Occupy Wall Street

[Webmaster]

I still don't think a movement has to have that much focus to accomplish something. I'm thinking of all those dirty, disgusting, druggie hippies who did contribute to the Civil Rights movement. Now I have the freedom to befriend and work with Blacks, Asians, whoever. So, morons or not, they helped and, morons or not, the OWS people can still provide some sort of acceleration. That's my hope, anyway.

You really don't have a very good grasp of history do you?

The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with dirty, disgusting, druggie hippies. That was the Vietnam War protests you are thinking of. The Civil Rights movement was before the hippie era, which like the Occupy thing is full of Communist sympathizers, violence and general sleaze. The Civil Rights movement happened in the early 60's and was populated by well-dressed, employed clean respectful individuals who protested the injustice of the laws of that era in a manner which gained them the respect of most of the populace.

Also, you had every right to befriend and work with Blacks, Asians, etc. It was the Blacks, Asians, etc that did not have the rights.

[Erik]

You really don't have a very good grasp of history do you?

No, that poli-sci and history degree from one of the top 20 universities in the world is all... and you've read what I have to say about that!

The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with dirty, disgusting, druggie hippies. That was the Vietnam War protests you are thinking of. The Civil Rights movement was before the hippie era, which like the Occupy thing is full of Communist sympathizers, violence and general sleaze. The Civil Rights movement happened in the early 60's and was populated by well-dressed, employed clean respectful individuals who protested the injustice of the laws of that era in a manner which gained them the respect of most of the populace.

This I did not know. It was all '60s to me, tune in, turn on, drop out, free sex and drugs, and the different protests all mixed up with each other in an amorphous mass. I wasn't around then, of course, having been born in the 1970s.

Also, you had every right to befriend and work with Blacks, Asians, etc. It was the Blacks, Asians, etc that did not have the rights.

I was being ironic about that. If they didn't have the right then we didn't really have it, either.

[Webmaster]

No, that poli-sci and history degree from one of the top 20 universities in the world is all... and you've read what I have to say about that!

You need to ask for a refund then.

This I did not know. It was all '60s to me, tune in, turn on, drop out, free sex and drugs, and the different protests all mixed up with each other in an amorphous mass. I wasn't around then, of course, having been born in the 1970s.

The two halves of the 60's was very different. The Civil Rights movement actually started in the 50's and cuminated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was a Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act and ended discrimination with regard to housing. The Hippie were around in the early 60's, but they were not politically active, nor were they involved in the Civil Rights movement. They really didn't get cranked up politically until the mid-60's and was in response to the escalation of the Vietnam War. Most of their serious protests of the Vietnam War was after 1967 and the hippie era was basically done only a few years later.

[Erik]

Dang, you're old, Robert...

Thanks for the explanation.

[Webmaster]

Dang, you're old, Robert...

No, just a history nut.

[Don Roley]

The pictures you presented are an immensely disturbing portion of the movement, but they are not, by any means, definitive. For every person in such photos, there are dozens involved in OWS protests who condemn this type of activity and do not participate in such.

The thing is, I don't see much condemnation from within the movement and the natural explanation is that things such as vandalism, anti- semitism, calls for forcibly taking wealth from others, etc, are accepted.

Personally, if I went to a rally and I saw folks with signs saying the jews controlled everything and were the cause of all our troubles, I would turn around and leave. I would not support them by even being there. They have a right to their stupid opinions, but I will not stand beside them while the world watches.

We know that a lot of vandalism has happened. Have people that are protesting gone to the police and pointed out the criminals?

Please recall when there were accusations that the use of the N- word was used at a Tea Party rally. Not only did it get a lot of media attention, but the reaction from within the protestors was a stark contrast. Some folks tried to find out who were supposed to have used the terms. Others loudly stated that they never heard that type of thing around them and would have given the racists a hard time if they had.

There was no tolerance of racism that I could see, nor any attempts to explain it away. It was treated as a very serious accusation and an insult to the Tea Party members I know.

Well, there is no doubt that there are people doing things like holding up signs that blame our woes on a jewish conspiracy. No one can deny it and there are no groups surrounding the anti semites chanting, "Shame, shame, shame." The folks who call for killing a certain class of folks are fed in the filed kitchens just like everyone else. In the absence of condemnation, why shouldn't people walk away with the impression that there a tacit support for these folks and their message?

