Or anti-terrorist forces being sent in shows, unsurprisingly, that the NYPD is heavily trained in counter-terrorism and has received much more much funding for those kinds of activities than it has for dealing with protests.

SigurdOrSiegfried, I think it is important to clearly note that civil disobedience means disobeying the laws you disagree with rather than every law under the sun just because you disagree with some. So unless OWS has started protesting "[d]amage to public property, disrupting the peace, illegal squatting, trespassing, illegal drug use, assault, etc" that T51b listed, I do not see how the police are enforcing the laws that people are protesting. I do not think OWS has even identified many particular laws they disagree with, but things like financial regulation and income inequality are not the laws police enforce in the United States.



The US Constitution absolutely does. Article 2 vests the executive power in our President, and this executive power covers a power to police federal laws. However, the police power is something typically reserved to the States, but even then the rest of the constitution puts certain limits on those powers.

It's been known for some time now that the NYPD has received such training as well as support from the CIA. I simply find it amusing, unsurprising, and repugnant that they brought out these particular forces for this.

Its also a profound waste of resources and a terrible way to police a protest. I think in smaller cities where you have normal police forces amongst the crowds the police can keep the protests safe and also protect the community. Seeing a wall of riot shields is just going to inflame people. I imagine T51b would respond that the police should be prepared but police always face some risks and that does not justify sending out counter-terrorism forces at all times.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 43875.html

Pretty decent article about the militarizing of police in the US.

Common sense would also dictate that you at least acknowledge that your views are far from the norm in America. I know it might seem like a vast majority of people agree with your sentiments when you choose to surround yourselves with sources who feel the same. I also know it was probably quite exciting to see all these protesters come together at once and it appear for a fleeting moment that a real "awakening" or what ever the devil it is someone like yourself hopes to see. You must understand though, that type of talk is the exact thing that will cause people to not even give a movement like OWS a second look. It makes you come off as an extremist, and hurts the protest credibility to the same degree that Anarchist do.

You believe what you believe, and that is totally cool. Your voice is just as important as everyone else's. However, just because you believe something, does not make it so. You will not see Police Officers stepping down in mass as you wish. In fact this morning Zuccotti Park was completely cleared in a very professional manner by Law Enforcement Officers. Protesters were told by Officers that they would be able to return in a few hours once the tents and fire hazards had been cleared. They were specifically told however that tents and sleeping bags were NOT allowed back in.

Personally, I think that is fair. Lack of tents and sleeping bags (and an enforceable law restricting them) will stop them from being able to squat in the park all night. With winter approaching the majority will simply not be able to take that type of exposure and have to go home at night. It also allows the park to become accessible and safe to all of the public once again.




Oh, I know for a fact the average Joe agrees with me. It has nothing to do with being deluded, break down exactly what it is I approve of. Politics and everything aside, I simply believe in laws being enforced for the greater public good. The ones that protect against public disorder, assault, public drug use, theft, etc etc etc. I do not have any radical political views what so ever, in fact I am pretty mild mannered compared to most that I meet. It may upset you to come to terms with, but the ones who oppose the police and believe them to be a bunch of jack booted thugs, are the ones who are in the extreme minority.

There is a reason support for OWS nose dived after the small scale rioting took place and the Anarchist element came to light. People were sympathizing to some degree with them at a time. Right when it becomes apparent that a particular type of behavior paves the way for violence and confrontation, watch in wonder as your "Average American" will flee and denounce support from said movement. A month ago I could have googled OWS and got dozens of mainstream news links talking if there was Police Brutality. The past couple of weeks, googling the same thing results in a lot of talk support from the public for OWS fizzling, bystanders and public officials getting fed up with the conditions of the camps, increased and publicly supported action by the Police to put an end to the illegal protesting, and so on.


The Police do not "suppress second class citizens". If you want to talk minority views, that one right there would rank up there in the top. Please, do provide me with some evidence to support a claim such as that. Show me something where the "majority" do not approve and appreciate Law Enforcement involvement and action. A majority of Americans mind you, not a majority of OWS protesters and supporters. The Police are there to enforce the laws on the books, that simple.

