Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
[ New ]10-26-2011 12:46 PM
"You cannot negotiate with people who say 'what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." -- President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
.
.
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ New ]10-26-2011 01:17 PM
You missed the point. People hated the hippy protesters in the 60s & 70s. They were a bunch of unabated, irresponsible rabble out there disrupting civil order, protesting the war, and complaining about anything. They kept it up and kept it up. After a while... People started to listen. More than 50 thousand people died in a war that we weren't quite sure why we got into it. Many of them were boys who were mandatory conscripted at the age of 18 when they couldn't legally vote till they were 21. They couldn't sign contracts. In many states, they couldn't get married without parental permission. All the while, parents were lined up behind local authorities saying, "Do your duty! Shut up! Sit down! Be a good American!" Eventually we backed out of the war and even granted amnesty to kids who'd fled to Canada to avoid the draft. LBJ retreated to Texas where he allowed many of those draft dodgers to set up a commune on his property. Why? Because they were right and because they were willing to give up everything for what they believed in. LBJ was on record telling deep pocketed arms suppliers, "You get me elected and you can have your dirty little war." Vietnam was wrong. I can think of 58,209 reasons it was wrong. More if you count the Vietnamese lives lost because we helped extend the war.
tsgtsmako wrote:
Enough is enough already, the fat greedy Wall St geeks are raking in the cash hand over fist no matter how many signs the protesters wave, people who make less than 30k have to work too and the protesters are messing them up.
If you want to protest here is the way to do it, organize a national strike. EVERYONE stays home on one day, no work, no shopping, no travel, don't even go to the hospital unless you are seriously hurting. ONE DAY without trade or commerce of any kind.
The 99ers are looking at how wages have languished behind the cost of living for more than 30 years. Unemployment is way up and underemployment is rampant. Home values--down. Investments--down. Retirements--unlikely. All the while, the only solutions to the problems we face seem to include some way for the jack dandies who got our money to get more of it. The politisphere seems content to stall, and stammer, and stagnate, and bottleneck while searching ways to sell us on the idea that we should all go on paying taxes while buying all of the services we were paying for in the first place... On the local economy. If you like the idea of your thirty thousand dollars being worth five grand about five years from now... Then you probably aren't the demographic they're looking for. The 99ers are trying to take your country back for you. They're aware of how both sides of the aisle only stand and quibble over trifles while vying for support from deep pocketed donors. The 99ers call themselves the 99ers because 99% of us only get to choose between the hobson's choices of candidates that the parties vet for us. We do so, knowing darned full well that those guys will kiss hands and shake babies before election cycles while doing nothing or working against our best interests while they're in Washington.
Profits over Patriotism. That goes back to before Glass-Steagle became a sham. That proceeds the days when Boehner handed out big tobacco checks on the floor of the house. That goes back to a time before Reagan declared war on the unions and sold us a bill of goods on trickle-down economics. Were they the first in line for corruption? No... Corruption dates back to the days of antebellum south and before. It has always been there... It just hadn't hit a critical mass. What we have now is akin to the worst yeast infection the country has ever known. The 99ers want to scratch. They want to treat it. They want to be done with the corruption.
Some of us don't want them to scratch. Some of us don't want to treat it. Some of us like the infection. I'm not one of them. The mess we're in... The one that came to a head during the last part of the Bush administration is the direct result of us procrastinating. We knew that collaboration between the legislature and industry was rampant. We knew that corruption and back room deals were hurting the nation. It had been going on for years and began accelerating in the mid seventies. We put it off. You can either deal with trouble as it comes or put it off until it comes looking for you. Corruption and collaboration between business and government is what the 99ers are all about. They want it addressed.
I'm just sayin...
"You cannot negotiate with people who say 'what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." -- President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
.
.
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ New ]10-26-2011 01:21 PM
Well, I live in Atlanta, and I can give a little less bombastic and more realistic reasoning behind the enforced eviction from Woodruff Park.
Firstly, the location of the park is kind of anomalous considering the nature of the protest. It's smack dab between the Georgia State University campus and the Hard Rock Cafe Atlanta restaurant. It is a long distance away from the state capital building and blocks away from the offices of any major bank's corporate office buildings. There are large banks who have offices downtown that could be protested, such as RBC Centura, Wachovia/Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, but none of them are particularly near the park. In fact, the Bank of America Plaza building is a 55 story complex that would seem to be a great location to protest, but this location is over a mile from Woodruff Park. In fact, there are several other parks closer to the offices of major banks than Woodruff Park. I only bring this up because I haven't been able to really understand why they selected Woodruff Park in the first place, unless the organizers wanted it to be convenient to GSU students.
