| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2011 07:26:33 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by tnun:
of course not. I do believe the woman who claimed to be the mother had/has some issues not immediately related to the protest. I do hope the other shouters were not typical. |
You're going to have your idiot's at any event of this type. That said, no normal parent would knowingly take their child into a dangerous situation. |
This should be obvious. I'm not even sure why the video was posted in the first place. |
|
|
|
11/07/2011 07:33:03 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by tnun:
of course not. I do believe the woman who claimed to be the mother had/has some issues not immediately related to the protest. I do hope the other shouters were not typical. |
You're going to have your idiot's at any event of this type. That said, no normal parent would knowingly take their child into a dangerous situation. |
This should be obvious. I'm not even sure why the video was posted in the first place. |
For the purpose of discrediting a movement. |
|
|
|
11/07/2011 07:39:11 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
For the purpose of discrediting a movement. |
Granted that that may have been the poster's aim, but it serves a secondary purpose to those within any movement: Don't be that guy. If you see that sort of behavior, convince them they are embarrassing the movement. No matter how sure you are of the rectitude of your action, think about how what you are doing will look when it is filmed. Don't be that guy. |
|
|
|
11/07/2011 07:40:38 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by tnun:
of course not. I do believe the woman who claimed to be the mother had/has some issues not immediately related to the protest. I do hope the other shouters were not typical. |
You're going to have your idiot's at any event of this type. That said, no normal parent would knowingly take their child into a dangerous situation. |
This should be obvious. I'm not even sure why the video was posted in the first place. |
Because if there's one documented idiot in a group, obviously everyone in that group is just as idiotic.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2011 08:27:56 PM · #305 |
| still don't understand y the cop can't just take the kids away from her, it is their job to protect people. |
|
|
|
11/07/2011 10:25:31 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
For the purpose of discrediting a movement. |
Granted that that may have been the poster's aim, but it serves a secondary purpose to those within any movement: Don't be that guy. If you see that sort of behavior, convince them they are embarrassing the movement. No matter how sure you are of the rectitude of your action, think about how what you are doing will look when it is filmed. Don't be that guy. |
Locally, a few days ago there was a protester near the occupy group who had a sign stating, "The Only Good Cop is a Dead Cop"... clearly provocative and also contrary to the sentiment of the other OWS protesters, who generally consider the police as part of the 99%. They confronted her, asked her to justify her sign and asked her to go away. When she didn't, some of the occupy protesters made signs saying things like "This is NOT what occupy is about" with arrows pointing to the offending sign. They then held these signs until the anti cop protester left. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:01:15 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
For the purpose of discrediting a movement. |
Granted that that may have been the poster's aim, but it serves a secondary purpose to those within any movement: Don't be that guy. If you see that sort of behavior, convince them they are embarrassing the movement. No matter how sure you are of the rectitude of your action, think about how what you are doing will look when it is filmed. Don't be that guy. |
Locally, a few days ago there was a protester near the occupy group who had a sign stating, "The Only Good Cop is a Dead Cop"... clearly provocative and also contrary to the sentiment of the other OWS protesters, who generally consider the police as part of the 99%. They confronted her, asked her to justify her sign and asked her to go away. When she didn't, some of the occupy protesters made signs saying things like "This is NOT what occupy is about" with arrows pointing to the offending sign. They then held these signs until the anti cop protester left. |
Re: questioning the purpose of posting the video: Seriously? You are not interested in exposing anything negative or appalling on the part of the "movement"?? What if I said the same thing about people posting the videos of cops lobbing flash grenades directly at protesters - "What is the purpose of posting that video? Just to discredit the cops?" Pretty absurd. I don't care what side of this protest you are on, suppressing reality on either side is equally wrong.
I'd be happy to see videos of situations like Spork mentioned - feel free to post anything that might paint some of these people in any kind of positive light i.e. Policing themselves and ejecting anarchists and troublemakers. As it is, there is no shortage of images and video of the violence, stupidity, incoherence, bullying, destructive, lewd, disrespectful, anti-social and anti-American conduct.
I am amazed not surprised at the hypocrisy of the mainstream media coverage of these events compared to the Tea Party where there was no violence, no arrests, no destruction. The media had to search out to find a questionable sign from which they could try to label them with, or make up stories wholecloth. The Tea Party made their point, went home, organized in groups and became a driving influence in the mid-term election. Whether you agree with their positions or policies, you can't deny the rapid growth of their influence. The OWS movement, which had some very justifiable grievances, some of which were shared by the Tea Party, has been taken over by anarchists and will ultimately be brought to a very destructive end.
