had to pee, he could have gone outside. They went int their to make a point, and the point they wanted to make was pissing.
It is easy for you to say you don't support breaking windows, but when the OWS people who were there saw windows being broken, they supported it by not making a citizens arrest of the vandal and saying, "That is not what we stand for."
There were hundreds of responsible OWS people there, so I am told. Not one tried to stop it. Instead, they continued on, shouting encouragement.
Yes, saying stupid things is comparable to other people saying stupid things. but is not comparbable to vandalism and destruction.
My mother used to say, "Sticks and stones......" which I why I am rarely upset when the left says dumb things.
Words can't be compared to sticks and stones.
If you think violence can be compared to words, we just see thing differently
I seem to recall that there weren't many qualifiers in the first amendment when it comes to peaceful assembly. The only qualifier is that it's peaceful. Nowhere does the first amendment state that assemblies can only happen during business hours, and that they must be poo-free. In this case, the accusation of protesters shitting in the street is enough to void the right of peaceful assembly.
If anyone needed any more proof that our government is now unreformable, this is it.
Secondly, it is the right of these protesters to disrupt meetings and other events where the political and economic classes gather to coordinate their corruption. This is clearly laid out in the 9th amendment, and furthermore such behavior is encouraged in the Declaration of Independence with the words: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".
It is curious that so few police are needed for Tea Party protests, despite that one Tea Partier assaulted a US Congressman, and many Tea Party gatherings were accompanied with proto-fascist thugs armed with assault rifles. It seems that unarmed teenaged girls protesting capitalism are far more dangerous, so much that while sitting down they need to be barricaded and pepper sprayed. It seems that a massive police presence is need to dispurst all the chemical weapons, flash bombs, and sound cannons. When that fails, cracking people with billy clubs is necessary for unarmed non-violent protesters. And if all fails, pepper spraying an 84 year old works too.
Phil, the reason why so few police are needed at Tea Party rallies, is because the Tea Party is a CREATION of the big business. And since big business controls the state, the state does not go after the astroturf demonstrators for big business.
Here, we have something different entirely. We have a state who pretends there is an equal application of the law, while blantantly favoring one class over the other, in each and every single one of the 3 branches of gov't. When the people rise up to disrupt this collusion, the state reacts with domestic brutality not seen since the days of Kent State.
It does not matter if you're an Iraq War veteran, which for propaganda purposes the state would otherwise put on a pedestal. If you protest state collusion with capitalism, and who pose no threat of violence at all, and simply stand in the street, the state will blast you in the head with a rubber bullet, causing brain damage. If you're a Iraq War vet who simply is trying to leave a protest and go home, you will be beaten with a billy club until your spleen is ruptured. If you're an 84 year old woman who has no ability to cause anyone any physical harm, you will be covered in pepper spray.
This is not keeping the peace. This is not protecting and serving. This is state sponsored brutality, acting to protect economic institutions that aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, simply because corporate capitalism now runs the state.
The writing is on the wall. People will no longer stand for this. The incredible levels of patience these protesters have and their undying committment to non-violence is remarkable. In each and every city, they have been met with a disproportionate levels of violence and brutality. Just as this didn't work in Egypt, it's not going to work here. The jig is up.
I would not want to be a corporatist clinging to power when these protesters realize that since the state is going to disregard their own laws, then there's no reason for protesters to hold the state's laws in any higher regard. When they see that non-violence isn't working, there will only be one option left.
The Bill or Rights is different from a civil code. It is a list of general principles, not a series of detailed rules. Thus, a handful of words, "congress shall make no law....." has to applt to 200 years of civilization, change, common experience etc.
The constitution says nothing about not yelling fire in movie theater. It says nothing about not telling enemies in war where the troops are landing. It says noting about not being able to say that a person sleeps with little boys.
There are hundreds of restrictions on the exercise of speech. There have been from day one.