Your problem is that you do not like the laws that are on the books and the way things are done. I get that, and hey it is cool. Guess what? A lot of extremist do not like the current laws on books. Guess because *Insert random Neo-Nazi/Religious Extremist/Code Pink nutter here* group thinks that a particular set of laws that exist are unjust we should just change them because they personally believe it right? Sorry, it does not work that way. You are entitled to your beliefs, but do not think that you speak for anyone else.

I am sorry that you have such a hard time coming to terms with Law Enforcement and inability to respect authority. It really is something you are just going to have to get over, because you are in no position to do anything about it. On the flip side, this is a free country and no one is stopping you from getting on forums just like this and ranting all you want about how unjust and corrupt the system is. I understand completely that sometimes when you are as fed up with the way things are as much as you are, it is nice to just be able to let out some steam.

I doubt he'd address it, just like he's dodged addressing several important points, news articles, etc. and even if he did, it'd be out of spite or trolling. He picks and chooses what he responds to, backs off randomly, etc. Poor debate skills, though I give him credit for sticking to his story, whether or not I agree with it.

A couple asides

OWS may be representing a small portion of Americans, but you cannot deny that the movement has resounded globally with those who work for economic and social justice, as well as all sorts of cultures and peoples who want democracy, an end to the empire, etc.

Why aren't there more Britfags reporting in on what's going on with London?

The 53% do not care about the homeless or poor who have NO voice. At least the 53% can THINK they have one. They are satisfied with their apathetic, neutered reality and don't think twice about those worse off than them, unless they're scorning them for using the same drugs as them or being a burden on their tax dollars (who the fuck needs to know about the military industrial complex!) . Mass cognitive dissonance and false consciousness.

I apologize if this seems to be a bit of an aside, but I feel it is relevant.





HURRAY! Progressives are finally coming around to the libertarian view on the militarization of state and local police forces and the ways in which they cover their own asses after blatant misconduct. Now if only there was something we could do about it.....oh, I know: end their collective bargaining rights. The only reason the Blue Wall of Silence is possible is because the entire structure of police unions is designed to cover up bad cops instead of rat them out to the public. But that would be evil, right?


Before 9/11, you could have ended this crap by severely decriminalizing (or outright legalizing) most schedule I and II drugs; not anymore. They have a new excuse for turning cops into SWAT teams. Police unions have to go.

Yeah man, progressives were way behind on that one. It's always been libertarians leading the charge against asshole cops! Remember in the 60's, those mass libertarian protests against criminal cops?

I cannot respond in full as I am at work at the moment, but please do list what I have backed off from and dodged. I sincerely cannot recall anything that I have been directly asked and ignored. When I get home I will be more than happy to respond to what ever you post. I rarely ever back down on anything I state, earlier in the thread when someone else said I was ignoring post I responded in kind to them, for what it is worth it is true that I am pretty consistent.

On a side note, just checked the AP news app. The mass clearing of camp sights is still progressing nicely today. Protesters seem to be going quietly and resisting peacefully, allowing the camps to be dismantled. No Police brutality or incidents to make note of.

There is a pending legal challenge to the eviction and there will be a hearing on the issue. In the mean time there is a temporary restraining order allowing the protesters to return. The hearing was scheduled for 11:30 so hopefully we will find out soon.

Here is the order: http://nlgnyc.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... y-Park.pdf

Edit: Just so no one gets confused, in New York the "Supreme Court" is the State's trial level court. Also I can not find any good details on whether the police are allowing protesters back in, but it appears not: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 ... up-in-nyc/

The health and safety concerns are probably legitimate since NYPD have been telling homeless people to go to Zucotti for weeks.

There's other ways to point out police corruption rather than refusing to shower and getting in the faces of random people on the streets dude, didn't you get the memo? Furthermore, most of the American intellectuals who claim the libertarian ideology cite champions that go all the way back to the days of Abraham Lincoln's abuse of Federal policing powers, so yes, you guys were behind the curve by about roughly 100 years.

