|
On October 17 2011 14:30 caradoc wrote:
The real goal is NOT to form a coherent group or list of demands. Some occupy groups may do this, but its not a homogenous movement. I think therein lies its strength and the potential for it to be really resilient.
And I see almost no separation between the occupy movements, and the so called arab spring protests, which also did not start with any specific demands-- but which evolved to local situations in tandem with each other, but in their own unique ways according to local conditions-- very similar in many ways. I don't want to get into all of them because it would take pages.
The world exhibits remarkable diversity, and plethora of struggles, views, voices, ideals. No one person has, or even can come up with a single solution to what ails the world, and nobody should.
The fact is that most people are hurt tremendously by the effects of social and income disparity, and the imbalance of power that it has and the absolute destruction it wreaks on our social fabric.
The entire point of the protests is to create a space for dialogue and to create a shared local/regional/international consciousness that all of these disparate corners of society are affected. There isn't a single solution, but the entire network of protests, the entire movement is a single movement that is itself diverse, because the people in it are diverse.
It's creating dialogue, its creating exposure, and its bringing together a lot of people from a lot of diverse walks of life who then share their ideas/thoughts/perspectives with individuals they would otherwise never come in contact with. People like to pigeonhole these things so that the perspective can be delineated and dissected and evaluated. The world is more complex than that though.
some individual solutions to some problems will come out of it, there will be some civil disobedience in some places, some specific tactics aimed at specific priorities in others, most likely, but that's not at its most basic level what its about.
imo its incredibly positive. and pretty much unprecedented.
It can certainly turn out to be a very good thing, or a very bad thing. If it gets co-opted then it'll turn out to be quite bad, similarly if it turns into a French revolution. Right now OWS is similar to the Tea Party. As an original Tea Party member from 2007-08 (Ron Paul Tea Party), I can only urge you to disassociate from the political establishment and be aware of agent provocateurs and infiltrators. Please denounce these folks when you come across them, and it is paramount to remain non-violent. I do hope some good will come out of this. Whatever you do keep it apolitical!
As far as it being unprecedented? Not even close. I would only recommend OWS to turn into OFR. You guys are missing the cause of the problem and attacking the symptom. Start shuffling over to the Federal Reserve & your Congress critters offices / Washington DC. That's where the real problem is. I'll even come join you if you guys start to focus on the actual criminals -- always welcome to come meet me down at the local Federal Reserve bank!
|
On October 17 2011 13:12 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Occupy Atlanta] +EDIT: Only source I could find, unedited, and of sufficient length to show a proceeding So, how about the consensus among protestors to do everything by group decision? AKA watch the movie. I can see this being problematic. How can they garner major supporters if a representative of them is not permitted to represent his views to the audience in a speech? That first question is quite a general point about Occupy WallStreet's meeting organization. The more particular question would be if a notable civil rights leader wants to speak, should he be allowed to, if no consensus is reached? I mean remember back that this is rather amorphous attacks on corporations (blamed for greed / financial crisis), politicians (blamed for same, and being anti-democratic since they represent more people than just themselves), and the financial system in general (greed, money, gouging, predatory lending, etc). Can this movement survive and unite with current structure (I'm thinking not). If Obama himself complied with rules, and watch the movie here, was blocked from an agenda item to let him speak multiple times, should he be turned away? Food for thought.
I have to agree. At the OWS meet up in my city (Christchurch, New Zealand) we had a few political party members show up. When one of them got up to speak he was blocked by another protester and even yelled at/booed by other protesters.
While I understand that the purpose of this movement is to remain somewhat apolitical, it can't achieve anything without some degree of communication between the people and political representatives. The fact remains that any changes OWS agrees to push for inevitably have to go through the democratic process, and that process has to be run by government representatives in order for it to be official and for new legislation to be made.
Also, it is never useful to dismiss a person's opinion before hearing it. Not only is it a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument based on position ('appeal to authority'), it makes no sense anyway since it would take all of 10 minutes to ascertain whether an individual has an agenda, in which case OWS already has a system in place for 'blocking' those individuals.
Lastly, I can't help but feel something was a little off with the speed people changed their minds concerning the congressman speaking in that video. The first guy speaks and seems to get a virtually unanimous vote in favor of hearing the congressman, save one block. Then the guy who blocked explains why, and suddenly everybody else agrees with him despite his completely shoddy reasoning? I mean, come on. Either that guy is a master of the Jedi mind trick or the whole thing is just one big circle jerk.
|
It is really amusing to see all the politicians and talking heads be dumbfounded and in turn blame their own lack of ability to understand what is happening on the protestors themselves.
I just saw someone on Al Jazeera call them 'useful idiots' that have 'incoherent and contradictory demands' that make them look 'ludicrous'. And then he blames Obama for igniting class warfare. "Even Michael Moore and Yoko Ono hang out with them!"
