Operation Occupy Wall Street

[Scuzz]

Let's start with picking them up and separating them, rather than using overbearing force, scare tactics, and pressure points. Let's treat protesters as american citizens rather than as opportunities to use (guilt-free) all this sweet-ass LTL shit Homeland Security gave us. Let's pretend, just for a little while, that we live in a republic where people that disagree are free to disagree peacefully, whether you like them or not.

I know it's tough when you're old and cranky and all these kids are on your lawn, but tacitly approving the injury of non-resisting and peaceful protesters is a bad thing. Which many others have already called you out, perhaps in this very thread.

Your mom.

Tell me how they do that without hurting someone. Come on, you have the answers, you must. You are so damn sure of your self on this that there must be some method taught that they could have used. Maybe they should have "just asked nicely"?

[Mr_PeaCH]

The author is just like you, he complied with the officer when it was his turn to get arrested. He still got thrown face-first onto the ground and so forth. The only thing his cooperation spared him was the ankle twisting.

Not sure what you think the protesters could've done differently. The police were not there to disperse a crowd, they were there to make an example. And apparently the message they're sending is that peaceful protesters are the worst threat to public safety in the state. 1400 officers for less than 300 protesters? Good lord.

I don't wish to appear defensive. Or rather, I'm comfortable in defending my position as it is. But you, and perhaps others, are assigning to me thoughts or ideas that were not intended. So maybe I was unclear.

I applaud the protesters who were there and 'fought the law' (non-violently on their part or one-sidedly on the laws depending on how you look at it). But it comes as no surprise to me that this was the outcome. You are exactly right in saying that the LAPD came in force to make an example of these people. I do not think there is anything that the protesters could have done differently. The LAPD knew how it would appear and the LAPD did not care.

[jeffd]

It's good to know that Scuzz is OK with the use of torture by authorities to force compliance with an order.

[Scuzz]

It's good to know that Scuzzy is OK with the use of torture by authorities to force compliance with an order.

Please explain how the police disburse the occupiers who have chosen to connect with each other. Please explain. I want to know how they do it without any physical discomfort to anyone.

Go ahead.

[jeffd]

Please explain how the police disburse the occupiers who have chosen to connect with each other. Please explain. I want to know how they do it without any physical discomfort to anyone.

Go ahead.

The last time you went out on a limb on this topic I linked you to a James Fallows post, which included a letter from someone who trains police in Texas. He pointed out that there are in fact ways for police to do just that, it's just that it requires 3 cops per protestor.

I'm not really interested in having this discussion with you again though. Your current position boils down to "they had no choice but to torture a bunch of peaceful protestors who presented no threat. It's a vile opinion to hold, plain and simple. Throughout this thread you've displayed an unerring deference to authority figures, I really doubt you're going to change that stance regardless of what anyone says to you.

[mrmolecule88]

Please explain how the police disburse the occupiers who have chosen to connect with each other. Please explain. I want to know how they do it without any physical discomfort to anyone.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Did you catch what I did there? I'm not saying "with physical discomfort." I'm decrying the use of what amounts to physical torture, especially as it was used to enforce compliance in others. As to my recommendation? They've got the protesters outnumbered 5 to 1. What's wrong with having a cop grab a limb each and carry the protesters off? That was good enough for your generation, wasn't it?

And please, cut the self-righteous bullshit about me "knowing exactly what should be done." You're arguing the exact same thing only from the other side, so at best, the self-righteous angle hits you too.

[Rasputin]

You grab them and wrestle them apart. You don't fucking stomp on them or twist joints out of shape in order to do so. They're nonviolently resisting, not punching and kicking the cops, two cops are stronger than two guys trying to keep their arms linked.

[mrmolecule88]

Hey, reasonable force, right?

[Jibble]

You grab them and wrestle them apart. You don't fucking stomp on them or twist joints out of shape in order to do so. They're nonviolently resisting, not punching and kicking the cops, two cops are stronger than two guys trying to keep their arms linked.

But that's so time consuming and physically taxing. Why can't we just spray the hippies with chemicals and torture them until they do what we want?

[Shadarr]

Why not just shoot them in the head and bill their families for the bullet?

[Ben Sones]

Please explain how the police disburse the occupiers

Jugglers.

[Matthew Gallant]

Please explain how the police disburse the occupiers

I want an explanation too. Who is getting paid in protestors? Slavery is illegal.

[CLWheeljack]

The last time you went out on a limb on this topic I linked you to a James Fallows post, which included a letter from someone who trains police in Texas. He pointed out that there are in fact ways for police to do just that, it's just that it requires 3 cops per protestor.

