New Video of Police Brutality at Occupy Oakland

Occupy Oakland's clashes mostly had Scott Olsen's bleeding head as the face of police excess. Olsen is the Iraq War veteran who was hit by a teargas canister on October 25 and knocked down, then the bystanders who rushed to his aid were attacked by a cop who threw some kind of device, either a flash-bang grenade or another tear gas canister. Olsen suffered a fractured skull and had to undergo surgery to relieve swelling in his brain. He was unable to talk for a while, since the projectile injured his speech centers, though he is now slowly recovering.

Another veteran was also badly injured at Occupy Oakland. Kayvan Sabehgi, former marine, suffered a ruptured spleen  from being beaten by police around midnight on November 3.

And whatever you think of some protester's tactics and actions, particularly those related to the General Strike, this newly released footage, given to The Guardian, is painful to watch. Sabehgi, who was just walking home when he ran into cops, is perhaps disobeying police orders. He is not immediately dispersing. He is also wildly outnumbered and is not violent. Watch:

After this, Sabehgi was apparently left in a police van for three hours, then taken to jail. Only after he made bail was an ambulance called — "18 hours after he was first handcuffed by police," according to New York's Daily News— and then he was taken to the hospital and put into surgery. 

Seeing this footage, I am reminded of one of the more striking videos from Pittsburgh's 2009 hosting of the G-20 summit, which turned into a riot cop party.

Once again you have individuals moving away from a line of riot cops, just not fast enough for the latter's liking. Once again you have one cop in particular who begins assaulting the people who are not complying with orders. In both cases, the body language of the cops (as well as the yelling from the California cop, who sounds quite frustrated) suggests that they have lost their tempers. 

(In Oakland, California, however, you have the cameraman with chutzpah yelling "I'm filming, shoot me!"* and in Oakland, Pennsylvania, the clearest audio is just a bunch of soulless morons yelling "beat them! beat them!" Fall 2009 was a frustrating time to be a Pittsburgher opposed to both police brutality and leftist economics.)

Oakland Police are "currently investigating the incident" of Sabehgi's beating, says a spokeswoman quoted in The Guardian.

Fellow libertarians and small government sympathizers, I know you may dislike what most of these Occupiers are fighting and chanting for (and for good reason), but I suspect most of you have friends and family with whom you vehemently disagree about politics. I humbly suggest thinking of them the next time you have the urge to laugh at "hippies" getting attacked by police. And I have no particular respect for veterans, but America has no shortage of propaganda which says joining the military is the very best thing you can do with your life. Any veteran who thought he was fighting for other people's freedom, only to come home and feel the nastier side of American law and order has my sympathies. 

Reason on cops and cameras. Contributing editor Mike Godwin's eyewitness report from Occupy Oakland. Reason's trove of reports on Occupy Everything.

*On the same day Oakland cops shot a rubber bullet at an unidentified protester just, it seems, for filming them:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • .||

    Cops versus Communists? In the short term, I can't lose!

  • ||

    God I wish I coulda been there...bashing in the heads of those boo hoos.

  • ||

    Oh look, it's another internet tuff gai.

    Hai, internet tuff gai!

    You should come over to my house and we could play with My Little Ponies and you can complain to me again about your 1-inch penis.

  • Capitalism, a love story||

    Watch the full documentary now.

    Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story comes home to the issue he’s been examining throughout his career: the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans (and by default, the rest of the world).

    But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene far wider than Flint, Michigan. From Middle America, to the halls of power in Washington, to the global financial epicenter in Manhattan, Michael Moore will once again take film goers into uncharted territory. With both humor and outrage, Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story explores a taboo question: What is the price that America pays for its love of capitalism? Years ago, that love seemed so innocent.

    Today, however, the American dream is looking more like a nightmare as families pay the price with their jobs, their homes and their savings. Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere.

    What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal… and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. Capitalism: A Love Story is both a culmination of Moore’s previous works and a look into what a more hopeful future could look like. It is Michael Moore’s ultimate quest to answer the question he’s posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com.....ove-story/

  • ||

    This poorly done propaganda piece fails to accurately portray the govt's role in crony capitalism.

  • ||

    *BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARF*

  • Anacreon||

    Would Moore be able to live in that mansion if capitalism were abolished in the USA?

    Oh, wait, I guess Leni Riefenstahl lived pretty well.

  • ||

    You know what other propagandist lived pre...

    Nevermind.

  • Suki||

    Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein?

  • Barney The Frank||

    What's your address dick lick?

  • ||

    You got a lot of nerve calling somebody that.

  • Maxxx||

    Sounds like he's propositioning him.

  • Libertarian Police Behavior||

    Life, Liberty, and Property. Fuck the first two, unless you're using them as a debating convenience.

    Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? -Murray Rothbard

  • a POLIS needs POLICe, POLITics||

    For the love of money [property values] is the root of all evil [police brutality.]

  • ||

    You're aware that this is a libertarian website that's been bringing police brutality to the attention of the public--for years--and condemning it wholeheartedly, right?

    You're aware that this is a libertarian website with a libertarian post that's condemning police brutality?

    How can you read this post by Steigerwald and come away with the impression that libertarians are somehow okay with police brutality?

  • Old Salt||

    Part of being a libertarian is coming to terms with the fact that most people see what they want to see; even when evidence contradicts their dearly held beliefs.

  • ||

    Is that the problem you struggle with Old Salt? I'll remember your admitted lack of objectivity upon your next post. By the way, I've never seen self-dellusion expressed as a tenet of libertarianism.

  • ||

    I think he was agreeing with me, publius.

    He was saying that a lot of other people see what they want to see in libertarianism--instead of what's really there.

  • Old Salt||

    Yes, I was agreeing with Ken and his amazement at the earlier poster/troll.

    In relation, I was also making mention of the fact that the biggest headache us libertarians (small "l" or big "L") have to put with is the fact that just about everybody else has this unshakeable belief in how their leaders should be put in charge despite evidence to the contrary.

    Whatever the cause may be, no matter how many protestors get attacked, veterans sacrificed, or kids they lock up, Team Red/Blue's acolytes will explain away, rationalize, or just flat out deny that the people they CHOSE to believe in are most likely assholes who shouldn't be in charge jack or shit!

  • ||

    Sorry. Mia copa.

  • ||

    I see an irony: occupiers clamoring for a bigger and stronger government, then being surprised when the power of the state turns out to be clumsy and misdirected and violent. Well, duh, that's what some of us have been saying.

  • ||

    "I see an irony: occupiers clamoring for a bigger and stronger government, then being surprised when the power of the state turns out to be clumsy and misdirected and violent. Well, duh, that's what some of us have been saying."

    When Stalin had a purge, many of his victims thought they had been sent to the gulag by mistake. They thought that Stalin would save them--if only he knew.

    Because there's no way Stalin would do something like that to me!

    I think there was some of that going on at Tienanmen Square before the crackdown too. Many of those students were the children of party officials. The students thought the party was on their side!

    The only reason the party allows all this injustice to happen to people--is because the party doesn't know! We'll protest and point out the problems to them, and once they realize how we're helping the party?

    They're gonna thank us for it!

    And that's what happened. The party appreciated the students' efforts so much, they sent tanks in to thank them.

  • Dello||

    ^^^THIS^^^

  • Dave||

    Amen, brother!

  • KPres||

    You have the right to life, liberty and property so long as you don't infringe on others' right to life, liberty and property.

    The purpose of OWS, along with this particular protester, is to do exactly that.

  • ||

    "You have the right to life, liberty and property so long as you don't infringe on others' right to life, liberty and property."

    A society in which people are free to do things--but only so long as they don't inconvenience anybody else?

    Is not a free society.

    You can't keep a dog in your backyard if I have to sometimes hear it barking from mine?

    That's a free society?

    I don't think so.

    Our rights sometimes overlap and conflict with each other. One of the government's few legitimate jobs is to help sort that out. Sorting that out doesn't mean one person's rights should be upheld and another's completely ignored.

    People do have a right to protest. ...even if other people find it inconvenient. My rights don't exist for other people's convenience.

  • Ray Pew||

    A society in which people are free to do things--but only so long as they don't inconvenience anybody else?

    Is not a free society.

    You can't keep a dog in your backyard if I have to sometimes hear it barking from mine?

    That's a free society?

    I don't think so.

    Yeah, I don't see where KPres' sentence argues for that. I think you read something into it that's not there.

  • ||

    "You have the right to life, liberty and property so long as you don't infringe on others' right to life, liberty and property."

    I don't think that principle is so cut and dry.

    Our rights often overlap and conflict with each other.

    I gave one example.

  • ||

    Pick a fucking handle you stupid cunt.

  • crusher||

    New Video of Police Brutality at Occupy Oakland

    my gold

  • ||

    Wow, you're a dick.

    A human being got the shit beat out of him and then he was denied medical care for (what I understand to be) a fairly serious, potentially deadly, injury.

    Oh, and he happened to have risked his life in the past for the sake of the (ill-conceived) wars of our government.

    So, of course, now's a good time for a little levity.

    Or so you think.

    Because you're a moral imbecile.

  • .||

    I don't give a shit. I hope they finish each other off, because they're both coming after the rest of us next, in any case.

  • KPres||

    HA! Well said.

  • ||

    "A human being got the shit beat out of him and then he was denied medical care for ... a fairly serious, potentially deadly, injury."

    Yah, yah, none of us want to be meanspirited here, but let me put this into more accurate phrasing:

    A human being WHO WAS ADVOCATING FOR MORE GOVERNMENT THUGGERY got the shit beat out of him AFTER ASKING FOR IT REPEATEDLY and then he was denied medical care BY THE SAME STATE APPARTUS FOR WHOSE LIMITLESS POWER HE CONSTANTLY ADVOCATES for a fairly serious, potentially deadly, injury WHICH HE COULD HAVE AVOIDED BY STEPPING OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY.