Do I get to say that my philosophy has a superior lineage to liberalism if I credit Adam Smith in the foreword of my book?

The heart of libertarianism is in capitalism, it's where you see their real zeal, everything else is periphery. Thus, this is why libertarians, despite claiming to have had their philosophy handed down from Lincoln or Jesus or whoever are never at the forefront of civil rights issues. I'm not saying they would necessarily be directly antagonistic to such things, just that it's not what is closest to their hearts and never has been. Whereas, other groups have been at the heads of those movements, so trying to say that they are catching up with libertarians is just silly and an obvious attempt to make libertarian achievements look more impressive than they really are.

You misread my post, I was talking about intellectuals such as journalists and politicians whom Lincoln threw in prison for speaking their minds, hence the entire premise of your post is a 100% non-sequitur, which is pretty well common practice for you on this subject. Lincoln is the quintessential anti-libertarian, in fact I'd argue he was the founder of what you recognize as progressive politics, drawing praise from your own intellectual hero Marx no less. Libertarianism is less concerned with the fascistic concept of civil rights where groups are pitted against each other economically, which was the overall goal of deifying Lincoln during the 1960s in order to push through flawed Civil Rights legislation spiked with mercantile economic schemes, it is concerned with real world versions of freedom such as the economic ones that make the other ones possible.

To put it bluntly, I would venture to guess that your real problem with police brutality isn't the brutality actually occurring, but that you aren't able to direct the police's brutality towards the groups of people that you don't care for. But do feel free to give me another utopian platitude about how the Bourgeois is ruining the human race, since it's all you seem to know.

That still doesn't change my point, which is that even if libertarians claim intellectual descent from people in Lincoln's time who spoke against police abuses then, it doesn't mean that libertarians were the first on that scene. I brought up civil rights as it ties in generally and libertarians were clearly never at the forefront of any movement even tangentially related to any of it as someone earlier claimed.

Since you don't say otherwise, I assume you are quietly admitting that my point was correct.

Afraid I'll send the KGB after you?

I don't think I've said or done anything that would genuinely make you believe that I want to see people hurt or killed for thinking differently than me.

They claim descent from them primarily because the views held at that time by those people are very much influential on the current libertarian paradigm, we're simply talking labels at this point, not actual consequential differences in world views. In fact, the views of certain of America's founders, namely Jefferson's anti-centralized banking views and Patrick Henry's anti-federalist views go a bit earlier, and I would argue have more relevance than a bunch of smelly hippies. Marx and Engels claimed solidarity with the French Revolution, and many of the occupiers cite said Revolution as an inspiration, but I don't see you complaining about the lack of a clear line of succession such as the standard you are holding to the libertarian view. In other words, I say otherwise, and you are agreeing with me without even realizing it.

As to your own desires on this matter, I think you'd be a very less accommodating person if you had the kind of power necessary to remake the world for the good of the proletariat, much like I'm sure Obama was a very nice guy until he came into power over the most dangerous military on the planet. My entire beef with politics in general is that power changes people, and those who seek it, be it corrupt bankers or rag-tag groups, are not to be trusted. You could call it paranoia if you'd like, but I dare say that T51b's mentality isn't unique to policemen, but applies to most of the so-called 99% and also a good chunk of the so-called 2009 Tea Party.

I'm going to assume you mean they claimed solidarity with the revolution in Paris, for which I don't think those two men need a historical line of succession to be connected to because they were alive when it happened and supported it at the time. If you mean one of the earlier ones, then I don't recall any instance of them claiming that the arbiters of those events were the progenitors of the philosophy that they later developed themselves. In fact I recall them specifically stating that that was not the case on a number of issues. Either way, none of this has anything to do with the point I was making about the thing that guy said. I pointed out that it wasn't libertarians who led those early movements against police abuses which we now agree is true. I never said anything about communists being behind the revolution of 1789, which would be the equivalent claim (I guess). If you have to hear it, I don't think that they were. I think you're just trying to invent a logical fallacy to say I'm pushing. I'll go ahead and admit that the OWS guys weren't involved in that event either!