And you will agree that restrictions are valid unless you are willing to allow protesters to disrupt everything you like, unless you are willing to have protestors interupt the next movie you go to, unless you are willing to have protestors smear feces on your car when you drive to a job they don't like.
There is a qualification on the right to peacefully assemble. There always have been many, and if you look at the first five cases in any Con Law book you will see five examples. The government cannot discriminate on the basis of content, but it can demand content neutral restrictions.
The L.A. County Museum closes at a certain time. You cannot remain there and say you are exercising your free speech rights. The Supreme Court is a public place. You can not go there and say you want to protest a ruling you don't like and piss on the front door. (And gosh, you said you didn't know of any restrictions on poo. Go across the river to DC and try that one.)
And you didn't address my question. We both feel strongly. Why does my side not smash windows.
...your side doesn't smash windows because your side favors the corporatist state. A capitalist might sell ya the rope to hang him with, but he's not going to voluntarily hang himself.
I would also note, that despite massive police brutality, there have been very few broken windows. Those who would be inclined to do such a thing, also reclaimed an abandoned building in Chapel Hill, NC and used it as a book exchange and to view movies. This was such a threat to the capitalists that the police arrived in riot gear with loaded assault rifles.
Why does your side use violence?
You only talk about windows. Not all windows are corporate. Some of the graffiti in NY and Oakland was on walls of small buildings. The feces is in a public park. The fact that you think we favor a corporate state, which I don't believe, but assuming it is true, does not explain why your side craps in the street.
After all, your side was crapping in public parks, not corporate offices.
You can rationalize all you want, but the fact is that they are closing down SF because of feces. Meanwhile, the OWS wallows in feces and you rationalize.
I've walked past Occupy in DC. It literally smells like a huge wave of shit.
After all, your side was crapping in public parks, not corporate offices.
You can rationalize all you want, but the fact is that they are closing down SF because of feces. Meanwhile, the OWS wallows in feces and you rationalize.
Peacefully assembling and shitting on public parks is another.
Willy, there is no way you can even attempt to reasonably defend the OWS supporters in this regard.
Common sense has to come into play at some point.
I am in favor of feces. It's my thing. I love these people. We will be bringing in a bumper crop in these parks next year. Eat Shit! is my motto.
-- Modified on 11/20/2011 8:52:51 PM
for the freedom to assemble! Pretty wimpy argument!
P.S. Yes, I referred to an article, which referred to a quantitative research study. That was not to your liking so I referred directly to the study, in order to demonstrate that your anecdotal stories in the news did not paint a picture of total condemnation of the OWS by public authorities, not to claim that all of those public authorities embraced the OWS either partially or wholly. And, I said that the one reason I gave for why some of those public official had changed their minds was one among many that I "could imagine."
So, move it along counselor. Your attempts to continue this dialog have become quite tedious. I have no problem respecting your rights to not like people who poop on cars, in the streets, and in the parks, but I don't see that as a legitimate reason to deny people their first amendment rights for the freedom to assemble.
You were saying OWS was not the problem to local businesses that it was claimed and that the public officials who at first supported OWS might have been bought off by corporate donors, etc.
I never said it was "total condemnation by public authorities." Nice to make up stuff. So easy to refute.
Yes, the local hate it. Just as you would hate someone shitting on your lawn.
Not one person has been denied his legitimate right to peacefully assemble. They were denied their desire to abuse that right.
P.S. Yes, I referred to an article, which referred to a quantitative research study. That was not to your liking so I referred directly to the study, in order to demonstrate that your anecdotal stories in the news did not paint a picture of total condemnation of the OWS by public authorities, not to claim that all of those public authorities embraced the OWS either partially or wholly. And, I said that the one reason I gave for why some of those public official had changed their minds was one among many that I "could imagine."
So, move it along counselor. Your attempts to continue this dialog have become quite tedious. I have no problem respecting your rights to not like people who poop on cars, in the streets, and in the parks, but I don't see that as a legitimate reason to deny people their first amendment rights for the freedom to assemble.