Secondly, the main purpose of these protests seem to be concerning the activities of the major banks. However, the protest at Woodruff Park wasn't hurting any of the big banks, but it was hurting the many small businesses that are located either bordering or close by the park itself. Yes, I understand that these protesters have a right to speak their mind, but I do not feel that this right to speak extends so far as to damage the financial viability of nearby businesses. Additionally, there are a number of apartment and condominium highrise buildings nearby, and the tenants have complained about late night drumming circles and chanting sessions, often extending past 1:00 AM. Once again, I do not agree that one person's right to free speech overrides another person's right to be left alone. Honestly, I don't really understand what a protester thinks he/she is accomplishing by chanting anti-big business slogans at 1:00 in the morning. I mean, none of the big-business people are around to hear you, and neither are their customers. Then there's the pure slovenliness of the get together. I was down there over the weekend to attend the nearby Taste of Atlanta food festival, so I decided to take a look at the Occupy group to see what was going on. The place was a mess. I mean, would it kill the people to clean up after themselves. I read a news story where one protester stated that they had volunteer groups collecting trash every six hours. Assuming that this protester was telling the truth, I can only say that those volunteer groups were doing an absolutely terrible job. The place was a mess.
Lastly, there have been legal issues. In addition to the late night noise code violations, this past weekend, a group of protesters thought it would be a great idea to have an impromptu, unauthorized hip-hop concert. PA equipment was brought in and hundreds of partiers showed up. This was done without a permit and without police notification, so there was no additional police protection despite the dramatic increase in individuals present. In another case, a person camping at Woodruff Park was witnessed carrying an assault rifle style firearm; the person was not identified, so the weapon hasn't been recovered, and no one is sure whether or not it was even loaded. There have also been rumblings of assaults and the like, but I don't know if those are accurate or not. The park is relatively small, and the police have kept a presence there since the protest started.
The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, had offered to extend the permit for the protest, but made that extension contingent upon meeting a group of clergy who would negotiate with the protesters. He assumed that members of the clergy would be seen as less confrontational than members of the city or state government. The clergy members (approximately 30 of them) attempted to meet with leaders of the Occupy group, but were sent away. One of the clergy members, Rev. Darrell Elligan, complained that no one was interested in listening to him. The Occupy leaders claimed that they declined to meet the clergy members because they already had a "march" scheduled at that time; I find it hard to believe that one or two of the Occupy leaders couldn't have skipped the march to try to negotiate a continued presence at the park. Further things I have read indicate that the Occupy leaders didn't really believe that Reed or the clergy member's had any intention of letting them stay (despite Reed having stated publicly on several occasions his willingness to do so), so that preconception is probably the reason that they shut down the attempted negotiations so quickly.
There was no violence in the removal of the protesters from Woodruff Park. Most of the protesters vacated voluntarily after the police announced that the park was being closed. Out of all the protesters at the park, 53 were arrested for refusing to leave. The hearings are today, and some are expected to not be released on bail due to prior arrest warrants.
The last point I want to make about the Occupy protests is that I think they are kind of missing the mark. For example, here in Atlanta, the city government has stated that they have spent around $300,000.00 related to the protest, primarily in the form of overtime for police officers. I have to wonder, how much money do the protesters think they have cost those big corporations they claim to be the object of their protests? I think they need to retask the protests to target the banking giants they're so unhappy with. Frankly, I think that Facebook group that's trying to get people to move their business from the big banks to community banks or credit unions will do more damage to the big banks than the current incarnation of the Occupy groups will.
Firstly, the location of the park is kind of anomalous considering the nature of the protest. It's smack dab between the Georgia State University campus and the Hard Rock Cafe Atlanta restaurant. It is a long distance away from the state capital building and blocks away from the offices of any major bank's corporate office buildings. There are large banks who have offices downtown that could be protested, such as RBC Centura, Wachovia/Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, but none of them are particularly near the park. In fact, the Bank of America Plaza building is a 55 story complex that would seem to be a great location to protest, but this location is over a mile from Woodruff Park. In fact, there are several other parks closer to the offices of major banks than Woodruff Park. I only bring this up because I haven't been able to really understand why they selected Woodruff Park in the first place, unless the organizers wanted it to be convenient to GSU students.