Very well then, I accept that I'd probably go on a mad killing spree if I had the power, and will on the same rationale assume that you, personally, would do the exact same thing. This is the completely logical position to take because it's a possibility and there is no reason not to assume complete bad faith and secret dreams of violence in one another.

Won't intellectuals be having these conversations throughout all of time? Being vexed at mans inherant traits and weaknesses, they'll always be with us and no matter how well meaning someone or a group sets out - absolute power corrupts absolutely, unless your a Tibetan Lama ( the sixth being the exception).

Maybe the change you seek needs to come from within first? (the organization via a "Serpico") which will then snowball into mass descension.

The temporary restraining order was not extended. The judge held that the protesters could be in the park but that their First Amendment interest in having tents did not outweigh the park owner's interest in maintaining the park. Someone on TV was just speaking on behalf of the movement in NYC for CNN just compared the movement's violation of that particular law to Rosa Park's sitting in the white's only section of a bus while saying that OWS was grander than the civil rights movement. To reiterate, violating a slew of city ordinances because you are upset with income inequality and financial laws is not in any way the same as violating a racially discriminatory law because you disagree with that racially discriminatory law.

And justice has been served, I am extremely pleased. The judge essentially said to OWS, "You Can’t Live Here Anymore (But You’re Free to Visit!)". Which was all that I wanted from the start. They are more than welcome to demonstrate and voice what ever concerns they have. It just has to be done in a legal manner that follows rules, regulations, and does not infringe on the rights of others in the area.

This is a great ruling. With that officially on record, Law Enforcement Officers will have free reign to enforce Laws that strictly forbid any type of lodging or longterm dwelling. With the main camp down we should hopefully see other Law Enforcement agencies follow suit and close the encampments down nationwide.

You have a creepy habit of capitalizting words like laws and officers T51b.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised by the ruling. I am quite curious to see what happens next with OWS and all its incarnations.

1. My point was more directed at the Occupy people and a few videos I saw of them claiming to be of the same mind as the French Revolutionaries, Marx's association was more of a general sentiment on the idea of succession. But you are correct, this is a side issue, as was your complaint to the Earthcubed's earlier post.

2. Lead in what respect? If you mean lead by going out and getting one's ass kicked by police for squatting or rioting, you've got us beat there, otherwise I beg to differ. Murray Rothbard was dealing with the general problem of any kind of arbitrary force used at least as far back and he is very heavily associated with Libertarianism, as are several other members of the Austrian School of Economics. The fact that these people supported a different system than the tyranny of the proletariat may disqualify them from mattering in your own mind, but their philosophical views subsumed all forms of state abuse of the public, including police.

3. Now you're speaking my language, assuming that this isn't sarcasm. In conjunction with this, it is also logical to conclude that ANY system of governance would take this into account if it wishes to address any level of corruption and abuse. The OWS movement does not do this, AT ALL, nor do any so-called progressive group that I am aware of. One thing I have zero time for is nonsense along the lines of "The system is fine, we just have the wrong people running it!", which is a complete cop-out as the right people never run these systems, lest we'd have world peace tomorrow. OWS are interested in reshuffling the deck in my opinion, not actually changing the game, which is why they will fail, and most likely be history come the first significant snow fall.

You failed at life, but rather than try to better yourself you'd rather blame someone else. So you start a protest and whine until people actually start to believe you have a valid point. If it were up to me all of these losers would be either jailed or executed, preferably the latter. I'm really surprised at the tolerance for these kind of people on a metal board.

NSBM fan?

In further developments since the courts ruled against OWS a bunch of Canadian cities are following their lead and moving to boot protesters from their encampments. I'm not sure how it will play out in some of the bigger cities, but I doubt the protest where I live will hold up much longer.

Or perhaps, Koch Brothers soch puppet.


It really says something about how he thinks that he capitalizes "Laws" and "Law Enforcement Officers" (loll... cmon man, three words in a row? really? like its some kind of fucking royal title?) but not "rights"

Hey T51b why aren't you so concerned about the Law Enforcement Officers (I imagine some kind of 19th century dragoon looking guy with a 3 foot tall furry hat, insanely cool moustache and 50 medals on his breast) enforcing the Legal Laws on non Law-abiding financial institutions, who almost destroyed the global economy with a deluge of fraudulent, mis-marked mortgage backed securities?