    Is that closer to the truth? Or the facts? Either way, this guy knew what was coming- you ain't gonna win that fight. Shit, good thing he has gotten out of the military because with his current mindset he would get a lot of soldiers killed.

  • Suki||

    Morning links at 9:03AM

  • jtuf||

    The NYC Occupy Wall Street events on Thursday were a picnic compared to this. Dang. Some police departments need to get their officers in line.

  • ||

    You know Lucy, most veterans don't think very highly of militarized police forces. Some of us think it's a fucking joke, like watching kids pretend to know karate fighting each other.

    Just sayin.

  • ||

    I think what Steigerwald was saying was that she's not into ritualistic incantations of "how much we love our veterans" but they should definitely be treated with at least the dignity that every human being deserves.

    Just sayin.

  • ||

    No. She was saying she despises Veterans - unless they serve a useful purpose to her causes - like getting beat on by cops.

  • irwin mann||

    The civilian was clearly looking for a fight. Standing ones ground against overwhelming police force when one is claiming to be nonviolently demonstrating is stupid as well as an invitation to an ass whipping. In addition, as he backs along ahead of the phalanx of cops he kept putting his hand in his pocket. If I were one of those cops I would have suspected that he had a weapon of some sort in that pocket and I would have smacked the shit out of him as he reached in his pocket. Bottom line thou is that this guy actually is looking for a fight or an ass kicking, for his 15 minutes of fame. Well, he got it. Quit yer bitchin cause you're stealing his "glory".

  • irwin mann||

    So you say you want a revolution?
    When you go down to the demonstration
    to fight with the pigs
    FIGHT! GOD DAMN IT! FIGHT!
    And if you get you ass kicked and hauled off to the gulag at least you can hold your head up and say
    "I stood my ground. I gave what a had and took what they dished out. They knew that they had been in a fight."
    What can this nancyboy say?
    "I backed away slowly but the cowards chased me down and beat me with sticks. I didn't even get in one lick. Well, except I did lick their boots so that they wouldn't beat me anymore."

  • ||

    Irwin "Mann"'s rule:

    If you displease baton-wielding officers, they get to commit attempted murder.

    Irwin, you're a fucking moron.

  • irwin mann||

    You are a pussy, just like asskicked boy.
    Provoking initiation of force is just
    as un-libertarian as is initiation of force.
    Asskicked boy was looking for a fight/asskicking.
    He got it. You all are crying about the cops.
    Asskicked boy is crying cause he got what he came for, another satisfied customer of the revolution.
    He should have brought his A game and few hundred homies.
    He didn't, big mistake, his mistake.

  • ||

    You are a very odd mann. Perhaps a high school graduate?

  • irwin mann||

    That all you've got?

  • ||

    If he doesn't, I do.

    You are a trolling jackass. You sit here and laugh at someone who, perhaps misguided, took to the streets for something he believed in. He got throttled by a bunch of goons because he has guts, not because he is stupid. There was no provocation of force on his part. The cop could have restrained himself, but he chose to beat the protester half to death. The police department then chose to deny care to him for kicks.

    I have protested. I have been arrested, albeit much more professionally and courteously, for standing my ground. And yeah, it can be scary standing up for what you believe in.

    And as far as the OWS movement, I think Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said it best when he spoke to Gomer Pyle about Private Joker: Private Joker, he's silly and he's ignorant, but he's got guts and guts is enough. Now you two ladies carry on!

  • ryan||

    I thought he was just going home?

    So he WAS looking for a fight, after-all, and the backstory was just PR bullshit.

    I, for one, love that everyone is filming police. We get to see that most claims of police brutality are bullshit. Just like the guy who was run-over by a police scooter (fell down, started screaming, placed his foot next to the scooter, and subsequently kicked it over).

    I swear, some here would demand a murder charge for death by cop. You do certain things designed to draw a certain reaction, don't be surprised when you get that reaction.

    And don't bitch about this when you have the UC Davis example of real police brutality to point to.

  • ||

    He should have brought his A game and few hundred homies.

    Yeah, because no way in the world one man standing up for what he believes in can make a difference, right?

    Now go get your shine box, Irwin.

  • Britt||

    Um, that guy got arrested and shot like a couple days later. China? Still ruled by the CCP, just like the last 58 years.

    How exactly did Tank Guy change the world?

  • ||

    He exposed the fact that those guys in the tank aren't automatons after all, and that the Chinese military would blink if someone forced them to.

    Do you not think for a second that China is freer now than they were before Tiananmen Square? Seriously. That guy made a difference, IMO.

  • Britt||

    They still have a gulag. Still have crackdowns on religious freedom, still have no due process at all.

    If there's more freedom in China today, it's due to the economic reforms allowing people to bribe the government more effectively.

  • ||

    The more I think about this, the more I agree with your position and shrink from mine. Although, your claim that he was killed two days later is dubious.

    Either way, motherfucker was badass.

  • Britt||

    Dubious is strong. If he did get away, he's so deep underground no one will ever find him. If he didn't, the Chinese State will never admit they killed him.

    There was a cool book Stephen Coonts wrote called Honk Kong. He took Tank Man, made him into a badass revolutionary leader who first orchestrated a takeover of Hong Kong and then began a new Long March to defeat the Communists.

  • ||

    I'll check that out. And dubious may seem strong, but I cited Wikipedia. And those guys are never wrong because a bunch of people can always fix errors.

  • Britt||

    I actually laughed out loud there. Well played sir.

  • RINOceros||

    Ever notice how protesters in the PRC, Burma, etc. usually go out into the streets to demand more freedom, but the schmucks in Greece, OWS and "Battle in Seattle" are agitating for somewhat less (freedom)?

    By the way, what's with the "booting hippies out of a privately owned park=Tiananmen Square 1989" rhetoric? Carry water for Mao much?

  • Whappan?||

    You are a liar. You don't think he was looking for a fight, nor do you think the cops felt threatened, nor would you believe you would have felt threatened by the veteran's actions. You merely wish to excuse thuggery on the part of the police, and fantasize about inflicting pain and injury on another human being with no threat to your own well-being.

  • Apatheist||

    Or hes a lying troll. Either way he can't be reasoned with.

  • irwin mann||

    What is the lie?

    Have you tried to reason with me?

    Care to argue that confronting an armed force out numbering you 100 to 1 is wise and brave? I'll listen.

  • Leonidas||

  • irwin mann||

    Now that is a stretch.
    OWS = Sparta.
    ROFLMAOSCOKB
    Yeah, Asskicked boy sees himself as Leonidas.
    Thanks for the laugh.

  • ||

    Irwin mann is:
    Rolling
    On the
    Floor
    Laughing
    My
    Ass
    Off
    Sucking the
    Cock
    Of the
    Kings
    Badge-wearers!

    Yeah, sounds about right.

  • irwin mann||

    That did not make me
    Spit
    Coffee
    On
    Key
    Board

    You like to suck guys in uniforms?
    I'll dress up for you.

  • ||

    Keyboard is one word.

    Acronym PWNED!!!!!!11121!!!!ELEVEN11!!!!

  • irwin mann||

    Now you've hurt my feelings. Not.

  • ||

    Now you've hurt my feelings. Not.

    It's Irwin's World. Irwin's World. Party Time. Excellent.

    Sha-wing!

  • Britt||

    I think irwin is making more of a practical point then a philosophical one.

    To wit, protesting usually doesn't accomplish anything. There are exceptions, of course, but in general it isn't that powerful.

    I don't think he's saying the cops were morally right, I think he's calling this guy a pussy because he should be fighting the government, not standing in the streets whining about the government.

    Which, you know, is kind of silly. You can think something the government is doing is bad without being willing to start an armed rebellion over it.

  • irwin mann||

    You understood me correctly, sir.

  • ||

    I guess I did misunderstand you, but in my defense, it was hard for you to speak with that big, fat police cock in your mouth.

  • Britt||

    Well I read Unintended Consequences. Anyone who chooses irwin mann as his handle isn't likely to a be a fan of police brutality.

  • irwin mann||

    Whatever became of Wilson Blair?

  • ||

    Whatever became of Wilson Blair?

    He must have died before the internet came into existence.

  • Britt||

    You know, the only "bad guy" I ever felt bad for in that book was the FBI agent. You know he ended up with Greenwell in the hog pen, but he was a decent guy overall.

  • Realist||

    I recognize very few names. Why is everyone hiding? Or are this really new shitheads?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They're Law and Order Conservatives whoever they are, and any mention they give to small government should be completely ignored. They're statists of the highest order.

  • ||

    You are a wacky guy. You for some untold reason uou ignore the law. If you break the law, cops can only use the force necessary to effectuate an arrest. There is no "you deserve an ass whopping." The law applies to cops. You are an apologist for cops and need too seek psychiatric help.

  • ||

    The law applies to cops.

    Theoretically.

  • ||

    Were the cops not looking for a fight?

  • Jamie||

    This is why we can't have nice things. I don't care if you like the guy's message or not. If the cops can beat him with impunity, they can beat you with impunity.

  • ||

    I hate to say that I see where Mr. Mann is coming from, but I do. And I fully expect the cops to beat me with impunity if I act as the jackass in this video did. That is a fight you can never win. The state has already gotten WAAAAAAAAY too big. You will ALWAYS lose against the jackbooted stormtroopers of the state if you are in your capacity as a civilian/ citizen. PERIOD. You will never win AT THAT MOMENT. There are better things to do than volunteer to have them concuss you on the street. That guy was a dumbass but (cold consolation IMO) at least he made his statement. Which I already knew. And we all knew.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Every one in those pictures was a civilian. I think you mean "citizen".

  • Cytotoxic||

    The first video is bad enough because the cop was not controlling himself. The second video is disturbing because the cop was controlling himself.

  • WWNGD||

    On a blog (I wont mention the name), I was called... well actually it was "you people are psychopaths" because I didn't find the police violence against the occupiers as funny as they did.