Secondly, the main purpose of these protests seem to be concerning the activities of the major banks. However, the protest at Woodruff Park wasn't hurting any of the big banks, but it was hurting the many small businesses that are located either bordering or close by the park itself. Yes, I understand that these protesters have a right to speak their mind, but I do not feel that this right to speak extends so far as to damage the financial viability of nearby businesses. Additionally, there are a number of apartment and condominium highrise buildings nearby, and the tenants have complained about late night drumming circles and chanting sessions, often extending past 1:00 AM. Once again, I do not agree that one person's right to free speech overrides another person's right to be left alone. Honestly, I don't really understand what a protester thinks he/she is accomplishing by chanting anti-big business slogans at 1:00 in the morning. I mean, none of the big-business people are around to hear you, and neither are their customers. Then there's the pure slovenliness of the get together. I was down there over the weekend to attend the nearby Taste of Atlanta food festival, so I decided to take a look at the Occupy group to see what was going on. The place was a mess. I mean, would it kill the people to clean up after themselves. I read a news story where one protester stated that they had volunteer groups collecting trash every six hours. Assuming that this protester was telling the truth, I can only say that those volunteer groups were doing an absolutely terrible job. The place was a mess.
Lastly, there have been legal issues. In addition to the late night noise code violations, this past weekend, a group of protesters thought it would be a great idea to have an impromptu, unauthorized hip-hop concert. PA equipment was brought in and hundreds of partiers showed up. This was done without a permit and without police notification, so there was no additional police protection despite the dramatic increase in individuals present. In another case, a person camping at Woodruff Park was witnessed carrying an assault rifle style firearm; the person was not identified, so the weapon hasn't been recovered, and no one is sure whether or not it was even loaded. There have also been rumblings of assaults and the like, but I don't know if those are accurate or not. The park is relatively small, and the police have kept a presence there since the protest started.
The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, had offered to extend the permit for the protest, but made that extension contingent upon meeting a group of clergy who would negotiate with the protesters. He assumed that members of the clergy would be seen as less confrontational than members of the city or state government. The clergy members (approximately 30 of them) attempted to meet with leaders of the Occupy group, but were sent away. One of the clergy members, Rev. Darrell Elligan, complained that no one was interested in listening to him. The Occupy leaders claimed that they declined to meet the clergy members because they already had a "march" scheduled at that time; I find it hard to believe that one or two of the Occupy leaders couldn't have skipped the march to try to negotiate a continued presence at the park. Further things I have read indicate that the Occupy leaders didn't really believe that Reed or the clergy member's had any intention of letting them stay (despite Reed having stated publicly on several occasions his willingness to do so), so that preconception is probably the reason that they shut down the attempted negotiations so quickly.
There was no violence in the removal of the protesters from Woodruff Park. Most of the protesters vacated voluntarily after the police announced that the park was being closed. Out of all the protesters at the park, 53 were arrested for refusing to leave. The hearings are today, and some are expected to not be released on bail due to prior arrest warrants.
The last point I want to make about the Occupy protests is that I think they are kind of missing the mark. For example, here in Atlanta, the city government has stated that they have spent around $300,000.00 related to the protest, primarily in the form of overtime for police officers. I have to wonder, how much money do the protesters think they have cost those big corporations they claim to be the object of their protests? I think they need to retask the protests to target the banking giants they're so unhappy with. Frankly, I think that Facebook group that's trying to get people to move their business from the big banks to community banks or credit unions will do more damage to the big banks than the current incarnation of the Occupy groups will.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
[ New ]10-26-2011 01:38 PM
We say that the constitution is the well from which the wit and wisdom of all laws are predicated and all laws are tested upon. Then we go about making scores of little laws that undermine the intent of the constitution.
SenordeSol wrote:
I take it enforcing the law is only fascism when you agree with the cause of those being arrested.
OldeSpy wrote:
Which do you say is greater? Defending the rights of multinational businesses and Wall Street to conduct their business their way or the constitutional rights of the people?
At present, we have schoolyard bully rules. The big kids get to dictate the rules to the legislature. Since they're making the rules, they'll make them to suit their own short term interests. Profits for them trump quality of life and liberty for the many. What do you do when your own government has taken up the cause of the upper 1%?
"You cannot negotiate with people who say 'what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." -- President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
.
.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
[ New ]10-26-2011 02:03 PM
This whole protesting against the "fatcats" on Wall st. really scares me. I don't know how old you are Spy, but history shows just how this attitude and action can end up. Russia, China, and Germany are just some examples. We have a system, and it still works, maybe not as fast as a lot of us would like. But blaming the woes of the country on one set of individuals and then taking action against them smacks of the beginnings of violent revolution.