Where the fuck did they get that guy?
Then they have another guy that just echos him and he even tries to use Steve Jobs and his death as an argument. And even the presenter doesn't talk them down at all.
Then the other guy says like "Geniuses like Gates and Jobs don't need to pay a penny in tax" and calls the whole generation of younger people 'lazy'.
One of them is the head of the Adam Smith institute. Maybe he should actually read Adam Smith because our current society is his nightmare scenario.
These protesters don't agree on many things. Obviously. They aren't trying to unite in one political front. That's their power. They want certain change, are dissatisfied and they don't know what to do because voting won't get them anywhere. That's the problem of the ruling elite and the politicians, not the protesters.
The politicians failed the people. And not they fail to understand their dissatisfaction. As protesters that is their strength. Yes, it won't help them reform. But it will help them recruit even more protesters.
And then it is quite clear that to see which things these people all oppose. There is true consensus in what they perceive to be t he problem. That they don't agree on solutions is not their thing.
These people protesting are not politicians. They are normal people. It's not their job to make up the solutions. That's the job of Obama and co. They have to figure it out and reform in a way that will appease the protesters. They have to figure out when either to tax financial transactions to stop all the casino daytrading and speculation, regulate the banks, seize ownership of the banks and nationalize them, raise income tax on the rich, change the legal status and rights of corporations, make corporations democratic entities rather than tyrannical ones, restrict campaign contributions, reform the two party system to make multiple parties possible so new parties can be created when people are dissatisfied with the current ones and gain a more pluralistic political landscape that better reflects actual society.
Then there is also some different issues like foreign wars/military basis and civil rights/patriot act/assassination campaigns.
As for wall street vs federal reserve. I think the true problem is completely with the financial sector. They got the politicians to do what they wanted. They dictated policy to the politicians. What voters wanted never entered the picture. They caused the fed to do what it did. But the fed is just part of the problem.
Then when the crisis happened the biggest mistakes were made. Banks took huge risks with money that wasn't theirs. For 2 decades they made huge profits and got absurd salaries and bonuses when they never produced any product or did anything for society. They took even more risk and banks all got infected by bad debt. They all had money on their balance sheet that didn't exist. So the money of the people disappeared somewhere along the road. Then they all started to collapse one by one. This actually involved a lot of fraud besides insider trading, which is basically the only type of trading anyone sane would ever do.
Bush and Obama bailed them out. They gave them a black cheque with no strings attached.
What you do is either let them fail or nationalize them. Then you can get rid of all bad practices and get back the money when the bank starts to make profit again, you can pay back the tax payer.
But they did nothing. They could have made any demand they wanted. But they made none. The banks were saved and are making a profit again doing the exact same thing. The reason they make profits is a taxpayer bailout. The power of the financial sector is now bigger than ever before. And the taxpayer is suffering.
Really this isn't surprising. If a society gives all their money to a single entity that is supposed to 'safehold' the money for them then obviously you can hold the entire society as a hostage. What are you going to do? If you let the bank collapse you all lose your pension and savings. if you save it it will continue to steal from you. Really what can you do? Absolutely nothing. They have all the power because they hold all our money hostage. It's not their money technically. But for all practical purposes, it is. You basically gave it away.
The only thing citizens can actually do is start a bank run. And that's bad because it collapses the ponzi scheme. Calling for a bank run is illegal here so even if I did support it, I couldn't tell you. Don't want to go to jail for a year.
The only solution is governments nationalizing banks and carefully dismantling the ponzi scheme and reforming the way banking works completely.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements.
|
On October 17 2011 15:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 14:30 caradoc wrote:
The real goal is NOT to form a coherent group or list of demands. Some occupy groups may do this, but its not a homogenous movement. I think therein lies its strength and the potential for it to be really resilient.
And I see almost no separation between the occupy movements, and the so called arab spring protests, which also did not start with any specific demands-- but which evolved to local situations in tandem with each other, but in their own unique ways according to local conditions-- very similar in many ways. I don't want to get into all of them because it would take pages.
The world exhibits remarkable diversity, and plethora of struggles, views, voices, ideals. No one person has, or even can come up with a single solution to what ails the world, and nobody should.
The fact is that most people are hurt tremendously by the effects of social and income disparity, and the imbalance of power that it has and the absolute destruction it wreaks on our social fabric.
The entire point of the protests is to create a space for dialogue and to create a shared local/regional/international consciousness that all of these disparate corners of society are affected. There isn't a single solution, but the entire network of protests, the entire movement is a single movement that is itself diverse, because the people in it are diverse.