  • Suki||

    Is it supposed to be ROFL funny or ROFLMAO funny, LOL or LULZ?

  • Apatheist||

    Dear Police, stop giving them press, you fucking pussies.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Exactly, now their martyrdom narrative will be bleated at us for years, and that beating *was* quite nasty. If he's disobeying, there's only one of him, why not just arrest him - if he doesn't want to be arrested, time enough to beat him.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wait, was the cop trying to arrest him (I don't listen to the audio on these things)? Then it moves to "resisting arrest" territory - resisting arrest prompts a beating.

    What was the actual situation - was he under arrest or not?

  • Whappan?||

    No, he was not resisting arrest, there was no attempt by any cop to arrest him, the cop was just taking out his aggression on an obviously non-threatening person.

  • Xajow||

    This is what happens when the focus of law enforcement officers is moved from protecting individuals and their rights to getting the bad guys.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Er...the latter is a means to achieve the former.

  • ||

    In 2011, traffic offenders and people involved in the buying and selling of vice are the bad guys, and that's where the focus is.

    It ain't got shit to do with protecting your rights, Cyto.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I understood 'bad guys' to be rights violators. If you go buy that definition, then I'm still right. If you go by today's definition, cops are assholes.

  • Xajow||

    Yes, one thing law enforcement is to do is catch bad guys. But protecting individuals and their rights is still the supposed to be the job and the focus of law enforcement. When they lose sight of that, the kind of action you see in the video becomes a result.

  • Jamie||

    "To protect and serve"

    The motto doesn't say who.

  • ||

  • Mt||

    I think that's why some veterans go to these protests and stand up to the cops: to protect rights. And frankly I think this guys is a hero for having the courage to stand up to these thugs operating under the color of the law. If it can happen to him, it can and will happen to anyone. If any statists think it can't happen to them, take heed of this. It has and it will again until people recognize that the police don't protect our rights anymore. The militarization of the police has made them into thugs sent to collect taxes and to force compliance with vice laws.

  • ||

    Some veterans go to the protests looking for trouble because they are bored idiots.

  • ||

    I agree that it can and will happen to anyone. I already knew that the para-military Police-tards of this great nation have WAAAAY too much equipment, funding and perverse incentives (asset forfeiture laws, anyone?). That is why I am not going to set out to get my ass kicked. There are more productive ways to argue for the dimunition of state power vs. citizens. And everyone knows you better comply with the cop asking you to comply or you are going downtown (or worse) and - really? - don't you have better things to do?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    No doubt controlling noncompliant hippies is frustrating work, but once you start taking the transaction personally you've moved from working under the color of law to being one asshole whose beef with another asshole has turned violent.

    That kind of restraint is not easy but a lot of jobs aren't easy. Find another one if it's beyond you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think there should be serious considerations of at least research into behavioural conditioning by drugs or whatever else of riot cops prior to deployment.

  • ||

    Your conclusion is a good one. Your introductory comments are off the mark. Cops regularly treat ANYONE perceived to have less power than them with arrogant contempt--hippie or redneck, black or white, war veteran or not.

  • ||

    Agreed. They can't be accused of discrimination when it comes to this.

  • Mt||

    Well, discrimination against non cops. I think the militarization of the police has made them think of everyone else as the enemy. And that kind of thinking is bound to cause anyone to dehumanize others. And when they don't respect your authority, and you honk they are the enemy, well of course ours going to attack them. They aren't people, and that is discrimination.

  • ||

    True. Just look at how much their police costumes have changed over the last 30 years, especially after 9/11. They used to be in nice, crisp costumes. Very uniform in appearance: from their dress cap and aviator sunglasses and their double-knit polyester pants, corfram shoes, shiny badges and overall professional appearance. Now, their costumes consist of natty combat boots, laced improperly, with blue BDU's tucked in, a web belt jam-packed with goodies, t-shirts that do not identify the officer by name, ballistic jackets with patches instead of badges because they're too lazy to polish them anymore, random sunglasses and a shaven (or buzz-cut) headpiece so they can look hard. Shit, if they want to look like skinheads, all they need are the red suspenders.

    Cops used to want to look cool. Think Erik Estrada in CHiPs. Now they want to look like the fucking special forces. Think Charlie Sheen in Navy Seals.

  • Mt||

    Yeah good point. They even look like cops, and I would guess they don't complain about it either.

  • Mt||

    Feh, I meant soldiers, they look like soldiers.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Concerning the vet hit by the canister: that's terrible, but I can't really fault the cop who fired the cannister unless it was deliberate. There should be a safer way to disperse those things. Like in a football, or wad of soft sticky material to make throwing them back harder.

  • Apatheist||

    Why did they need to disperse a guy lying bleeding on the ground and the people trying to help him get away? Unless the guy has the worst aim ever it had to be deliberately targeted at either him or those people.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ah you're talking about what happened AFTER the canister injured him (I was talking about him getting hit). There's no justifying throwing around flash bangs like candy.

  • Apatheist||

    Yeah we were talking about different canisters. Beyond the questionable need to be throwing anything in the first place I doubt that first one was intentional. The one I was talking about was the on video that was a flashbang.

  • ||

    Calmly placing the person under arrest should have been the first tactic used before an enraged beating. Cops, the fist of gov't, apparently take that cliche seriously.

  • Stephen||

    Lucy: You really need to watch the video again if you think the first guy was "'perhaps' disobeying police orders" and the couple in the second video were " moving away from a line of riot cops, just not fast enough." In both situations, I saw defiant individuals who had been given plenty of warning to move, but who chose not to do so. They should have expected something like what happened to happen. The officer in the first overreacted and that is fair enough to point out, but let's at least be honest about what is happening here.

  • Apatheist||

    Nobody should expect to be beaten by the cops for passive resistance, nevertheless walking away from them. Defiance is not a crime either so long as it does not involve the use of violence.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Yes, they were being defiant. They were also moving away from the cops -- at a slower speed than they were ordered to. Perhaps they expected arrest (which would be idiotic and wrong as well) but perhaps not beatings.

    If that's a crime, what do you call the police reaction?

    I don't care if they "should have expected" the reaction. That has nothing to do with whether it was a violent overreaction from a type of person who was once known non-ironically as a "peace officer."

  • Long time, first time||

    0:00 - 0:20 - Sabehgi ignores repeated orders to "move".

    0:26 - Sabehgi makes an agressive forward motion toward the police officer.

    0:38 - the police officer put his hands on Sabehgi, to either escort him away or arrest him, and Sabehgi twisted to break away.

    0:42 - the police office repeatedly orders Sabehgi to "get down on the ground". Sabehgi ignores this order.

    0:59 - cameraman ignores order to "get back" and yells "fuck you" to the police officer giving the order.

    Seriously, Ms. Steigerwald, this is the behavior you are defending?

    I think the police in this video showed remarkable restraint.

  • ||

    Another sycophantic, boot licking useful idiot.

    Good thing we have citizens like Long time here, because that government cock ain't gonna suck itself.

  • Long time, first time||

    Do you have a more intelligent rebuttal to my argument than an ad hominem attack? Thought not.

    I wouldn't try to get your college debt forgiven if I were you; I'd try to get a refund.

  • ||

    Ad hominem, that's cute.

    Kinda sounds like you're gonna cry, are you gonna fucking cry? Cry baby's gonna cry...WAAAHHH!

    Intelligence has nothing to do with it, poopstain. You live on your knees and have no rebuttal to my argument other than to hide behind freshman philosophy terms.

    Bootlicker.

  • Long time, first time||

    You still didn't refute my argument. What's worse is you sound mad. I'm not mad. Not even a little.

  • sevo||

    "You still didn't refute my argument."

    What "argument"? Guy doesn't do what police demand he does and get crap beat out of him? Is that your "argument"?

  • ||

    I didn't say you were mad, dumbass.

    I said that you were a bootlicking bitch.

    I have no interest in debating you or trying to refute your bootlicking. These facts are well established. My only aim is to insult you until I'm bored and move onto something else.

    And, damn straight I'm mad. I'm mad, angry and raging all the goddamn time; emotions you wouldn't understand being a beta fucking bootlicker.

  • ||

    That's one way to address an empty, deceitful police apologist.

  • ||

    It's the only way.

    Should I waste my time arguing the minutia of brutality?

    Like how many whacks of a nightstick are appropriate for the aggressive act of offending a jack-booted baby burner's ego?

    Or, should making a kinda sudden movement in front of a well armed, and armored, noble policeman be punishable by death or just a severe beating?

    How many hours after being assaulted by government agents should you be allowed medical care: 18 or 36 hours?

    These are exercises of the mind that I'd rather avoid, because even pretending that there is a debate here is as good as conceding.

    I cannot watch videos such as these and give an iota of legitimacy to apologists of government brutality by giving them an honest argument.

  • ||

    Bravo.

  • ryan||

    Well, you're avoiding the honest argument part, that's for sure.

    The anti-authoritarian thing was cute sophomore year, but most of us have outgrown it.

    If someone obstructs me from doing my job, I call the police. But what if I am the police? It's ass-stomping time.

    Yeah, he overreacted. That doesn't mean you need to partake in this childish nonsense.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    0:39-0:45 Police beat man bad enough that he requires surgery.

    Seriously, Mr. or Ms. Whomever, that's the kind of behavior you're defending?

  • Long time, first time||

    My point was that he repeatedly demonstrated aggressive action toward police, disobeyed orders to disperse, and then resisted arrest.

    If Sabehgi was a "peaceful" demonstrator, he could have avoided a beating by simply:
    a) obeying police orders to leave, or
    b) stopping in his tracks and not resisting arrest.

    The police had no idea if Sabehgi was armed or not. Based on his behavior, I personally would have assumed that he was.

  • Applederry||

    The only action Sabehgi took that could be construed as aggressive was at 0:24 when he started to move forward, immediately after being violently shoved backward (by the cop that would soon assault him with his night club). However, immediately afterward he continued his backward march, but the cop kept confronting him.