What do you think will be the end result of this "protesting" will be??? A better, more prosperous country for all, with freebies thrown in for good measure? The attitude of this whole scenario speaks of possible revolution (which could mean a lot of injury and death) and socialism which would demolish everything this country has ever stood for.
Churchill said it well: "Some see private enterprise as a predtory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon".
What do you think will be the end result of this "protesting" will be??? A better, more prosperous country for all, with freebies thrown in for good measure? The attitude of this whole scenario speaks of possible revolution (which could mean a lot of injury and death) and socialism which would demolish everything this country has ever stood for.
Churchill said it well: "Some see private enterprise as a predtory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon".
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
[ New ]10-26-2011 02:05 PM
I don't see how saying you can't camp in public parks or defecate in the streets 'undermines' the constitution.
OldeSpy wrote:
We say that the constitution is the well from which the wit and wisdom of all laws are predicated and all laws are tested upon. Then we go about making scores of little laws that undermine the intent of the constitution.
SenordeSol wrote:
I take it enforcing the law is only fascism when you agree with the cause of those being arrested.
OldeSpy wrote:
Which do you say is greater? Defending the rights of multinational businesses and Wall Street to conduct their business their way or the constitutional rights of the people?
At present, we have schoolyard bully rules. The big kids get to dictate the rules to the legislature. Since they're making the rules, they'll make them to suit their own short term interests. Profits for them trump quality of life and liberty for the many. What do you do when your own government has taken up the cause of the upper 1%?
//If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', is congress the opposite of progress?//
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ New ]10-26-2011 02:14 PM - last edited on 10-26-2011 02:14 PM
Your word in red......are you talking about Joe Biden's classification of tea partiers?
Gutsky wrote:
Just keep on repeating: "The Terrorists hate us for our Freedoms" and everything will be all right.
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ New ]10-26-2011 02:18 PM
Yet if we did not have rules and laws to follow in that society....we would have anarchy.
Perhaps the fault here lies within the movement???
Some of their own activists and organizers have feared that the radical element would ruin things for those who wanted to protest within the guidelines of our laws.
Seems that is now happening.....
HeckGutsky wrote:
"Dozens of demonstrators were arrested in swift crackdowns by riot squads after local authorities lost patience with the rallies."
I knew I have been living in Police State all along; it's just like the former Soviet Union in some ways:
The great 20th Century Austrian-British philosopher Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) addressed the issue head on.
Popper said that Absolute Certainty was not available in either science or politics.
Thus, the imposition of a single viewpoint is never justified.
Criticism is the chief means in which social policies can be improved before they are implemented, and the noting of undesirable consequences is the promptest cause of their modification or abandonment after they have been implemented.
Thus, a society that allows critical discussion and opposition, an Open Society, will almost certainly be more effective in making society better than one that does not.
We should all the time be seeking out the worst social evils and trying to remove them.
That includes unjustified wars and threats to peace.
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ New ]10-26-2011 02:22 PM
Great post....thanks for the info.
Saldiven2010 wrote:
Well, I live in Atlanta, and I can give a little less bombastic and more realistic reasoning behind the enforced eviction from Woodruff Park.
Firstly, the location of the park is kind of anomalous considering the nature of the protest. It's smack dab between the Georgia State University campus and the Hard Rock Cafe Atlanta restaurant. It is a long distance away from the state capital building and blocks away from the offices of any major bank's corporate office buildings. There are large banks who have offices downtown that could be protested, such as RBC Centura, Wachovia/Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, but none of them are particularly near the park. In fact, the Bank of America Plaza building is a 55 story complex that would seem to be a great location to protest, but this location is over a mile from Woodruff Park. In fact, there are several other parks closer to the offices of major banks than Woodruff Park. I only bring this up because I haven't been able to really understand why they selected Woodruff Park in the first place, unless the organizers wanted it to be convenient to GSU students.