It's creating dialogue, its creating exposure, and its bringing together a lot of people from a lot of diverse walks of life who then share their ideas/thoughts/perspectives with individuals they would otherwise never come in contact with. People like to pigeonhole these things so that the perspective can be delineated and dissected and evaluated. The world is more complex than that though.
some individual solutions to some problems will come out of it, there will be some civil disobedience in some places, some specific tactics aimed at specific priorities in others, most likely, but that's not at its most basic level what its about.
imo its incredibly positive. and pretty much unprecedented. It can certainly turn out to be a very good thing, or a very bad thing. If it gets co-opted then it'll turn out to be quite bad, similarly if it turns into a French revolution. Right now OWS is similar to the Tea Party. As an original Tea Party member from 2007-08 (Ron Paul Tea Party), I can only urge you to disassociate from the political establishment and be aware of agent provocateurs and infiltrators. Please denounce these folks when you come across them, and it is paramount to remain non-violent. I do hope some good will come out of this. Whatever you do keep it apolitical!
ok, I kind of see what you're saying-- apolitical as in, keep it from being co-opted by specific political interests, with being 'apolitical' a potential solution to that possibility.
As far as it being unprecedented? Not even close. I would only recommend OWS to turn into OFR. You guys are missing the cause of the problem and attacking the symptom. Start shuffling over to the Federal Reserve & your Congress critters offices / Washington DC. That's where the real problem is.
What?
That is a single political viewpoint, I don't know how to consolidate it with your previous one about being apolitical, unless you really just mean avoid being co-opted, which I can understand if you were in the original tea party movement. But I have to wonder though since you say OWS is similar to the Tea Party, which is ridiculously political, so I'm kind of taking you with a bit of salt.
I generally agree with what you're saying, but we need to continually emphasize that every voice is but a single voice, and the issues are always more complex than any single person's conceptualization of the issues.
Interacting with politicians is a single solution to a single potential problem, but the wider movement is much larger than that alone. You can't dismiss the fact that politicians are yoked by vested corporate interests. In that sense our weakened democracy and fact that there is a huge divide between what the public wants/needs/benefits from and what politicians are willing/able to do is a SYMPTOM of the subservience to an overly powerful economic elite, and the 'congress critters offices' are the site of said symptoms.
On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements.
it is a great clip.
|
On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements.
Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy.
|
On October 18 2011 03:25 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements. Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy.
Not sure, but I Think regardless of whether they were or were not policemen of whatever detachment, it is clear, and should be kept in mind that it was an attempt to provoke/delegitimize the protest itself, and one can safely assume that there are groups of people either in specific establishment organizations or not, that have a vested interest in doing so and preserving the status quo.
|
I'm not here to argue and I am certainly not keeping a ton of notes on this protest so perhaps I will be playing the hillbilly neighbor who just moved to town but I don't see how not having a unified voice/demands/whatever is a good thing as many here claim. How do you know if the protests have done their job if there is no ultimate SPECIFIC goal? How do you expect to change anything at all if you have no idea what you want changed and the people who have the ability to make the changes have no idea what you want changed?
It just seems ridiculous to think anything worth a shit can come form this protest if there isn't a set of specific goals and/or demands.
|
On October 18 2011 03:37 Charger wrote:
I'm not here to argue and I am certainly not keeping a ton of notes on this protest so perhaps I will be playing the hillbilly neighbor who just moved to town but I don't see how not having a unified voice/demands/whatever is a good thing as many here claim. How do you know if the protests have done their job if there is no ultimate SPECIFIC goal? How do you expect to change anything at all if you have no idea what you want changed and the people who have the ability to make the changes have no idea what you want changed?
It just seems ridiculous to think anything worth a shit can come form this protest if there isn't a set of specific goals and/or demands.
There is. They want to get rid of corporations' power in government. Read this.
|
On October 18 2011 03:25 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements. Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy.
I was pretty clear I would want the story furthered before snapping off about 'We've seen this before' , and well, we have..seen it before.
No doubt when you show up at a peaceful protest with masks, impact gloves and rock in hand, it's not to be used as a paperweight. If they were not arrested..I would be more inclined to believe they were in fact UC officers. That said, I personally have no info on their identities, other than to say the tall one looks a lot like a certain shy pro-gamer, part-time caster. Was he at MLG? hehe
|
On October 18 2011 04:25 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 03:25 Logo wrote:On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements. Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy. I was pretty clear I would want the story furthered before snapping off about 'We've seen this before' , and well, we have..seen it before. No doubt when you show up at a peaceful protest with masks, impact gloves and rock in hand, it's not to be used as a paperweight. If they were not arrested..I would be more inclined to believe they were in fact UC officers. That said, I personally have no info on their identities, other than to say the tall one looks a lot like a certain shy pro-gamer, part-time caster. Was he at MLG? hehe
Well I definitely know they were up to no good, so it's a great video regardless.