    You appear to be watching a completely different video than anyone else here.

  • Whappan?||

    Actually, he's watching the same video, he's just dishonest.

  • irwin mann||

    He repeatedly puts his hands in his pockets. That alone will yet you slammed by most cops anywhere anytime. Keep your hands in plane sight else they have a reason to.

  • ||

  • ||

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree.

    Sabehgi was being non-aggressively non-compliant. If that offends you as much as him being beaten by agents who are trusted with significant power and responsibility, I am not sure what else to say.

    I'm not the kind of libertarian who is offended when someone disobeys police orders to move. Especially in a situation which appears to be very quiet and lacking in protesters. This was not something done in the chaos of a melee with protesters, this appears to be a very frustrated police officer snapping and aggressing upon somehow who is just making a point about not wanting to follow orders.

  • Long time, first time||

    > Sabehgi was being non-aggressively non-compliant.

    I would characterize him as being aggressively non-compliant based on the time-stamped incidents above. I respect his right to be non-compliant, but not to be aggressive toward law enforcement.

    > If that offends you

    I'm not offended at all. I'm just trying to make the (unpopular) point that this probably would have gone down an entirely different way if he hadn't resisted arrest at 0:38.

  • Applederry||

    Your definition of aggressive is distressingly in favor of the people clad in armor and carrying weapons.

  • ||

    Ironically put. But Long Time is a deceitful liar and doesn't care what the circumstances were. He has a sick thing for cops.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The cop wasn't trying to arrest him at 0:38 he was trying to turn him in the direction the cop was pointing to. He clearly pointed said get out of here then tried to turn him in that direction.

  • sevo||

    "...if he hadn't resisted arrest at 0:38."

    Please give us the time-stamp when the cop declared him "under arrest".

  • Whappan?||

    Liar. Nobody who with half a brain who watched the video would characterize him as being aggressive. Also, you know he didn't resist arrest.

  • ||

    You are a liar, Long Time. We all watched the video. Get it? Are you are a cop, or just their cosplay apologist?

  • Apatheist||

    Hey lets leave the furries out of this.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    All citizens have the right to be armed. What difference does that make? Were the government employees armed? If anyone shouldn't be, I would say it is those employed by the state.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Not only did they beat him bad enough that he required surgery, but they refused him medical treatment. Not listening to an officer is not a reason to beat a patron. It's not a reason to use pepper spray. It's not a reason to physically injure anyone. OWS started with noble goals I still support them for the most part. Get the corporate money out of our damn politics so the politicians listen to the people not their corporate overlords.

  • sevo||

    "Not listening to an officer is not a reason to beat a patron"

    Exactly.
    At worst, he should have been arrested and the discussion moved to a court room.

  • Apatheist||

    Don't like it, don't vote for corporate lackeys and don't give the government so much power and wealth to dole out. There is nothing noble about advocating for more government oppression.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Sometimes it doesn't matter who you vote for because there are other people voting as well. I don't vote for corporate lackeys. I haven't voted for President since Ross Perot. I did vote in the GOP primary in Texas in 2008, and plan to do so next year.

  • ||

    So basically, just don't vote? ;)

  • Old Salt||

    Wasn't it Mark Twain who said:

    "If the Heavenly Father desired for me to vote then he should have graced me with a worthwhile candidate!"

  • RINOceros||

    "If the Heavenly Father desired for me to vote then he should have graced me with a worthwhile candidate!"

    Ah, swell- don't participate in any party caucuses, conventions, or primaries and just PRAY things will "work themselves out" (and besides, participating in the nominating process isn't a "panacea" for anything, so please continue to snipe from the sidelines).

  • Daniel Evans||

    I participate in primaries generally, never caucused. I haven't voted for president since Ross Perot in 96

  • RINOceros||

    I participate in primaries generally, never caucused.

    Great but if you don't like the candidates who reach the primary, you might want to caucus, as well.

    I haven't voted for president since Ross Perot in 96

    Besides the general election, have you caucused/primaried? I can otherwise see why you wouldn't vote for the "winner"- the Executive Branch is quite important but a president is unlikely to tow your car, condemn your "blighted" house, raise your property taxes, or tear up your entire neighborhood to build a real spiffy Light Rail Transit toy.

  • Old Salt||

    Oh, and how the fuck does joining in the current FUBAR certified process actually help?

    You either join Team Red or Team Blue and anything else is just a "heroes" struggle! If you're NOT part of the "bipolar" power game then your just some wacko that's gonna get a convenient label and then exploited!

    Wanna just go ahead and for which ever jack off seems the least crazy? Go right the fuck ahead but remember that voting for Frankenstein (Republicans) instead of Dracula (Democrats) means that you STILL SUPPORTED A MONSTER!

    I don't vote but guess what? By NOT voting I still get the right to bitch about the elected officials fucking up! The reason: I DID NOT AGREE TO THE FUCK UP IN QUESTION BEING IN CHARGE! True, I still have to ENDURE with them being in charge but that's because I HAVE NO CHOICE!

    The dark secret of democracy, that just about every fucker on the planet seems to forget, is that BY PARTICIPATING IN A VOTE YOU VOID YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE OUTCOME! The fundamental premise behind a "vote" is that you SUPPOSED to accept the will of the majority even if your getting fucked by said outcome!

    I vote libertarian, NOT because I think that my party or votes will matter in this VERY rigged game, but because it's the ONLY group I can support and not feel like a fucking hypocrite!

    I'm not "praying for things to work out"; I'm just bidding my time because nothing lasts forever!

  • RINOceros||

    Oh, and how the fuck does joining in the current FUBAR certified process actually help?

    Whatever reforms we can try to enact in the future (like rotating state primaries, limiting gerrymandering to geographical features), I don't see NOT participating as an option (unless we're [seriously] talking Hugo Chavez/Iran Mullahcracy-level rigging).

    If you're NOT part of the "bipolar" power game

    Political systems where citizens can vote for INDIVIDUAL candidates just tend to coalesce around two major political parties. If you're advocating a European-style parliamentary system with a multitude of parties (maybe you're not) and no constituent input over choosing a prime minister or the cabinet, things here could get a little bit worse than they are now.

  • Old Salt||

    You ever actually participate in the electoral process for a Senator or Representative? NOT just voting or maybe gathering signatures, but actually joining a party and trying to organize an actual candidate that isn't Red or Blue? I have and all I have to say is...

    IT'S FUCKING NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH JACK SHIT!

    The amount of requirements vary from state to state, but the rules are insane enough to make the IRS cream it's silkies!

    You can't just get by with so and so amounts of signatures! Oh, hell no! You need form after fucking form filed in triplicate with just about every official under the sun! Fees and more fees out the ass which means you need some serious fucking cash! Aren't a wealthy billionaire doing this for kicks? You're gonna need a nuclear fuck ton of more paper work for that and there even fees to be payed just so you can BEG people for money! They ALL have certain windows they have to filled/payed by and if you MISS or FUCK UP even a SINGLE part then all your hard work goes right down the fucking drain; better luck next election cycle! Oh, and if you actually scrape enough shit together to even get on the goddamn ballot? Better be ready to get down on your knees and suck some serious special interest dick! All the entrenched groups, like teachers unions or the chamber of commerce won't even cum in your hair unless their usual candidate has been caught butt fucking special needs children live on TV! And the only attention you'll EVER get from the media is "crazed wackos don't believe in America since they aren't Republican or Democrat!"

    The system isn't rigged to the extent that it is for Hugo Chavez but our "electoral" process toes the line as close as is possible without crossing it!

    Why do you think that incumbents rarely lose? The iron rule of Team Red and Team Blue is that the first thing you do when you take over is to do everything possible to make sure the other team is at a disadvantage! They've been doing this for DECADES now and the most recent example I can name is the filibuster! During Dubya's reign, the Democrats said that the filibuster was a corner stone of ensuring fairness in Congress and as soon as Obama took over it was: "Oh, woe is us that now the Republicans are using the filibuster! We NEED to get rid of it since the filibuster is destroying fair play in Congress!" The side effect of their constantly pumping each others dicks is that only the super rich or super lucky have a prayer at being a viable independent!

    I'm not advocating for a goddamn thing; I'm just pointing out that Democrats and Republicans keep trying to stack the deck against each other and the end result is that everyone who doesn't play their way gets to eat a Uncle Sam Shit Burger and LIKE IT!

    Here in Florida, we managed to pass a ballot initiative that should have put gerrymandering in it's fucking grave but it was barely a nano second before members of BOTH parties filed a lawsuit to block the fucking thing since it would have been a death sentence for most incumbents!

    You think that your voting for somebody decent? Maybe you are. But most of the players in the game AREN'T and the WILL of the party is all that matters!

    It's tyranny of the minority via bullshitting the majority and I don't see a CUM STAIN WORTH OF EVIDENCE of things changing ANYTIME soon so all I can say about our "democratic" process is...

    FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!

  • RINOceros||

    Someone elect this guy the chairman of the local "Magic: The Gathering" club! He's got FUCKING potential, I tell ya!

    how the fuck does joining in the current FUBAR...

    I DID NOT AGREE TO THE FUCK UP...

    IT'S FUCKING NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH JACK SHIT!
    Maybe you could get John McCain to subsidize your sorry ass.

    if you MISS or FUCK UP

    FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!

    ...and now a word from the Kos Kidz:
    The side effect of their constantly pumping each others dicks is that only the super rich

    Oh, you mean all those corporate jet flying "millionaires and billionaires"? Like the Koch Brothers™, right?

    "From each according to his FUCKING ability, to each according to his FUCKING need"

    "Revolution is not some kinda FUCKING dinner party, ASSWIPES!!!"

  • ||

    ""From each according to his FUCKING ability, to each according to his FUCKING need"

    I'm not here for your benefit.

    Do you really want to be treated like you're here for mine?

  • Old Salt||

    No SHIT revolution isn't some kind of dinner party!