[Erik]

We know that a lot of vandalism has happened. Have people that are protesting gone to the police and pointed out the criminals?

Yes, there have been stories of protesters coordinating with police to get out some criminals, at least in Oakland, Santa Rosa, and San Francisco. I don't know about elsewhere.

Dang Jews and their monotheism.... (that was supposed to be in jest - please take it that way).

No, just a nut.

That, too.

[TonyU]

That, too.

Typical leftist tactic. Edit and bend the truth to meet their agenda.

[Jonathan Randall]

Jonathan,

I rally don't think it's cherry picking the few bad apples. Having been around stuff like this from the LEO side, and from what I see in the media (both the leftist main stream media and the fair and balanced media) the like minded freak shows greatly out number any persons that may appear to be normal. The freaks are the reason no legitimate problem will ever get solved. Anyone that considers themselves a normal productive member of society should greatly distance themselves from this evil movement.

The problem for me is that I have seen one of them; the local one here, and heard from many elsewhere on the Net, and nearly all I encounter are disgusted with vandals and troublemakers and a number actually believe such people are agent provocateurs sent to disrupt and discredit the movement (not something I personally buy).

There is extensive condemnation for bad behavior from within the movement. Not to see or acknowledge this is similar to not acknowledging the many, many Muslim communities in America who have gone out of their way to condemn Islamic terror. It is hard to hear something if one is not listening. A number of Talk Radio personalities continued to push the meme "not one has condemened these attacks, not one". That was false and this is false.

And no, I would not stand next to someone waving a sign about the "Jews" controlling banking. I also would not be likely to join a movement with such nebulous, ill-defined goals as OWS as such things tend to be a. ineffective and b. magnets for troublemakers. Nor would I be attracted to a protest that takes as its main activity camping out in parks and public places.

In fact, I find it ironic that I am defending a group I do not belong to, am not a fellow traveler with, and am actually frightened by the implications of its blind condemnation of society and capitalism.

[Jonathan Randall]

In general, the Occupy movement reminds me of what I've read of the French Revolution. Their use of the term General Assembly gives me chills.

You raise an excellent point - and they definitely bear watching, no question. Big tent, populist movements without stated aims, goals and values never, imho, end well. This movement will either aquire such, or it will either implode or explode. As it is presently constituted, I cannot support it, and have no patience for vandalism and disorder. Any genuine movement will require a separation of its camping and screaming segment from the many who have joined out of simple frustration over the way things are going in the U.S..

What I would rather see is a mature, well organized movement - from within the unlistened to of both parties - to hold big finance responsible for their mismanagement, recklessness and, often, outright criminality. I would also like to see a real debate about the destruction of the middle class and working wage in America over the past decades and the way BOTH major parties have contributed to this. American taxpayer funded bailout money going to finance the movement of jobs from the United States to overseas is NOT what most of us had in mind for TARPA. Also a true evaluation of American security needs and a cutting of Congressional inspired pork projects that do not contribute to the national defence and are often not even wanted by the services themselves.

Personally, I would also like to see a diminution of the tax and regulatory burdens placed upon small and medium sized businesses. It is a travesty that companys like GE and Exxon can have record profits without taxes while smaller businesses - which are a major source of employment for Americans - are being crushed with regulations and confiscatory taxation.

[KnghtAzrael]

Sorry for the late reply and forgive me if i make some mistypes as I've got my primary hand in a cast this isn't easy for me. Also forgive me for not providing pictures as I can't do that on the computer I'm using.

Good question, why are the protesters attacking police, buildings, and media?

Anyone engaging in violence and vandalism needs to face the cosequences of it, both the police and protesters. Not I asked Why the need for violence not why the need for police violence. However I expect reckless violence from elements taking advantage of things like the protests. Especially as it appears in that picture the perpetrators are "black shirts", this is what they are known for. I expect better however from our police. Pepper spraying sitting nonviolent protesters ect is outrageous. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but after 8yrs of working in a setting where people get violent and you have to respond in a manner without hurting them but still restrain them and having to escort someone being passively resistant without pepperspraying them ect has me biased. We didn't have access to the numbers they have, the weapons they have or any of it, yet we managed. Now I'd rather not see police trying to handle someone violent without use of reasonable force but weapons even less lethal on nonviolent people is to much.