Still they were brought to the ground and escorted away with their wrists bound up, so it just seemed weird to me to call them cops (not that it really matters who they were since their intentions were clear).
|
On October 18 2011 04:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:25 BioNova wrote:On October 18 2011 03:25 Logo wrote:On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements. Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy. I was pretty clear I would want the story furthered before snapping off about 'We've seen this before' , and well, we have..seen it before. No doubt when you show up at a peaceful protest with masks, impact gloves and rock in hand, it's not to be used as a paperweight. If they were not arrested..I would be more inclined to believe they were in fact UC officers. That said, I personally have no info on their identities, other than to say the tall one looks a lot like a certain shy pro-gamer, part-time caster. Was he at MLG? hehe Well I definitely know they were up to no good, so it's a great video regardless. Still they were brought to the ground and escorted away with their wrists bound up, so it just seemed weird to me to call them cops (not that it really matters who they were since their intentions were clear).
Their actions after they were being accused of being policemen convinced me that they are in fact policemen. First off they would not take off their mask being scared of showing their identity. When you want to start a riot you should expect to be arrested and your identity to be known. Why are you scare to show yourself? After the people accused them of being policemen they immediately went for the barricade insisting to get arrested. This was a smart move on their part. Their plan failed so they retreated by getting "arrested".
If they were not cops they should just walk home. WHY WOULD YOU JUMP INTO THE FUKING BARRICADE WITH JUST 3 PEOPLE!
Edit: you even said it yourself, they were "escorted" away. Watch other videos and see what happened when you try to jump a barricade like that.
|
On October 18 2011 04:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:25 BioNova wrote:On October 18 2011 03:25 Logo wrote:On October 18 2011 01:30 BioNova wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Great clip. It speaks volumes about the uphill battle faced by this process, legitimacy in the face of attempts to discredit/sabotage. At least no one was hurt. Have those men been identified yet? That alone would be the question I would have to know the answer, before making further judgements. Are there any other views of this or way to verify that the guys in masks were actually policemen? The man's evidence at the end seems pretty iffy. I was pretty clear I would want the story furthered before snapping off about 'We've seen this before' , and well, we have..seen it before. No doubt when you show up at a peaceful protest with masks, impact gloves and rock in hand, it's not to be used as a paperweight. If they were not arrested..I would be more inclined to believe they were in fact UC officers. That said, I personally have no info on their identities, other than to say the tall one looks a lot like a certain shy pro-gamer, part-time caster. Was he at MLG? hehe Well I definitely know they were up to no good, so it's a great video regardless. Still they were brought to the ground and escorted away with their wrists bound up, so it just seemed weird to me to call them cops (not that it really matters who they were since their intentions were clear).
It matters. It matters a lot.
Was just over at RawStory watching the umbrella lady get arrested.
+ Show Spoiler +
Looks like it's been fun in Seattle Occupy this week.
Amid the ongoing “Occupy Seattle” protest, city officials decided to ban sitting down with umbrellas in public spaces, ostensibly because they become “makeshift structures,” which are forbidden.
In a scene from earlier today, a single woman, who identified herself as Debra Lynn Peardon, put that law to the test, opening an umbrella and sitting down on the ground.
That’s when, according to Seattle blog The Slog, “40 police officers surrounded” the woman. With her hands bound, at least four officers then carried her out by her arms and legs, with protesters all the while chanting, “Show me what oppression looks like? This is what oppression looks like!”
Video of the arrest also appeared to show an officer ramming a bicycle into an individual who filmed the arrest, sparking a confrontation.
In all, at least seven people were arrested in Seattle on Monday morning as police moved in to evict protesters from Westlake Park, according to the Seattle Police Department. Although they’re only allowed to stand, protesters have vowed to keep a constant presence at the site.
Seattle police last week were also seen giving tickets to drivers who honked in support of “Occupy” protesters.
Apart from Seattle, “Occupy” protests have also sprung up all across Washington state, in Vancouver, Tacoma, Olympia, Yakima and Spokane, according to CBS News.
Source
EDIT- They WERE cops
Source
|
Uh huh...
The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."
Source
|
On October 18 2011 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh huh... Show nested quote +The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism." Source
Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
Select the correct answer and then click Check Your Answer.
O Attacking the Pentagon
O IEDs
O Hate crimes against racial groups
O Protests
If all the questions in the anti-terrorism handbook are that retarded I'd consider the handbook to be low-level terrorism
|
On October 18 2011 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh huh... Show nested quote +The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism." Source
Is it fascism yet?
|
On October 18 2011 05:53 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh huh... The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism." Source Is it fascism yet?
I believe it's call 'security' now.
|
On October 18 2011 05:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 05:53 caradoc wrote:On October 18 2011 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh huh... The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism." Source Is it fascism yet? I believe it's call 'security' now.
I thought it was called security then too?
|
So if low-level protest is terrorism, what is the definition of what we see in the Quebec video, especially after we know they were almost certainly 'the law'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