    I've been to what was once called Yugoslavia and I've seen with my own eyes what a revolution leaves behind!

    I can tell you this for certain; Revolutionaries rarely become that way over night! It's a long process where your faith in your system dies the death of a thousand cuts. You see little incident after little incident. Those in charge keep making promises. You try to believe but there's this little voice that keeps whispering that none of this matters, that the deck is stacked against you. Then you start seeing that no one back home really gives a shit as long as they got their McDonalds and iPods. You scream that we shouldn't be doing this and what the fuck business do we have being involved in a blood feud that's older than America? Doesn't matter, Team Red/Blue both understand that war is the best business!

    You come home and try to get involved for the better. Maybe you go red or maybe you go blue. Or maybe, just maybe you see that their both the exact same model of hearse that just happens to have a different paint job. You point it out but everybody thinks your crazy for thinking that BOTH sides are indifferent at best and monstrous at worst. It won't matter, the guys running the game have already pushed you onto the sidelines.

    You really think that wanting to burn everything down and roll the dice is a decision people come to lightly? You wanna know what a revolution REALLY is?

    It's where a group of people get so fucking fed up with getting preyed upon, that the only option left is to PUNISH your fellow countrymen until they understand that you've been wronged past the point of reason! Loving thy neighbor ceases to matter when all you wanna do is beat it into his fucking skull that you HATE the system he so passively accepts. And those in charge? It's almost always a shock when people like me manifest because it NEVER occurs to a PREDATOR that PREY could turn around in an instant a dish out a world of HELL!

    And for the rest of your insane understanding of my post:

    John McCain? Kos Kids? Koch Brothers? What clue did I give that I love ANYTHING along those lines of those dip dunks?

    Quit focusing on the word "FUCK" so much, it makes everyone think you have mommy issues!

    And Magic: The Gathering was after my time, we went outside and played in the fucking SWAMPS 'cause that's all there was to do in Florida back then!

  • Old Salt||

    By the by...

    "From each according to his FUCKING ability, to each according to his FUCKING need"

    DON'T come to Reason and start PARAPHRASING that asshole PAPA SMURF!

    He was a pinko commie if there ever was one!

  • RINOceros||

    You really think that wanting to burn everything down and roll the dice is a decision people come to lightly?
    No, I'm sure the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Provisional Government after . . . *ahem* . . . MUCH "deliberation".

    You wanna know what a revolution REALLY is?

    Uh, not right now- just figuring out a way to deal with the hyper-inflation, thank you.

    It's where a group of people get so fucking fed up with getting preyed upon, that the only option left is to PUNISH your fellow countrymen until they understand that you've been wronged past the point of reason!

    Sure, but it's all for a "good cause", right?

  • Old Salt||

    "Good Cause?"

    Silly Westerner and your belief in "good" or "evil"!

    No such thing as good or evil; there is just differing points of view and disagreements regarding them!

    When you have a broken country, which is what a revolution is, the forces who rise up don't care what the scholars will write because a revolutionary is one who has come to believe that there is NO tomorrow! At least not if they don't do something!

    Do I think America is at that point yet? No, of course not. But if we stay our course? It'll probably be decades in the making but America won't fade like the Romans; it'll reach a tipping point and it will be an even uglier French Revolution all over again!

    Maybe it's the Irish in me and revolutionary is just in my blood or maybe I'm a just a man who's angry at being bought of with being bought off with bullshit!

    All for a good cause? Who cares? Let the history books figure that one out!

  • RINOcerous||

    it'll reach a tipping point and it will be an even uglier French Revolution all over again!

    Not so sure . . . did the French aristocracy have their own "citizen militia"?
    Sure, BATFE & co. are a threat (and the American academy is truly loathsome) but I just don't see TOO many guillotines being set up outside the left coasts . . .

    When you have a broken country, which is what a revolution is, the forces who rise up don't care what the scholars will write because a revolutionary is one who has come to believe that there is NO tomorrow! At least not if they don't do something!

    So what makes you think there was a "tomorrow" in the relatively "unbroken" Oceania of 1984?

  • Old Salt||

    Why did you automatically assume that I meant guillotines? In western culture, hanging has been the method of choice when dealing with large groups of people you don't like. The guillotine was just a rather fancy toy that the French went and romanticized like everything else that is theirs (until the Nazis came along). Hanging has always been a choice of the poor and down trodden. A gallows can be setup by anyone in any old place they like and, to the best of my knowledge, rope has never been outlawed by anybody so it's pretty easy to find in a hurry.

    As long as no country starts trying to play live action Fallout 3, then there's always a tomorrow. Maybe it's better or maybe it's worse but that's the chance you take by waking up in the morning. Whether or not a country is "broken" is something that each citizen in a country has to decided for himself; WE think that North Korea is a disaster but what does your average North Korean believe? What people will put up with in the hope that things might get better down the line is amazing. Jerry Springer could testify to this fact first hand.

  • RINOceros||

    WE think that North Korea is a disaster but what does your average North Korean believe?

    A lot of them "believe" that if the guy in the next cell dies, they MIGHT get an extra bowl of gruel . . .

  • Applederry||

    Nothing Sabehgi did justified the clubbing he received, which you conveniently left out of your cute little synopsis. In every single part of the video, Sabehgi is shown retreating from the cops. Slowly at first as the line moved, and then quickly as he began to be assaulted by the officer with his night club. The cop, who clearly lost all control of his temper, instigated everything here.

    The only remarkable thing about his restraint is the complete lack of it. The behavior you are defending is a million times more objectionable than whatever Sabehgi did.

  • ||

    Long time's a bootlicker, don't try logic with it. If those cops drew their weapons and killed Sabehgi he'd (after creaming his jeans) say that the dude was probably hiding a weapon and deserved death.

  • Long time, first time||

    > In every single part of the video, Sabehgi is shown retreating from the cops.

    0:26 - Sabehgi makes an agressive forward motion toward the police officer.

    0:38 - the police officer put his hands on Sabehgi, to either escort him away or arrest him, and Sabehgi twisted to break away.

    A truly non-violent protester would not have done any of these actions. I argue that if he had not done these actions, he would have been arrested but not beaten.

  • Applederry||

    0:26 - Sabehgi makes an agressive forward motion toward the police officer.

    As I admitted in my 8:54 comment, that was one potentially aggressive gesture, but it last only 1 or 2 seconds before he began retreating again.

    0:38 - the police officer put his hands on Sabehgi, to either escort him away or arrest him, and Sabehgi twisted to break away.

    Like I said, retreating. The problem here is you assume the cop had justification to lay hands on Sabehgi. It was not necessary at all to maintain the peace of the situation. The cop is the one who violated the peace here.

    I also find it incredibly amusing that you say "truly non-violent" as if at any point in the video Sabehgi is violent to anyone.

  • Long time, first time||

    > The problem here is you assume the cop had justification to lay hands on Sabehgi.

    Excellent point. I am assuming the police officer had legal justification to do so. From the video, it looks like the police is either escorting him off of the street after failure to obey a verbal order, or attempting to arrest Sabehgi.

    > as if at any point in the video Sabehgi is violent to anyone

    Agreed. He wasn't violent, but he was certainly aggressive (you probably disagree). Perhaps better wording for my sentiment would have been "non-aggressive protester".

  • Applederry||

    I don't think it's clear WHAT the officer was intending to do, especially considering his violent shoving of Sabehgi moments before and the heated language he was using.

    We can respectfully disagree on whether "twisting away" from the cop when he laid hands upon Sabehgi was the right choice, but would you at least admit that the cop's violent actions and temper instigated and escalated the situation?

  • Long time, first time||

    > would you at least admit that the cop's violent actions and temper instigated and escalated the situation?

    My final judgement on this would depend on what Sabehgi said at 0:12. It gets muffled, but starts with "I want you to know, I killed...". I've listened to this several times and just can't make out what is said.

    If this was a veiled threat toward the officer, then I would answer "no".

  • ||

    Officer Assfuck is going to get mighty angry if you keep taking time off of his daily oral boot shine to move those goal posts.

  • Long time, first time||

    Oh capital, you have no logic skills and your trolling abilities are weak at best. Why don't you read these links and let the adults finish their conversation.

    http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

    http://blog.createdebate.com/2.....arguments/

  • ||

    Who needs logic when you're dealing with a person that'll let themselves be pushed into agreeing with you anyways?

    And it's already painfully obvious that you use "Internet Arguing 101" courses so no need for the links.

    PROTIP: The use of "ad hominem" and "let the adults finish their conversation" is what gave you away.

  • ||

    Long Time Liar, answer Capitals question. Do you lick cops' boots clean? You are a deceptive conman. Your "facts" are deceptions. You are so stupid you that you think we didn't watch the videos. You are the problem.

  • ||

    LT,LF

    What's your problem?

    In Tienanmen Sq. in 1989 a Chinese citizen stood in front of a tank. Yes, the tank could have run him over. But we all think that would have been a tragedy and the dude who risked his life to stand up to the regime is a hero.

    Considering the juxtaposition, the conclusion is inescapable: We have lower moral standards that Communist China in 1989.

  • RINOceros||

    Uh, right, "pmp"- that's all that happened in the 1989 Tian-an-men Square "incident".

    "We have lower moral standards that Communist China in 1989"

    Wow- yet another "libertarian" favorably comparing the Peoples Republic of China to the U.S. (but don't worry- I promise not to "stereotype" y'all;-).

  • ||

    LT,LF

    What's your problem?

    In Tienanmen Sq. in 1989 a Chinese citizen stood in front of a tank. Yes, the tank could have run him over. But we all think that would have been a tragedy and the dude who risked his life to stand up to the regime is a hero.

    Considering the juxtaposition, the conclusion is inescapable: We have lower moral standards that Communist China in 1989.

  • Applederry||

    The best I can make out it sounds like, "I just want you to know man, I killed 15 men over there." A rather stupid thing to boast about, but without any threatening body language it doesn't seem like a threat, just boasting.