Believe it or not, so many of you who scored in the green on that political chart, have much more in common with a core of the Tea Party groups than you might think - the majority of those that I have come across are not Republican type conservatives, they lean far more toward Libertarian. But God forbid we all find out that ultimately we want the same things and we all work together to get them instead of fighting amongst ourselves while those who should be the target of our anger, are barely inconvenienced by all the hubub.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:14:39 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'd be happy to see videos of situations like Spork mentioned - feel free to post anything that might paint some of these people in any kind of positive light i.e. Policing themselves and ejecting anarchists and troublemakers. |
Here ya go |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:24:49 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'd be happy to see videos of situations like Spork mentioned - feel free to post anything that might paint some of these people in any kind of positive light i.e. Policing themselves and ejecting anarchists and troublemakers. |
Here ya go |
Thanks for that, Brennan. I did hear about that incident. Good to see this and sorry to be a bit cynical about it, but considering the small number of vandals compared to the large group of protesters, they weren't very effective at stopping the damage or even deterring it. Why didn't they hold these punks down and get the cops down there to arrest them? They seemed more worried about their image than the store property. But all in all, this type of thing is encouraging.
eta: Props to that BAMF with the ninja broomstick skillz. ;-)
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 02:26:00. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:28:39 AM · #310 |
| It just cracks me up that Whole Foods became a target, how much more crunchy granola do you get than Whole Foods? The dude in the yellow helmet gets props for going in early and often, but the BAMF wins on style points alone. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 05:46:38 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
For the purpose of discrediting a movement. |
Granted that that may have been the poster's aim, but it serves a secondary purpose to those within any movement: Don't be that guy. If you see that sort of behavior, convince them they are embarrassing the movement. No matter how sure you are of the rectitude of your action, think about how what you are doing will look when it is filmed. Don't be that guy. |
Locally, a few days ago there was a protester near the occupy group who had a sign stating, "The Only Good Cop is a Dead Cop"... clearly provocative and also contrary to the sentiment of the other OWS protesters, who generally consider the police as part of the 99%. They confronted her, asked her to justify her sign and asked her to go away. When she didn't, some of the occupy protesters made signs saying things like "This is NOT what occupy is about" with arrows pointing to the offending sign. They then held these signs until the anti cop protester left. |
Re: questioning the purpose of posting the video: Seriously? You are not interested in exposing anything negative or appalling on the part of the "movement"?? What if I said the same thing about people posting the videos of cops lobbing flash grenades directly at protesters - "What is the purpose of posting that video? Just to discredit the cops?" Pretty absurd. I don't care what side of this protest you are on, suppressing reality on either side is equally wrong.
I'd be happy to see videos of situations like Spork mentioned - feel free to post anything that might paint some of these people in any kind of positive light i.e. Policing themselves and ejecting anarchists and troublemakers. As it is, there is no shortage of images and video of the violence, stupidity, incoherence, bullying, destructive, lewd, disrespectful, anti-social and anti-American conduct.
I am amazed not surprised at the hypocrisy of the mainstream media coverage of these events compared to the Tea Party where there was no violence, no arrests, no destruction. The media had to search out to find a questionable sign from which they could try to label them with, or make up stories wholecloth. The Tea Party made their point, went home, organized in groups and became a driving influence in the mid-term election. Whether you agree with their positions or policies, you can't deny the rapid growth of their influence. The OWS movement, which had some very justifiable grievances, some of which were shared by the Tea Party, has been taken over by anarchists and will ultimately be brought to a very destructive end.
Believe it or not, so many of you who scored in the green on that political chart, have much more in common with a core of the Tea Party groups than you might think - the majority of those that I have come across are not Republican type conservatives, they lean far more toward Libertarian. But God forbid we all find out that ultimately we want the same things and we all work together to get them instead of fighting amongst ourselves while those who should be the target of our anger, are barely inconvenienced by all the hubub. |
Here's what I found on the specific incident. Article
The only real effect the Tea Party had was to drive the GOP further to the right and further alienate moderate Republicans before getting in bed with the party.
As I've said before, the problems highlighted by the OWS are not Rep vs Dem or really Cons vs Lib issues, but ones of corporate control and influence of our government contrary to the best interests of the people (unless you're among the very wealthy or are a big corporation.)
It seems there have been incidents where people did get out of control, but you can't paint the whole movement with that same brush, anymore than you can paint the whole Tea Party as racist because of a few folks with racist signs.
The majority of the Tea Party people here are very socially conservative and desire to promote a religious based government with an anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-choice, Christian Fundamentalist hateful agenda...I just can't abide that.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 06:05:35. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 12:50:59 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Believe it or not, so many of you who scored in the green on that political chart, have much more in common with a core of the Tea Party groups than you might think - the majority of those that I have come across are not Republican type conservatives, they lean far more toward Libertarian. But God forbid we all find out that ultimately we want the same things and we all work together to get them instead of fighting amongst ourselves while those who should be the target of our anger, are barely inconvenienced by all the hubub. |
One could say the same thing about the OCW movement. Recent polls show a vast majority of Americans support wealth redistribution and that the current 1% have accumulated their wealth and money unfairly. This is in direct contrast to the Tea Party movement, who advocate the removal of the few remaining strings that keep the wealthy and corporations from owning a full 100%.