Because all of these factions are present at the protests. A 30 second google search will show that.

I'm not shocked they are and new many were but there is a difference between stating it as fact and using the names like they are an insult, which is much of how i've heard it used. Besides why should it matter if they are, last I knew this country still allowed everyone a voice.

McCarthy was right.

Please tell me that was a joke. McCarthy was a paranoid delusional who was trying to use peoples hystaria for his own political gains. Also that sign is technically correct depending on how you look at it. Every modern president and the majority of the modern legislature have been some form of christian and right now our society seems to be failing.

There is a huge difference between government programs and Socialist government.

There is a difference yes but calling those just government programs without acknowledging that they are in fact socialist programs is nothing but a snow job.

Plus those programs are filled with waste, fraud, and out right incompetence and need to be completely overhauled.

That's got nothing to do with them being socialist programs. a vast majority of government agencies and programs fall into what you said. Including the DOD, Pentagon, CIA, DOJ, DOE, ect. It has to do with the main problem of any form of government human nature.

Another straw-man. W was accused never proven, Rush was a script junkie. Neither are out there championing the use or legalization of those drugs.

I have little doubt that W did it just cause it couldn't be proven doesnt mean anything. Look at OJ and Casey Anthony. Besides remove the cocaine accusations he was still an alcoholic with a dui conviction. Rush as a script junkie doesn't mean anything either. You say tomato, I say tomahto, a junkie is a junkie no matter the drug involved. Some of Rushs scripts were more dangerous than marijuana anyway and illegal for him to posses without a valid reason and script.

Another lie, what racism by the tea party?

You like to mention google, search it. you find plenty of pictures of tea partiers holding signs with the N word on it, signs refering to obama as a monkey ect.

There is a difference between "name calling" and pointing out the obvious. For example, when someone is violent, and calling them violent, that is not mean name calling. When someone is marching with communist signs, and calling them a communist, that is not name calling.

However, calling someone racist when they are not, calling them a drug user when they are not, or calling them any of the nasty things the left does daily to right without any shred of evidence, IS name calling. Thanks for playing.

No difference when the names are used in a manner meant as an insult and as a means to discredit them. Any term can be used in a bad manner if that is the intent of the person using it. As for the racism and drug user bit I hope I made my point because they were statements of fact that can easily be looked up. Neither the "left" or "right" have clean hands in this, both sides sling mud like crazy which is why I don't like either. Neither side is innocent either going back a long time. Kennedy cheated on his wife, Nixon was a liar and a crook, Reagan/Bush had Iran-contra and selling weapons to iraq. Clinton cheated in the white house and Bush/chenney lied, authorized torture ect and Obama so far has been inefectual at best. It seems to be a requirment to have dirty hands or be incompetant to be in politics.

Try and keep an openmind when dealing with others. While I think the protests are getting a bit silly, I can understand the frustrations of the people who were involved. When companies we as taxpayers bailed out are still failing but giving execs huge bonuses but still screwing over the comsumers it isn't right. When companies we bailed out then move jobs overseas it isn't right. When huge companies run by billionaires complain about having to pay a liveable wage to employees it isn't right.

[Ramirez]

Thanks Ray, your views on OWS are valid, and in fact you are in good company, for example, Mark Carney , the Bank of Canada governor and now G20 financial regulator, arch conservative Conrad Black, Paul Martin, former Canadian prime minister,finance minister and fiscal conservative hero for putting Canada's books in order, the current conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty have all said OWs has some valid concerns even if they disagree with the method of protest.