    However, with all the voices around I don't think it's clear that Sabehgi himself said the line or the cameraman (or other nearby person not seen).

  • Long time, first time||

    I'd also like to see the complete, unedited version of this video. There are scene cuts at 0:05, 0:14, 0:22, and 1:30.

  • Applederry||

    The cut around 0:22 is the important one as that's when the cop steps from the line and confronts Sabehgi. If Sabehgi did something to provoke the cop, that's where it would have been.

    Nevertheless it's hard for me to think what he could have done to justify the cop's actions. If he viewed him as a threat or thought he was being threatening then he responded in an incredibly stupid way and gave Sabehgi ample opportunity to attack him if that was his purpose.

  • ||

    You are a hopeless toady.

  • ||

    Even if he had said "I am going to kill you" it would be completely inappropriate to beat the shit out of him. Don't you get it? Cops should never beat anyone. Unless someone is being so violent and uncontrollable that there is no other way to apprehend them, it must never happen. How the fuck is this so hard to understand? No matter what they guy did or said, there is absolutely no justification for the use of that amount of force in that situation. It is the cop's job to remain calm and use no more force than is absolutely necessary, not matter what anyone says to him.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    A cop should have very limited reasons to touch a citizen. I saw no danger to armed and armored government employees by the citizen in this case.

    The only aggressive thugs in the video were the government employees.

  • Les||

    Yeah, if a cop is running at someone and hitting that person with a billy club while yelling "get down on the ground," it's perfectly reasonable to refuse that order.

    Seriously Long time, first time, are you defending using violence against non-violent demonstrators?

  • ||

    Dear Long Time, you are a liar. The first battery by the cop came as the citizen, moving backwards, was violently assaulted by the cop crashing into him with his sheild. At that point, the cop broke the law. I think the citizen showed restraint by not exercising his right to self defense. The cop continued, obviously enraged by the citizen's failure to be cowed by the cop's violent assault, put his arm out to push the citizen and as the citizen caught his balance the cop began beating him with the baton. After four or five strikes, he ordered the citizen to the ground. However, by reason of the excessive force the citizen was no longer legally obligated to obey the police officer. He was entitled to stand his ground and defend himself, or flee, according to his conscience.
    You Long Time, are not only a liar, but probably a crony apologists for thugs with a badge.

  • Long time, first time||

    > you are a liar

    Because we differ on analysis of the video or conclusions thereof doesn't make me a liar.

    > The first battery by the cop came as the citizen, moving backwards, was violently assaulted by the cop crashing into him with his sheild.

    I didn't see the Oakland police in either video holding shields. They were only holding batons. Which video were you referring to? At what time stamp?

    > probably a crony apologists for thugs with a badge

    Not even a little. The third video of the protester being shot with a rubber bullet is almost certainly excessive force and quite possibly a criminal act (I'm not a lawyer). But I never commented on that video.

  • ||

    Your credibility is shit. Im not your nanny. Watch the video you have commented on to justify police violence toward non-violent citizens. If you are so dishonest you can't admit what happened, you are the problem.

  • ||

    What do you think a jury of 12 fellow Oaklanders would decide at a police brutality trial?

    Also, what capitol l said.

  • ||

    You don't have to defent the behavior of the people being beaten to condemn that behavior of the police, asshole. It is the police's job to calmly and dispassionately deal with people with the least amount of force possible. No matter what the other people are doing, the police need to be held to that standard always. Anytime an officer uses any more force than is absolutely necessary against anyone, not matter what crime they have committed, he is a criminal.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Wouldn't it be awful to defend aggressive forward motions and civilians disobeying orders. The horror.

  • ||

    Lol. What a perverse perspective. The truth is this: if I non-violently disobey a lawful police order, I do not expect to be beaten; I expect to be arrested, with only the force necessary to effectuate the arrest. Only a police apologist with blame the victim for the police officer's criminal behavior.

  • jeopardyjackson||

    Agreed. With regard to the second video, the couple is not "moving away from a line of riot cops, just not fast enough". They are non-violently resisting, and deserved to be arrested. They should not have "expected" to be cross-checked to the ground.

  • ||

    And we haven't even talked about the guy shot with a rubber bullet....

  • Mt||

    Defiance isn't a crime! He as parading without a permit AT WORST and that's a misdemeanor. The use of force in this case was absolutely not justified. That officer needs to be brought up on assault charges.

  • Jones||

    Police exist to enforce the law.
    They do not exist to protect us from anyone.

  • ||

    While not conceding your premise, why do we want them to enforce the law?

  • Jones||

    I was stating reality not a desire.

  • ||

    I think we want them to enforce the law as a means of protecting our lives, property and rights. Unfortunately, current laws often don't do any of those things.

  • ||

    Just to be clear Jones I now understand and agree with your cryptic comment.

  • sevo||

    "Police exist to enforce the law.

    No snark, but what, exactly, does this mean?
    The law says murder is illegal; how do police "enforce" that?
    The law says no sleeping in public parks; how do police "enforce" that?
    Given my views come from newspapers and on-line news outlets, most of those accused of murder are handcuffed and lead away. If that's "enforcement", WIH are they doing with (to) the folks accused of sleeping in public parks?

  • Jones||

    They can't protect you from being murdered.
    They can solve the case after you are dead.
    They can't protect your child from being abducted. They can try to find her.
    They can't stop you from getting hit by a bad driver, but they can ticket the driver after the fact.

    etc.

  • sevo||

    So "enforcement" means arresting those accused of a crime; exactly what should have happened here.

  • ||

    Okay, now I get your point. I agree.

  • Jones||

    Thanks.

  • ||

    Please give equal video time (& outrage) to the multitude of rapes and destruction of property by Obama's Occupy Forces

  • ||

    The Iraq War veteran who's hopefully gonna recover his ability to speak properly?

    Didn't rape anybody.

    If somebody raped somebody else? That doesn't justify police brutality directed at third parties.

    It just doesn't.

  • sevo||

    "Please give equal video time (& outrage) to the multitude of rapes and destruction of property by Obama's Occupy Forces"

    Nope.
    Those folks are presumed to be idiots and what's more is that I'm not paying them to be professional in their activities.
    Flagged for false equivalence; 15 yard penalty, loss of down.

  • KPres||

    You'll be paying more BECAUSE of their activities than you pay the police officer.

    I don't consider peaceful demonstrating for violent coercion a peaceful activity.

  • sevo||

    KPres|11.20.11 @ 11:01AM|#
    "You'll be paying more BECAUSE of their activities than you pay the police officer."
    Irrelevant. I pay police officers to act professionally. They should be fired and lose their benefits besides.

    "I don't consider peaceful demonstrating for violent coercion a peaceful activity."
    You should read Constitution A-1: "Congress shall make no law..."

  • ||

    You have to be kidding. We don't pay the protesters or swear them to uphold the law. We do pay cops and they are entrusted with significant power, unlike the protesters. If you think private citizens engaged in criminal behavior is more noteworthy than criminal behavior by govt agents, you are part of the problem.

  • KPres||

    These aren't normal private citizens engaging in criminal behavior. These are private citizens who are trying to acquire police power for themselves so they can use it against people THEY don't like.

  • ||

    What they want is stupid and bad, but they are still allowed to ask for it. Any that commit any acts against others' property or persons, they should be punished, but not before that.

  • sevo||

    KPres|11.20.11 @ 11:04AM|#
    "These aren't normal private citizens engaging in criminal behavior. These are private citizens who are trying to acquire police power for themselves so they can use it against people THEY don't like."
    You should read Constitution A-1: "Congress shall make no law..."

  • Daniel Evans||

    The real occupiers do not support Obama so don't bother calling them Obama's occupiers. They know the game is rigged. It doesn't matter who controls our government right now because Corporate America controls them. Until we get the money out of polictics voting for either party is useless except TRUE Tea Party Politicians. Talking about the Ron Paul's not the Michelle Bachmann's.

  • sevo||

    "It doesn't matter who controls our government right now because Corporate America controls them."

    Now, see? This is the reason we know the OWS crowd are idiots.
    Which is no reason to accept equally idiotic activity from those we pay to be professional.

  • Apatheist||

    I don't know what your definition of "real" is but a majority of occupiers do support Obama and if there is one demand that appears to be held by a large majority it is bailing out student loans. That doesn't mean that all of them are but a lot are. Same with the Tea Party some might be true advocates of limited government but at this point many are hands off my SS/Medicare types who want to go to war with Iran. Maybe both movements were co-opted but it is what it is.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The real ones are the ones that started OWS, not the nut huggers. When OWS started there was no mention of student loans. It was all about Wall street's money in our politics. No one was posting about Occupy Wall Street on Sept 17 to protest student loans that came ex post facto

  • sevo||

    "It was all about Wall street's money in our politics."

    Uh, you seem to have the cart before the horse.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Yes that was a bit of hyperbole, but my point was it had nothing to do with Student Loans at the beginning.

  • Apatheist||

    I'll take your word for it but as I said it is what it is now just like the Tea Party. I used to point out that I attended a Ron Paul "tea party" and donated to a tea party themed moneybomb long before it became what it is today but I quit because neither the conservatives currently in support of the movement or the liberal who hate them give a shit. Both OWS and the Tea Party have become part of the TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE sickening culture war.

  • KPres||

    In other words, we can't get the votes so we're going to riot and claim to be peaceful.

  • Apatheist||

    Beyond what was already said Reason HAS given equal time to exposing the occupiers for the dumbasses they are and reporting on the even worse elements in their midst.

  • Mark E Mark||

    Tu quoque, Lucy, tu fuckin' quoque!!!

  • ||

    I've mentioned this before earlier this week, but police brutality directed at idealistic protestors has a demonstrated tendency to radicalize them.

    There are other good reasons not to use police brutality against peaceful protestors--but those reasons don't always register with psychopaths behind a badge.