Probably because it's not the their job to enforce that section of the law?

VIOLENCE, BRUTALITY FOCK YEAH! ONLY THE STRONG SURIVIVE! FOCK! NO OTHER FACTORS CAN MAKE PEOPLE POOR/DESTITUE/SHIT ON, THEY'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF PUSSIES, FOCK! FOCKEN METAL!!!!!! \M/

you're a meathead and just generally, the worst fuckin type of person. i wish pain upon you, truly



woop-id-dee-doo, our protests were a fuckin joke anyway.....now you wanna talk about people that have no reason to bitch, just look to them....that's Canada for ya, fuckin eh...bleh

Letter From A Liberal To A Young Marine (That 53% Guy)Well worth the read for the non-liberals here.

Why is anyone even still acknowledging T51's posts? He's clearly a troll. Nobody could honestly hold such absurd ideas in reality.

On a more important note, Occupy Toronto received our eviction notice yesterday morning. The courts ordered it cancelled until Friday when they can have a hearing on it, so we'll see how that goes.

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but as someone who works in NYC, there have been rumours that the protestors will assemble on one of the main bridges like the Brooklyn bridge supposedly tomorrow (11/17).

No, I am actually not a troll. It is lovely for you to assume as such though. You know what they say about those who assume right?

I have absurd ideas do I? Please, do tell me in detail what is so absurd about the ideas I possess and what makes them differ from the norm. As far as I can tell, my main position I expressed on these forums that I have maintained the course of, is the enforcement of Laws that regulate what the protest can and cannot do. Not once in this entire thread have I ever said OWS does not have the right to protest. In fact you can pull up several quotes where I praise this countries right to be able to think or say the most extreme things imaginable and not be punished for it. In doing so however, OWS does not have the right to infringe on the rights and degrade the quality of life for others in the area who do not share their political views.

Sexual assaults, theft, assault, rape, sanitation issue, and so on. All contributed to the Lawful court order of disbanding the make shift camps. All of which were very valid concerns that needed to be addressed. Those parks are to be used for all citizens, not just a portion there of. Every city official has said very clearly after the clearings, that all protesters would be allowed to return. They just cannot bring large bags, tents, sleeping bags, etc etc etc. No sleeping or camping will be allowed and now that the ruling has been made these laws will be strictly enforced. This in general was a very fair ruling. I am not sure why some of the protesters get off thinking they have rights above all other citizens, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

To reiterate, Protesters can demonstrate as much as they want and about what ever subject they want. This is their right as American citizens. They must do so in a way that does not promote illegal activity, nor infringes on the rights of others. Failure to follow that simple statement results in Law Enforcement action to correct the behavior and is something I sincerely support.

Sorry, but I am just not seeing anything "radical" or troll like in what I think. Just a very basic desire to see the Laws Enforced for the benefit of all, and not just those of OWS. Your issue is that you do not like what I say. Nor do you like that what I want to see happening is happening, and what you want is merely a dream. An extreme view would be something like the gentleman a few post above posted of wanting to see them all executed. I have refrained from even speaking a great deal on my personal political feelings of all this.

I never really understood why other forums banned people for randomly throwing out "hes a troll" comments. Getting a bit of a better vibe on it now, very childish to say the least.






The capitalization does actually have some reasoning behind it. Mostly Law Enforcement Officer though, Law is mainly just because I get caught up in doing LEO and make a mistake. Or maybe it is sub-conscious? Who knows.
Anyways, I belong to a few other forums as well. To be specific, a Marine one and a Law Enforcement community. In places filled with these individuals, there is obviously a general source of pride. the Law Enforcement one is a bit lax on this, but on most Marine forums you will be moderated or yelled at if you do not capitalize Marine. By association, people in these places normally capitalize other types of emergency service and uniformed service as well. Police Officer, Sailor, Soldier, Airman, etc etc etc. So that is where that habit stems from.