Sent from my MZ604 using Tapatalk

[Jonathan Randall]

Thanks Ray, your views on OWS are valid, and in fact you are in good company, for example, Mark Carney , the Bank of Canada governor and now G20 financial regulator, arch conservative Conrad Black, Paul Martin, former Canadian prime minister,finance minister and fiscal conservative hero for putting Canada's books in order, the current conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty have all said OWs has some valid concerns even if they disagree with the method of protest.
Sent from my MZ604 using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Their method of protesting, however, is deeply flawed, imo, and by being a "big tent" movement with unclear objectives, they are marginalizing themselves. They are still people, though, and the Founding Fathers believed that the most important type of speech to protect was that which one found most disagreeable. Personally, I think a lot of people were disappointed - not here at Budoseek, of course - that the Davis Campus Police didn't "bust some heads". Someone being arrested for violating the law is one thing, wishing harm to them because their speech isn't appealing to you, is another.

Raymond, there definitely were some nasty Tea Party signs, many disgustingly suggestive of racism, but beware about taking too many of the "n" word signs from Google searches as true. There apparently has been some real Photoshopping going on to discredit them; also, at least one of the first pictures I pulled up in my search was not from a Tea Party rally, but rather a confrontation over the Iraq War back in 2004, another was over a Border defence and anti-Immigration protest circa 2006. Overall, the Tea Party runs a much, much tighter ship than OWS. No comparison in that respect, actually.

[Ramirez]

Here is a good column on OWS.

Conservative columnist Michael Taube recently criticized me and other fiscal conservatives for expressing some sympathy for the Occupy Wall St. movement and its Toronto offshoot.

He wrote in the Ottawa Citizen he was puzzled why Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney (now heading the G20 Financial Stability Fund), the Fraser Institute’s Mark Milke and Conrad Black, have not been totally dismissive of the “Occupy” protesters.

Speaking for myself, here’s why:

I support the protesters for correctly identifying Wall St. as the scene of a massive heist of global wealth, jobs and homes that started with the subprime mortgage securities crisis of 2008 and continues to this day.

As a result, tens of millions of people world-wide have lost trillions of dollars in their pensions and life savings — including in Canada — along with their jobs and homes.

Most are hard-working, law-abiding, citizens, who pay their taxes, never signed for mortgages they couldn’t afford (given they didn’t expect to lose their jobs in a global economic meltdown) and have never demonstrated in the streets or occupied a park.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe in free markets and the rule of law, not fraud markets and crony capitalism, in which profits are privatized and losses socialized.

That’s what happened in the 2008 global economic crash, where the worst damage wasn’t caused by the subprime scandal itself, but by the global credit freeze it led to because banks no longer trusted each other’s assets.

That not one senior Wall St. executive has been charged, let alone imprisoned, as a result of their companies’ misrepresenting the true nature of the subprime mortgage securities they peddled to institutional investors globally is a disgrace.

The fact they bet against their own investors without telling them — and indeed, privately mocked them — is a disgrace.

The fact credit rating agencies in the pay of Wall St. graded junk subprime mortgage securities as Triple A safe investments, is a disgrace.

The fact most Republican and Democratic politicians don’t want any criminal trials arising out of this scandal is a disgrace.

The reason they don’t want them is that would shine a light on the billions of dollars they accepted in campaign contributions and other favours from the financial services sector, in return for gutting the regulatory safeguards on that industry which led to the ’08 crash.

The fact these banks were bailed out of the financial destruction they caused with hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars is a disgrace.

The fact they are being allowed to walk away from what they did by paying insignificant corporate fines (compared to profits), negotiated by an emasculated U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with no one being held personally responsible for what happened, or even having to admit wrongdoing — is a disgrace.

Worst of all, because the Wall St. banks that survived ’08 are now bigger than ever — so big the government decreed they were “too big to fail” via the bailout — there is every reason to believe they will do what they did again.

Not only have they escaped any “moral hazard” for their actions, they had their huge bonuses paid for by taxpayers.

The fact Democrats and Republicans are blaming each other — Democrats by accusing Republicans of caving into Wall St., Republicans by accusing Democrats of forcing banks to extend mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them back — is another disgrace.

The reality is both parties and their presidential candidates, happily allowed themselves to be bought by the U.S. financial services sector in the years leading up to the crash.

The reality is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two U.S. government-sponsored mortgage underwriting agencies — walked away with paying minor fines (relative to their assets) for massive accounting manipulation.

And the fact is fraud is fraud, whether it’s done by a welfare queen or a bank. But when it’s done by a bank, it does a lot more damage.