Hilariously, they apparently had more than 3 cops per protestor, but still decided on violent force!

[Jason Townsend]

I want an explanation too. Who is getting paid in protestors? Slavery is illegal.

Saved me having to think something up, thanks :)

[Two Sheds]

Oh for fuck's sake. You think they have had nothing to say? Like, the world just turned to them and said "OK, what do you want to say?" and they all just stammered and shifted their feet?

[Jason Townsend]

If anybody's confused about why the Tea Party had a prefab party line and isn't just spewing talking points I'm happy to reiterate why that was. As for "but what do the OWS people want? What are they protesting" honestly just google the phrases and you'll literally find sarcastic cartoons and memes from people tired of rebutting that precise criticism a billion times over.

As a general rule those asking don't want to hear.

[Dawn Falcon]

They're prepared to actually DO something.

No, they're prepared to defend the current system rather than protesting against it.

[Shadarr]

Say what you want about the Tea party, but they have a very specific legislative agenda and candidates at all levels of government.

So what you're saying is that you prefer your grass-roots movements to not actually be grass-roots movements. I guess that's fair. My favourite vegan dish is steak.

[Kalle]

So I take it you guys don't know either.

Hey, before you spew any more bullshit how about you read the thread from the beginning and save people the time and effort of repeating themselves.

[John Many Jars]

The Herman Cain Mutiny, one of Bogart's best movies.

[AlanQ]

Actually, it's pretty clear what they want.

1. Prosecute the Wall Street firms and executives that caused the financial crises.
2. Regulatory reform directed at the financial sector to reduce its ability to damage the economy and reduce its influence on government.
3. Changes to corporate personhood, I think basically as a reaction to Citizens United
4. Various and sundry reforms aimed at economic justice (eg. tax the rich, forgive student loans, etc)

OK now you can stop asking what they propose to do about it.

[Kolonial]

They have to move on to a second act to remain credible.

Hey, did you know Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954? That Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955, starting a bus boycott which lasted 381 days? That Little Rock wasn't desegregated until 1957? That sit-ins didn't start until 1960? That the March on Washington didn't take place until 1963? That the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is called such because it was signed into law in (you guessed it) 1964, a full ten years after Brown v Education?

I know the Arab Spring and the glorious (and now crumbling) triumphs of the Tea Party make it seem like effecting change is as simple as listing out some demands and voting in the people who support them, but real, lasting change takes a while. I'm not sure any of us knows what OWS "has" to do and what the timeline should be.

[Kolonial]

Understood. Sounds like you guys have it all under control. Good luck.

Thanks, I'll pass that along to the secret leaders you think you know about.

[jeffd]

The immutable law of P&R holds true. Any poster with less than a few hundred posts in other forums is probably not worth bothering with.

(hilariously my first qt3 post was in P&R, arguing with Jason)

[Kolonial]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are no leaders. That's kinda my point.

But carry on.

Pretty sure, but are you SURELY sure? Careful how you answer, we're taking names.

[Two Sheds]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are no leaders. That's kinda my point.

But carry on.

I thought your point was something about second acts?

The Tea Party's single solution to every problem is "lower taxes and cut spending!" If there's one proposal that's ubiquitous across all of the Occupy protests, it's "raise taxes on the rich." You consider the first group to be Very Serious People with Big Ideas, and the second to be leaderless rabble that doesn't have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is.

[Black Isis]

I thought your point was something about second acts?

The Tea Party's single solution to every problem is "lower taxes and cut spending!" If there's one proposal that's ubiquitous across all of the Occupy protests, it's "raise taxes on the rich." You consider the first group to be Very Serious People with Big Ideas, and the second to be leaderless rabble that doesn't have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is.

Don't forget such coherent messages as "keep the government out of my Medicare."

[Two Sheds]

If that's all they want, they'll probably get it. Didn't need to sleep in a park for that.

Really? I seem to remember a government near-shutdown over the issue of raising any taxes at all. I also remember something about a supercommittee that ended up not doing anything because half of the government refuses to raise taxes. How many people do you remember in the mainstream news talking about wealth inequality before they started sleeping in parks? If you say any more than zero, you're lying.

[PhoenixRising]

Hey, reasonable force, right?

It's always nice to see authority figures filmed when they commit sexual assault. Not that anything will come of it. They'll still have their jobs and pensions and will still be praised by all the bootlickers on the right.

[Valentine]

See here: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ity/index.html

I assume the New York Times counts?

There will be tax hikes on the rich. Coupled with spending cuts, including some in entitlement programs. Gonna happen.

All that work for nothing. Nice