And as far as your question towards me, I must admit I am a bit confused and need you to clarify. Are you completely ignorant of the role that the Peace Officers who are working these demonstrations fulfill? I believe Bezerko said it best, it simply is not their job to enforce that area of the law.

You blame an entire (and rather disorganized) collective for the actions of a few of its members, and assume that the alleged victims of the "sexual assaults, theft, assault, and rape" (which I'd bet happened mostly within members of the collective, if they happened at all and were as serious as you portray them) do not share the political views of that collective. Both of which are at least questionable if not flat out wrong.

And just 'cause I kinda see it coming, before you reply to this, please take into account that the above does not mean that I disagree with you on the rest of your comments. Nor the opposite. I am merely stating that you're making two generalizations, one of which is wrong and the other you can't prove. For the record, I do not think you're trolling.

Also, that reminds me of something that happened in the protests here in Spain, that perfectly illustrates why it's usually wrong to blame a group for the actions of some of its members: in one of the encampments, a few girls were allegedly sexually assaulted. The protesters immediately released an official statement condemning them. Oh, and the accusations ended up being fake, apparently.

That's the best news I've heard all day. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the weight of all of them is too much for the bridge to handle, and it collapses with all of them on it. Problem solved!

I've been ignoring T51b for pages now. I think the thread would probably be better if more of you would take up this idea that you yourselves have been floating around. I still read a post here and there and it's typically the same sentiment over and over. You guys won't be missing anything, I promise. It's apparent that he has an unhealthy fixation on power and authority. He'll rationalize and defend any decision that aims to preserve the status quo out of his blatant bias. He's not necessarily wrong every time but the point is that he won't be objective, he'll defend all the decisions made by law enforcement. I'm almost always willing to hear the other side of the argument because the end result is a good thing. It will either strengthen your beliefs on a subject or help mold and improve them. But it only took a few pages before I had heard enough, before I said "ok, I get it." You're the mouth piece for authority around these parts, neat. Guess what? I disagree with you sometimes and that's just the way it is. I'm not changing my position when great men like Thomas Jefferson, and Henry David Thoreau have explicitly said that when the nation, your freedom, your well being is at steak, by all means, break the law. I think those who are on the side of the Occupy movement would all stand behind this and those of us who are supporters on this board need not allow T51b to constantly shape the conversation here from the real issues to the legality of the protests. For the most part, they are within the rules, and even when they're not, again, guess what? They're probably breaking the law on purpose and we don't give a damn what your argument is for violent police response. Its civil disobedience with a particular, humane end in mind, and the law will be broken if need be in order to achieve that end. That's just the way it is and sane, humane individuals will always disagree with violent responses to non violent protesters engaging in civil disobedience. The end.

Moving foward...



I'm not sure why exactly you're focusing on the unions in this case. Protests have been broken up and/or moved all over the country this week and they were largely coordinated by federal authorities. Unless I'm missing the connection I don't see what unions have to do with the militarization of our police(aside from perhaps agreeing to it?). The response after 9/11 has been driven by the federal government. I don't see how ending union collective bargaining rights would affect how the government shapes law enforcement in our country. As far as the Unions protecting their own goes, sure, you have a point. Cops cover each others asses no matter what decision they make(hey, sounds like someone we know eh? ) and its obviously fucked up that since they are the system essentially, they make sure they're treated different by the system. I'll grant you that but I don't see what that has to do with the article I posted, the militarization of our police, and the like.

Also, as a side note, I've said explicitly that I'm something of a Social Democrat and I guess that falls somewhere in the category of being a Progressive as well, but don't be confused about my position. Just because I believe government has a role to play doesn't mean that I support all big government. Libertarians are right about some things. I used to be a Libertarian myself so I'm well aware of what their aims are. I strongly disagree with the overreaching law enforcement at home and foreign intervention that we engage in. That's big government I'm certainly against. I think we are living in a kind of police state and I feel that this movement is highlighting that and showing that it's a trend that needs to be reversed. I believe the majority of this country wants to move forward and would change things such as this if they could but the majority of this country doesn't have much hands on choice with what decisions are actually going to be made. Hooray for broken Democracy that's looking heavily Oligarchical. There's certainly going to be disagreement on economic policies between Libertarians and Social Democrats such as myself, but I think we share a common bond when it comes to Law enforcement and foreign intervention.