Secondly, the main purpose of these protests seem to be concerning the activities of the major banks. However, the protest at Woodruff Park wasn't hurting any of the big banks, but it was hurting the many small businesses that are located either bordering or close by the park itself. Yes, I understand that these protesters have a right to speak their mind, but I do not feel that this right to speak extends so far as to damage the financial viability of nearby businesses. Additionally, there are a number of apartment and condominium highrise buildings nearby, and the tenants have complained about late night drumming circles and chanting sessions, often extending past 1:00 AM. Once again, I do not agree that one person's right to free speech overrides another person's right to be left alone. Honestly, I don't really understand what a protester thinks he/she is accomplishing by chanting anti-big business slogans at 1:00 in the morning. I mean, none of the big-business people are around to hear you, and neither are their customers. Then there's the pure slovenliness of the get together. I was down there over the weekend to attend the nearby Taste of Atlanta food festival, so I decided to take a look at the Occupy group to see what was going on. The place was a mess. I mean, would it kill the people to clean up after themselves. I read a news story where one protester stated that they had volunteer groups collecting trash every six hours. Assuming that this protester was telling the truth, I can only say that those volunteer groups were doing an absolutely terrible job. The place was a mess.
Lastly, there have been legal issues. In addition to the late night noise code violations, this past weekend, a group of protesters thought it would be a great idea to have an impromptu, unauthorized hip-hop concert. PA equipment was brought in and hundreds of partiers showed up. This was done without a permit and without police notification, so there was no additional police protection despite the dramatic increase in individuals present. In another case, a person camping at Woodruff Park was witnessed carrying an assault rifle style firearm; the person was not identified, so the weapon hasn't been recovered, and no one is sure whether or not it was even loaded. There have also been rumblings of assaults and the like, but I don't know if those are accurate or not. The park is relatively small, and the police have kept a presence there since the protest started.
The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, had offered to extend the permit for the protest, but made that extension contingent upon meeting a group of clergy who would negotiate with the protesters. He assumed that members of the clergy would be seen as less confrontational than members of the city or state government. The clergy members (approximately 30 of them) attempted to meet with leaders of the Occupy group, but were sent away. One of the clergy members, Rev. Darrell Elligan, complained that no one was interested in listening to him. The Occupy leaders claimed that they declined to meet the clergy members because they already had a "march" scheduled at that time; I find it hard to believe that one or two of the Occupy leaders couldn't have skipped the march to try to negotiate a continued presence at the park. Further things I have read indicate that the Occupy leaders didn't really believe that Reed or the clergy member's had any intention of letting them stay (despite Reed having stated publicly on several occasions his willingness to do so), so that preconception is probably the reason that they shut down the attempted negotiations so quickly.
There was no violence in the removal of the protesters from Woodruff Park. Most of the protesters vacated voluntarily after the police announced that the park was being closed. Out of all the protesters at the park, 53 were arrested for refusing to leave. The hearings are today, and some are expected to not be released on bail due to prior arrest warrants.
The last point I want to make about the Occupy protests is that I think they are kind of missing the mark. For example, here in Atlanta, the city government has stated that they have spent around $300,000.00 related to the protest, primarily in the form of overtime for police officers. I have to wonder, how much money do the protesters think they have cost those big corporations they claim to be the object of their protests? I think they need to retask the protests to target the banking giants they're so unhappy with. Frankly, I think that Facebook group that's trying to get people to move their business from the big banks to community banks or credit unions will do more damage to the big banks than the current incarnation of the Occupy groups will.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 06:58 PM
I imagine they're rarely enforced because they're rarely broken. And when there's a whole crowd of beligerent, angry people who are teeming with rage and frustration at 'the system', were I a police officer, I'd want to be equipped with nothing less.
Wanderer12 wrote:
SenordeSol wrote:
I take it enforcing the law is only fascim when you agree with the cause of those being arrested.
OldeSpy wrote:
Using rarely enforced laws to call out riot police with rubber bullets and tear gas which is turned on peacefully protesters is a a dodge. It is no different when the police in the south used water cannons and dogs against the people who were in the civil rights protests. Also, if you are so keen on the law why not call for a criminal investigation of Bush or for that matter bankers.
As for your second point (with regard to Bush & banks): I have no objection, you don't have to crap in the streets to do that though.
//If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', is congress the opposite of progress?//
Re: Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland
[ Edited ]10-26-2011 07:25 PM - last edited on 10-26-2011 07:28 PM
The government can regulate the time, manner and place of the protest, but they cannot constitutionally forbid all protest.
Otherwise, we're living under a situation similar to Belarus.
Otherwise, we're living under a situation similar to Belarus.
| “ | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. | ” |
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake . . ."