    So, if the cooler heads are gonna prevail here, it's time for the people the police answer to to step up and start inserting some serious reason into this conversation.

    ...or today's idealists are gonna turn into tomorrow's violent radicals. We haven't seen a serious real live riot out of this yet, but the way things are goin'?

    That's where they're gonna end up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think they regard any police force as brutality. We're just skinny intellectuals, we're harmless!

  • sevo||

    "I think they regard any police force as brutality."

    Could be, but it looks like the cops are trying to prove it.

  • jtuf||

    The USA gets fewer than 1 terrorist attack from a psychiatric survivor per year. Violating a person's rights can make the person violent, but it does so only rarely. Considering that rioters almost never target police stations and almost always target local stores, I think the prospect of a free TV is a bigger motivating factor for rioters. Also, the War on Drugs has been going on for decades, and OWS posted a sign saying they won't tolerant drugs in Zuccotti Park. Again, their main focus is getting free stuff, not ending injustice.

    For more on the treatment of psychiatric survivors: http://www.antipsychiatry.org/

  • ||

    It doesn't just radicalize the victims.

    It radicalizes people who watch this stuff on TV.

    This is the sort of build up that makes people riot.

    This kind of treatment if it's persistent? Will radicalize certain elements of society again.

    We haven't seen anything like the Weather Underground or the SLA or the Red Army Faction or the Revolutionary Cells, or the Black Panthers, etc., etc. for a long time...

    Because we haven't had police battering peaceful, idealistic students for a long time.

  • jtuf||

    Ken, you bring up a good point about radicalizing the people who see this on TV. I've got to wonder what percentage of the Weather Underground regularly attended their local town hall meetings to complain to the police forces' bosses or became lawyers to protect those who were abused. We have mechanisms for civilly stopping police brutality. Let's encourage more people to use them.

  • ||

    It's hard to encourage people to engage with the police when they see images of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors.

    In the '60s things were harder because of conscription. Hopefully things won't get so bad this time.

    But I was in LA, living on the edge of SouthCentral back before and during the riots. It was what people saw on TV in cases unrelated to Rodney King that put all the kindling in place. It was years of the Darryl Gates' department's brutality perpetrated against the community in SouthCentral that put all that firewood together.

    The King verdict was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

    The cops need to stop using mace and clubs on peaceful protestors--or things are gonna get ugly. I'm happy to discourage people from getting violent--I wish cops everywhere from Oakland to Seattle and Sacramento would stop throwing kerosene on the fire by using violence against peaceful protestors.

    If they want to arrest people for unlawful assembly, whatever, that's fine! But they're making things worse with what they're doing.

  • jtuf||

    You don't engage with the police. You engage with their boss, the mayor. If that does not work, you run for mayor. Weather Underground folks bombed their targets, because they didn't want to go through the democratic process, the same way KKK members resorted to arson when they felt that federal troops were violating their "right" to keep Blacks out of certain buildings.

    The King verdict? The rioters didn't attack police stations after that. They attacked electronics stores and took the TVs inside.

    We need to stop police brutality, period, but we shouldn't base are actions on the potential for rioting. Otherwise, rioters will just keep inventing "rights" like the right to block sidewalks or smash store windows, or spray paint buildings. Non-protesters have the right to assemble too. The protesters do not have the right to keep them from assembling.

  • Daniel Evans||

    It's already a risk to riot, do you really expect them to increase their chances of getting caught infinitely? Our government loves to set examples, I would hate to see that example after rioting down a police station. Especially with our militarized police forces these days. Some times you have to break shit (or dump tea in the ocean) in order to make a point.

  • ||

    They went violent because, for instance, their Democratic leaders had them beaten by the police outside the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago--among other places.

    Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat, expanded the war they opposed and were being conscripted to fight against their will.

    These Occupy Wherever people are operating outside the democratic process already--because they have no one that represents them in the democratic process.

    If Progressive and Liberal authorities--from the Progressive mayor of Oakland to the chancellors of the University of California, Davis and Berkeley are bonking them on the heads?

    We shouldn't be surprised to see them turn away from the democratic process. Hopefully they don't get too violent, but it's not lookin' good.

  • JackC||

    The Weatherman Underground was violent because they were ideological leninists. And the SDS intentionally provoked a riot in Chicago, as demonstrated by statements after the fact of their leaders. Neither of them radicalized by events, they intentionally radicalized events.

  • New West Republic||

    All hail L. Ron Hubbard! Down with Xenu!

  • ||

    "psychopaths behind a badge."

  • ||

    Just for the record, I'm not saying everyone behind a badge is a psychopath; only that those who are wearing a badge, who somehow imagine it's okay to use violence against peaceful protestors?

    Aren't necessarily gonna appreciate the finer points of doing unto others as they would have done unto them.

    That direction needs to come from above. The people who run these police departments need to make it clear that violence against peaceful protestors will not be tolerated.

    If you want to zip-tie the protestors and arrest them, fine.

    If they're a threat to you? Defend yourself--absolutely.

  • jtuf||

    Just an idea: I believe the human chains that block the sidewalks in Occupy civil disobediences only have about 10 occupiers in them. Most of the occupiers just watch those 10 get arrested and take videos to upload. If 10 freedom minded private citizens in plain clothes showed up to the protests, linked arms as part of the chain, and stayed linked as they walked of the side walk, then these situations could be diffused more peacefully. I know this would be taking the law into our own hands, but it's a non-violent way to diffuse the situation before it escalates to violence. Any thoughts?

  • sevo||

    Yeah.
    We pay cops to be professional actors. When we have to police the police, they need to get fired.

  • ||

    Show up with a multi-thousand-man armed militia and tell the cops to fuck off under pain of death, then retreat into plain sight before the federales can act:

    mind-fuck

  • PantsFan||

    The Washington Capitals should be arrested for impersonating an NHL team.

  • ||

    Posts like this make me wonder if this place might as well become a subsidiary for the Huffington Post. There's little difference, it seems.

    Cracking down on a riot is brutal, but you know what, it's better than actually letting the riot happen.

  • ||

    Yeah -- because beating the living shit out of a lone protester who's doing absolutely nothing violent is part of preventing a riot.

    What fucking planet are you on?

  • ||

    Jeremy R is an intergalactic ambassador from Planet Retard.

    What else do you call someone who can't tell the difference between a non-violent individual and a riot?

  • ||

    Funny Groucho. Did you watch the videos? May be you should hang out at Heritage Foundation or Townhall.

  • Applederry||

    You might want to watch the videos before you say anything that might make you look stupid. Alternatively, learn the correct definition of a riot, because none was occurring here.

  • sevo||

    "Cracking down on a riot is brutal, but you know what, it's better than actually letting the riot happen."

    That may be true. If there were a riot, which there wasn't.
    Any other strawmen you'd like to beat senseless?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What *would* a riot look like, if it involves more than seizing a port, etc?

  • sevo||

    "What *would* a riot look like,"

    You need to get out more:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....otest-riot

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, the English do it better.

    But cast your mind back to the blockade of the port of Oakland. After that, according to *MSNBC,*
    "the *rioting* began." [emphasis added]

    As the right-wing propagandists at MSNBC delicately explained: "The violence that followed...raised questions about whether a movement with no organizational structure and no high-profile leaders can do anything to stop those they called troublemakers....

    "...bands of masked protesters took over a vacant building, erected roadblocks and threw chunks of concrete and firebombs. Five people and several officers were injured."

    To paraphrase Peter, Paul and Mary: How many firebombs do you need to throw before they call it a riot?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45.....-violence/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (Canadians, not English)

    The MSNBC piece had statements from other Occupiers throughout the country disavowing the Oakland "troublemakers."

  • sevo||

    "...bands of masked protesters took over a vacant building, erected roadblocks and threw chunks of concrete and firebombs. Five people and several officers were injured."

    Didn't see Sabehgi engaged in any of those activities. Did you?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No, but on the other hand, I haven't defended his treatment.

    This was a mob which the police were trying to disperse, and which they had a right to disperse. They didn't have the right to be brutal.

    If Damo Suzuki (below) is right, then there is a group of rowdies in Oakland who like to attach themselves to demonstrations. Not that the Occupiers were innocent victims - they committed the inherently violent act of blocking a major port - setting an example of violence - which could only embolden the rowdies. "We just heaved a couple firebombs - no big deal, at least it wasn't our idea to blockade a port!"

  • sevo||

    "Not that the Occupiers were innocent victims"

    Problem right here:
    A "group" does not commit a crime, an individual does so.
    So regardless of your or my opinion of "group" aims or opinions, the cops are charged with bringing a criminal to justice. And they are highly paid to do that job.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Another responsibility of the police is to order crowds to disperse if serious lawbreaking starts. When a peaceable assembly (constitutionally protected) turns into a riot (not protected).

    Then, the individuals who knowingly refuse to leave are each individually guilty of a crime (I didn't say deserve to be beaten bloody).

  • Mt||

    Can't that be abused if one person breaks the law? And I didn't see any riot. Just one lone person nonviolently protesting. So do the police just get to decide when an assembly isn't lawful anymore even when there is no riot? How can you assemble peacefully when you can't assemble if just one lawbreaker makes it a riot?

  • KPres||

    No, but where is the video of that happening? I'd like to see both so that BOTH sides of statism can be revealed for what it is.

  • Shorter Reason Poster||

    Beat the protestors all you want, but for God's sake, don't make them look good on camera!!!!!!

  • sevo||

    "Beat the protestors all you want, but for God's sake, don't make them look good on camera!!!!!!"

    Lots of strawmen getting beaten tonight.

  • Apatheist||

    Yeah somehow both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are here beating straw men saying were both cop apologists and hippie scum.

  • sevo||

    "Yeah somehow both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are here beating straw men saying were both cop apologists and hippie scum."

    Hey, it's not easy being............
    libertarian.

  • Apatheist||

    It just doesn't usually happen two posts in a row. Pretty insane.