Yes, the Occupy protesters may be naοve, misguided, troublemaking, freeloading, commies and hippies, in cahoots with professional left-wing agitators and public sector unions.

I certainly don’t want them occupying a public park in downtown Toronto all winter.

But they didn’t cause the global economic devastation we’ve been experiencing since 08.

And the real disgrace is the people who did, got away with it.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/04/crony-capitalism

[Cliff Hargrave]

.................

[Erik]

What you said, Mark.

[KnghtAzrael]

Truth hurts doesn't it Ray?

Just noticed this post in responce to Cliffs post to me. Truth hurts? Nope not at all.

First: Pepper spray hurts, batons hurt but the truth doesn't.

Second: No one was disputng the truth that those elements are taking part in the protests but questioning why it was neccessary to resort to violence on the peaceful ones and using labels as a way to insult and try and discredit others

Third: Beleive me when I say I mean no disrespect here. I hold you all in high regard for your expertise and accomplishments. However when "truth" is used as nothing more than a poor disguise and excuse for bigotry it's not a truth to take to heart anyway. Bigotry whether it be in the form of racism, anti-semitism, against a political belief, lifestyle ect is all equally unacceptable and only degrades and harms your own spirit.

The truth is that no matter what label they go by they have a constitutional right to protest and have their voices heard even if they aren't real clear on why. They have a human and possibly constitutional right to when not being violent be treated with respect and dignity and to not have violence done to them. In my belief the violent ones should still be treated with respect and dignity but have willingly given up the right of physical safety.

[Don Roley]

First: Pepper spray hurts, batons hurt but the truth doesn't.

Second: No one was disputng the truth that those elements are taking part in the protests but questioning why it was neccessary to resort to violence on the peaceful ones and using labels as a way to insult and try and discredit others

You are mistaking pepper spraying for violence. In terms of force by police, things like pepper spray may be used to force compliance with a lawful order. If an officer tells you to get out of your vehicle and you refuse, they are allowed to use pepper spray to force you to come out.

I have been hit with both pepper spray and CS. While they were painful, they did not lead to any injuries to me. A baton can do so, and can even lead to death.

When dealing with a large mass of people with their arms locked together, it would be almost impossible for a few officers to physically separate them. Doing so might even lead to injuries. So if the order the police gave to disperse was lawful, then they were justified in using pain to force compliance in the form of pepper spray.

Lets look at it like this.....

What if there was an openly homosexual man working at your job. The Westboro Church does not like that and forms a human chain around the building so that no one can get in. They refuse orders to let folks pass. What would you want the police to do?

[David Craik]

Like Tazers, I find increasingly that OC is touted as a compliance tool. I believe it is a crutch, and wildly overused. You never heard of 70-year-old female motorists being tazed even 15 years ago for being mouthy. I've been gassed plenty of times, including by my own hand because when I bought OC for my wife I'd use it on myself for my own peace of mind that it will work as advertised. Sucked down CS for 20 years, I'm surprised I'm not immune to it. Yes, it generally causes no lasting injury. However, if somebody is in my way sitting on the ground can I just arbitarily pepper-spray them? I'll be charged with assault. This used to be a less-than-lethal tool used on violent offenders, and rightly so, not something used on somebody who is not violent. It used to be a level on the force continuum, not a way of "punishing" people.

The difference in your example is that your Westboro people are infringing on the right of another to work at their place of employment. These kids on the ground were infringing on nobody's rights. They are sitting on the ground during a demonstration approved by, and even attended by, the faculty of the university. There is no call to hurt them. If my kid were hospitalized due to this outrageous sh!te, I would be furious, and Lt. Pike had better make himself very, very scarce.

[Don Roley]

The difference in your example is that your Westboro people are infringing on the right of another to work at their place of employment. These kids on the ground were infringing on nobody's rights. They are sitting on the ground.

They were not pepper sprayed because of what they were protesting. The campus seems fine with them giving voice. The problem was the camping, and the sanitation problems it presents. If they want to camp on property without permission, then the Westboro example is the next step.

We've seen it with the OWS folks trying to block traffic and such. If their right to protest lets them get away with such stunts (as many are already saying) then to be equally fair under the law we will be seeing people blocking off abortion clinics and such.