Bottom line, you can't be for social equality and liberty while at the same time support legislation that removes regulations and gives corporations more power. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 01:23:08 PM · #313 |
| Who is winning? I haven't kept up. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 01:49:01 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Who is winning? I haven't kept up. |
I'm pretty sure we're ALL losing here. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 01:56:13 PM · #315 |
| nope i'm pretty sure the rich people ain't loosing a damn thing. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:18:27 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Believe it or not, so many of you who scored in the green on that political chart, have much more in common with a core of the Tea Party groups than you might think - the majority of those that I have come across are not Republican type conservatives, they lean far more toward Libertarian. But God forbid we all find out that ultimately we want the same things and we all work together to get them instead of fighting amongst ourselves while those who should be the target of our anger, are barely inconvenienced by all the hubub. |
You've made this statement a number of times but you don't state specifically what you see as the areas of overlap or commonality between the two groups. I really can't think of any, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Distinguishing a subset of Libertarians from the greater Tea Party movement might produce some agreement with OWS sympathizers in the area of spending on the military and foreign policy matters in general. But in terms of economic policy, if you're talking about Ayn Rand and Ron Paul type libertarians, that economic policy is right in line with all the policies the Republican Party and the greater Tea Party support and results in more economic inequality, not less. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:27:17 PM · #317 |
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 14:28:59. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:30:19 PM · #318 |
everyone wants to redistribute wealth and take away the windfall profits of the companies.
when these companies have no incentive to produce goods because the profits aren't there, don't complain. they aren't going to produce stuff because we need it, they are going to produce stuff because it sells. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:34:26 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
I think this is pretty obvious from a liberal point of view, no one wants to be restricted in their own personal quest for happiness (whether that means not having a kid you don't want, or marrying the partner of your choice), but we all know that power corrupts. Therefore, power must be monitored and regulated.
As for the conservatives, they just like to be contrary.
eta: forgot my smiley face ;D
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 14:35:10. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:50:22 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
...no one wants to be restricted in their own personal quest for happiness... |
I think you hit the nail on the head, but I think the exact same reason is found on the other side as well. Both sides scratch their heads and ask, "you want WHAT in your quest for happiness?" When we understand we all have the same motivation, then we find a common ground to begin talking. Liberty is worth protecting but also needs limiting and in my central armchair I think neither side has all the answers.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 14:50:34. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:55:01 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
everyone wants to redistribute wealth and take away the windfall profits of the companies.
when these companies have no incentive to produce goods because the profits aren't there, don't complain. they aren't going to produce stuff because we need it, they are going to produce stuff because it sells. |
Is not the inverse equally true? All the companies want to take away the wages and benefits of the workers.
When the working stiffs have no incentive to produce goods and services because the wages aren't there, don't complain.
Wealth redistribution cuts both ways, and the flow over the last three decades has been towards the top, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle is getting squeezed like an old tube of toothpaste. There are a spectrum of successful economies from the socialist model of the Swedes, to the rather laissez-faire attitude of Singapore. Where we choose to stand on that spectrum is a question of societal values, not a true/false binary decision.
Mining and crude oil have a 23.8% profitability. Supermarkets show a profit of 5.3%. Yet oil companies are underwritten by the government while supermarkets have to compete without tax breaks and subsidies. Tell me, are supermarket chains folding up their tents because their marginal profits are so slim where you live? Do you really think Exxon/Mobile will quit production if they have to shoulder the burden of a much greater share of taxes, so long as they still can maintain profitability? |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 02:57:45 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
we all know that power corrupts. Therefore, power must be monitored and regulated. |
Of course there is the rub. As Plato asked, who will guard the guardians? |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:10:20 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
...no one wants to be restricted in their own personal quest for happiness... |
I think you hit the nail on the head, but I think the exact same reason is found on the other side as well. Both sides scratch their heads and ask, "you want WHAT in your quest for happiness?" When we understand we all have the same motivation, then we find a common ground to begin talking. Liberty is worth protecting but also needs limiting and in my central armchair I think neither side has all the answers. |
Here's the biggest difference... while conservatives are saying "you want WHAT in your quest for happiness?" they are answering that with "no freaking way, not while I'm still kicking even though it has absoutely nothing to do with me personally". While liberals will say "sure, whatever floats your personal boat is fine by me, but a corporation is NOT a person".
;D This is only my opinion, so I'll keep adding the smileys because I've been too sick to fight. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:21:46 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
Regulation of the market is necessary because unregulated capitalism will eventually result in less competition, higher prices, less innovation, an inhibition of economic development, a concentration of wealth and political power in very few hands, and a never-ending cycle of economic chaos and upheaval.
Your use of the word "authoritarian" in this context is problematic:
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:30:03 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It just cracks me up that Whole Foods became a target, how much more crunchy granola do you get than Whole Foods? |
I think there is still some lingering resentment (at least in Berkeley) towards Whole Foods because of the way they (are thought to have) contributed to the demise of the Berkeley Co-op stores, and because they are (IMO) over-priced and seem to have that "wholier than thou" aura ... |
|