--George Washington's Farewell Address
--George Washington's Farewell Address
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
[ Edited ]10-26-2011 07:35 PM - last edited on 10-26-2011 07:36 PM
i will get a lot of flack but this is exactly what Beck said was going to happen. As in, the protests will become violent if the laws are enforced This a tactic of intimidation, and it also works out well for the criminals taking advantage of the chaos. Textbook. And if you think Obama has not read that book you are mistaken.
Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 08:10 PM
Late last month the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)
(several hundred activists) ventured to Wall Street
to protest this country's growing inequality
and the stranglehold of corporate money
over our democracy,
hoping to attract thousands of protesters;
but the turnout ended up being small.
The mainstream media dismissed them
as "carnival".
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A MONTH MAKES!
Not only did OWS survive,
it has become a national force
with the very real potential to create change.
Unions are showing solidarity with OWS
that share many of labors views.
Wall Street and the Big Banks
helped caused the market crash
that caused millions of jobs
and plunged our economy into near-depression.
Yet 3 years later,
the financial elite continue to prosper
while 99% suffers.
Meanwhile Washington seems incapable of
arresting the decline.
This protests simply represents the aspirations
of people seeking a better life.
I think if your surveyed most American people
they would relish the opportunity
to kick Wall Street in the never . . .
mind.
(several hundred activists) ventured to Wall Street
to protest this country's growing inequality
and the stranglehold of corporate money
over our democracy,
hoping to attract thousands of protesters;
but the turnout ended up being small.
The mainstream media dismissed them
as "carnival".
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A MONTH MAKES!
Not only did OWS survive,
it has become a national force
with the very real potential to create change.
Unions are showing solidarity with OWS
that share many of labors views.
Wall Street and the Big Banks
helped caused the market crash
that caused millions of jobs
and plunged our economy into near-depression.
Yet 3 years later,
the financial elite continue to prosper
while 99% suffers.
Meanwhile Washington seems incapable of
arresting the decline.
This protests simply represents the aspirations
of people seeking a better life.
I think if your surveyed most American people
they would relish the opportunity
to kick Wall Street in the never . . .
mind.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 08:19 PM
Shouldn't you change the color of the font to brown, it seems to be their favorite color.
Jalus wrote:
Late last month the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)
(several hundred activists) ventured to Wall Street
to protest this country's growing inequality
and the stranglehold of corporate money
over our democracy,
hoping to attract thousands of protesters;
but the turnout ended up being small.
The mainstream media dismissed them
as "carnival".
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A MONTH MAKES!
Not only did OWS survive,
it has become a national force
with the very real potential to create change.
Unions are showing solidarity with OWS
that share many of labors views.
Wall Street and the Big Banks
helped caused the market crash
that caused millions of jobs
and plunged our economy into near-depression.
Yet 3 years later,
the financial elite continue to prosper
while 99% suffers.
Meanwhile Washington seems incapable of
arresting the decline.
This protests simply represents the aspirations
of people seeking a better life.
I think if your surveyed most American people
they would relish the opportunity
to kick Wall Street in the never . . .
mind.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 09:01 PM
I just heard that 24 year old Scott Olsen a two tour Iraq war veteran is in critical condition in hospital with a fractured scull apparently caused by a tear gas projectile fired by the Police.
Here is a link:
Here is a link:
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 09:07 PM
And the people on Wall Street are being funded by...........ACORN. I'm so proud.
tsgtsmako wrote:
Enough is enough already, the fat greedy Wall St barons are raking in the cash hand over fist no matter how many signs the protesters wave, people who make less than 30k have to work too and the protesters are messing them up.
If you want to protest here is the way to do it, organize a national strike. EVERYONE stays home on one day, no work, no shopping, no travel, don't even go to the hospital unless you are seriously in need. ONE DAY without trade or commerce of any kind.
The fat greedy barons hear you, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
They may think they are protesting Wall Street and fighting against the elite, but they are sitting in the mud doing the dirty work of George Soros who's sitting in his penthouse, Nancy Pelosi who's sitting in her pretty office, ACORN who are sitting in their office, union leaders who are sitting in their offices, and now we can add a bunch of Muslims whose clerics are sitting in their offices.
Seems to me, the OWS are nothing but minions either way.
Re: Riot squads clear Wall St. Protests in 2 cities
10-26-2011 09:10 PM
Thanks Macbig.
__________________________
Macbig wrote:
I just heard that 24 year old Scott Olsen
a two tour Iraq war veteran
is in critical condition in hospital
with a fractured scull
apparently caused by a tear gas projectile
fired by the Police.
Here is a link:
No comments:
Post a Comment