Also, some links here. One short article about the Federal Government coordinating the response to these protests over this past week and also a special comment from Keith Olbermann last night on Countdown. As always, Keith is perhaps a bit hyperbolic and overly biased sounding, but also as always, I happen to agree with most of what comes out of his mouth. This comment focuses on Mayor Bloomberg and his potential place as a historical figure that could be vital to the Occupy movement going forward.

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-min ... t-agencies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoG9PmdG ... r_embedded

Better hope Michael Moore shows up then

In fact, I just came across another instance of big government I disagree with. And yet, another instance of it being corporately funded.Today congress is holding hearings on internet censorship and this is something I've been helping to combat over the past few years. The government should not have the power to block websites. It's just another step toward limiting the access of information by individuals.

http://americancensorship.org/

I won't restate what I said earlier but it suffices to say that I disagree with this being civil disobedience because to me civil disobedience means breaking the law you disagree with not breaking a myriad of city ordinances that happen to inconvenience protesters getting their message across in whatever way they deem fit. Also, although I disagree with some of what T51b says I would enjoy it if you were not ignoring those posts because I think voicing your disagreements furthers the discussion.



I could honestly go on forever about how our current tax and financial systems perpetuate income inequality (and I did a bit several pages ago) but people seem much more interested in discussing whether the police or the protesters overstepped some line (of course picking one or the other based on their own political proclivities). The real issues are dry, complicated, and have a great deal of uncertainty where talking about the people on either side going too far is sexy, visceral, and easier to understand.

No no, do not get me wrong here. I do not feel that OWS as a whole are a mass of violent rapist and and thieves. I feel that the disorganization of the camp grounds as a whole coupled with the breaking of laws that are meant to keep these types of protest in check, allow for this type of behavior to more easily be carried out. One of the reasons the first Oakland crackdown was brought on was because Emergency Responders were denied entry to the park despite a sexual assault and severe beating having been reported. The tents in general were another huge issue. Were people inside smoking crack? Could someone have been sexually assaulted inside them? It left open to many possibilities, Police Officers needed to be able to see what was going on inside.

You see, people like Maze will argue that this is simply "Civil Disobedience" to protest unjust laws. The problem is that as Apteronotus pointed out, the laws being broken are not even the point of the protest. Protesters are getting butthurt because they are not allowed to have "Party in the Park" anymore. They thought they were special and had different rights than others, but they don't. They have the same exact rights to protest and voice their grievances in the same manner that any other citizen or group of citizens do. They will also be subject to those exact same laws. This recent reality check was much needed, they should not have been entertained for as long as they were.

The recent shooting homicide and suicide were sorta the straw that broke the camels back. It just showed how such actions are more easily made possible when people are allowed to run amok. OWS can protest in a legal fashion just like everyone else. Anyone who does not like it can just get over it. That is not me coming from a "Authority rawks yeah!" mentality. That is me coming from a, get over yourself you are nothing special and can demonstrate legally without turning our countries parks into a slum mentality.


And on a side note for Maze,

While you and the protesters might not "give a damn" if you are breaking "unjust" laws that relate to public health,safety, and sanitation. Local government and other citizens do. Not all of us appreciate a group of people taking over areas that are intended for everyone's use. Our rights are just as important as yours, and that is something you will come to accept and live by as these laws are more strictly enforced thanks to the court rulings. I wish OWS the best of luck, I do hope it matures and finds a way to keep its steam going even though the lovely tent resorts are a thing of the past. If they cannot, well that is ok as well. There is no shortage of Police to make sure the rowdy ones fall back into line .

Breaking News: Red Sox Over Yankees, Or, Boston Judge Beats NYC Judge and Favors Occupiers

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/16 ... occupiers/