  • sevo||

    "It just doesn't usually happen two posts in a row. Pretty insane."

    Naah, just more obvious in this case.

  • ||

    Fuck off scum, these writers and (most) of the regular posters are the only people that'll defend your right to air grievances no matter your grip.

  • Tony||

    I won't.

  • ||

    No, but you'll certainly get behind us.

    /rimshot

  • sevo||

    Sloopy,
    A gift:
    http://instantrimshot.com/

  • ||

    Ooh, thanks!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not going to justify beating up some guy unless I'm clearly satisfied it was the only choice - and I'm not persuaded.

    But these Oakland people are rioters. They make OWS look like a bake sale. Closing down a port, manning barricades, etc. More than just a tinderbox.

    I imagine that these Oakland people were literally read the Riot Act. That means disperse - not on your own schedule, but right away.

    The guy being a veteran doesn't help. Compare violent political movements involving hippies and violent political movements involving military veterans. Ask Mr. Godwin about this, since he's in Oakland!

  • sevo||

    "....More than just a tinderbox."

    Well, we sort of have these rules saying you really shouldn't be arrested, let alone beaten senseless for what you *might* do in the future.
    See: Riot, above.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The port was closed down as a response to a non violent veteran getting shit in the face with a canister, and they flash banging people rendering aid. Some people in Oakland are out of control, but their cops have been out of control way longer than Occupy Oakland has been around. BART anyone?

  • sevo||

    "BART anyone?"

    Where did you major in "Misdirection"?

  • Daniel Evans||

    University of Houston

  • Apatheist||

    COUGAR HIGH SCHOOL

  • sevo||

    Oh, good. When I want to hire someone to point the wrong way, I'll look for that school.

  • Daniel Evans||

    That was funny btw.

  • Damo Suzuki||

    The Oscar Grant debacle was actually the fault of BART police, which are not at all the same thing as Oakland Police.

  • ||

    You are right about Oakland cops, but BART has a separate police force. OPD had a group of criminal thugs who were prosecuted. I have several friends who are OPD . One who is consistently decent, and one who has bought into the "us against them" mantra. Too many are scared and will do awful things to "go home".

  • Damo Suzuki||

    Oakland is filled with the "break shit and hurt people" anarchists. They almost always show up when there is a protest in Oakland, and Occupy is no exception.

    It kinda helps to explain the mentality of the Oakland Police. They are constantly dealing with these punks, and the police cannot do much about them because they're almost always son's of the rich or influential. Its an enemy that cannot be arrested and one that can get you fired if you're a little too rough on them after they try to burn down a bank.

    This doesn't justify the OPD for reacting harshly to any protest, but it certainly does explain the animosity they have for protest movements. They almost always end in a riot.

  • sevo||

    "Oakland is filled with the "break shit and hurt people" anarchists."

    I think anarchists should sue you for defamation.
    Oakland is filled with the dregs of lefty 'entitlement' policies and identity politics.

  • Reason User Group||

    dunphy please defend your brothers in arms.
    kthxbye

  • ||

    This video sickens me. Yet, if we were face to face, and I had a truncheon, I would apply it liberally to your kidneys just for saying "kthxbye", douchebag.

  • ||

    Inorite?

  • Adbusters||

    We will turn this winter into a training ground for precision disruptions – flashmobs, stink bombs, edgy theatrics – against the megacorps and the unrepentant 1%, a festival of resistance in the snow with, or without, an encampment that'll lay the tactical foundation for our Spring Offensive.

    The bottom line is this … you cannot attack your young and get away with it!
    http://www.adbusters.org/blogs.....ng-19.html

  • sevo||

    "We will turn this winter into a training ground for precision disruptions – flashmobs, stink bombs, edgy theatrics – against the megacorps and the unrepentant 1%"

    Yep, I was just walkin' down the street and that "megacorp" stuck a gun to my head and told me "buy an Ipod if you know what's good for you!"
    Stuff your flashmob up your butt, ignoramus.

  • Daniel Evans||

    While Apple is larger than the banks they aren't too big to fail. I have no problem with Apple, except I don't like their products so I don't buy them. When I think of Megacorps I think of corporations to big to fail. Any corp that is "to big to fail" is too big to be a corporation ATT those bitches.

  • sevo||

    "When I think"

    You should try it some time; your posts so far suggest you haven't ever done so.

  • Daniel Evans||

    I just had another thought. You are an asshole, but strangely I like you.

  • ||

    Fowl of similar plumage congregate therein.

  • Apatheist||

    You should be doing an offensive on Washington where the power and money is but your too fucking stupid. Corporatism cannot exist without government. Bailouts cannot exist without government. Corporations can and do exist without going to the government with their hands out. What we need is a free market not more government bullshit.

  • Shorter Adbusters||

    We hate capitalism and freedom.

  • sounds real good||

    Ah yeah, so glad I left Oakland 3 months ago.

  • Chris Rock||

    If the police have to come get you, they're bringin' an ass-kickin' with 'em"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw56sh61HEs

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Rock should add some other advice for the benefit of his paler friends:

    "If you're in a crowd, and some of the crowd members are breaking things, blockading busy ports, and throwing incendiary devices, and the cops invoke the actual, literal Riot Act to order you to disperse, that would be an *excellent* time to go home and catch up on what you've missed on TV. You can even watch the crowd on TV and deplore all the police brutality."

  • Oakland Occutard||

    But it was just a small minority! The Mayor even said so!!

  • Gary Coleman||

    So was I and now I'm dead. There is a lesson to be learned here.

  • ||

    You appear to have won the internet.

  • RINOceros||

    Hey, there's plenty need for reform of police power in this country (ending no-knock raids & drug/light-bulb checkpoints, etc., etc.) but perhaps you "anarcho-capitalists" could use a few Friday night group therapy sessions for the Stockholm syndrome you've had for your Stalinist ex-husbands ever since the Spanish Civil War ("against fascism", we promise).
    Not that I'm criticizing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or anything, cadres . . .

  • ||

    I'm not an anarchist. Fuck off.

  • sevo||

    "Not that I'm criticizing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or anything, cadres . . ."

    Sort of sounds like you're certainly not.

  • Spoonman.||

    We've had TEAM BLUE, TEAM RED, and now TEAM WORD SALAD here to stereotype us so far...

  • ||

    Standing up for non-violent protest is "Stockholm Syndrome." Good to know.

    Eat a dick, troll.

  • sevo||

    "Standing ones ground against overwhelming police force when one is claiming to be nonviolently demonstrating is stupid as well as an invitation to an ass whipping."

    Yep, if some cop says "move" and you don't, well, you get the crap beat out of you.
    See, that's just how it works and we should all be thankful that irwin mann is here to tell us to be obedient.
    BTW, fuck you, irwin mann.

  • ||

    Please include him in the last paragraph of my rant below. I was so enraged I left him off.

    All we need now is dunphy to complete the triumvirate of tardism.

  • ||

    Fuck this shit.

    These idiot OWS posters deserve our derision.
    They deserve our mocking laughter.
    They deserve to starve on their own merits.
    They deserve to drown in debt they willfully took on.
    They deserve to have their houses foreclosed on because they over borrowed.
    They deserve to overpay for Apple and Ray-Ban products.

    They do not deserve to be beaten for passive non-compliance.

    These pig cops deserve to rot in jail because that's where you or I would be if we evicted someone from our private property in the manner they used on these people.

    But shitheads like "long time, first time" are so busy sucking altiods and blowing cool, sweet air into the sphincters of these cops that they can't see it.

  • CSNY||

    Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
    We're finally on our own.
    This summer I hear the drumming,
    Four dead in Ohio.

  • New West Republic||

    +1

    Also, why the fuck should a guy walking alone minding his own business be subject to arbitrary "orders" from police or anyone?

  • Whappan?||

    Fuck you. That's why.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Our future is just as fucked as it would have been had Barry not won the presidency.

    Not to be all Captain Obvious-y about it, but them's the facks.

  • Adbusters||

    The bankers are shaking in their shoes as politicians see their careers being shortened if nothing is done to help the other 99%. Bankers saw customers as being so stupid that they dispensed with proper legal documentation in many situations. Credit cards were distributed without any kind of fiduciary ethic. Credit card agreements have been reworked in recent months so that customers have assumed all the risk. Now as more and more educated people begin to get active in the movement, documentation will be carefully scrutinized and loan agreements will be deemed invalid. Banks have lost the confidence of the people as a safe place to keep capital. Unless the legislators have the courage to sort out the mess, capitalism is doomed. If that happens, there will be no 1%.

  • sevo||

    "Unless the legislators have the courage to sort out the mess, capitalism is doomed. If that happens, there will be no 1%."

    Uh, well,.......
    I lost my 'hate business' decoder ring; care to put that in English?

  • Jeffersonian||

    The first rule of propaganda: Never believe your own.

  • New West Republic||

    First, if you don't like the terms don't get a credit card.

    Second, there isn't and never will be a system of perfect equality, even if the only option a citizen has is to use his weekly cabbage soup ration more efficiently than others. Numerically, there will always be a 1%.

    Also, fuck off hippie.

  • Apocaliptarian||

    Fiduciary ethic? Fuck you asshole! You name a law or legal precedent that shows that shows a lender must engage a borrower with a punctillio of honor. What risks have been magically shifted to borrowers that lenders previously carried? Interest rates? They have become non-dischargable in bankruptcy (hint: no they have not)? Credit limits?

    The only thing you say with any validity is "capitalism [in its current form] is doomed". I, for one, welcome the apocalypse and I only wonder if you have the faith to be ready for divine wrath.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, AdTards...

    Why do you care so much about the upper-end of the 99 percent? They make a lot of money! You should be protesting THEM, too!

    Fuckers.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "if that happens, there will be no 1%"

    Then everyone will be in the 99%? What the fuck are you getting at here, AdTards?

  • Maxxx||

    The bankers are shaking in their shoes

    No, there bellies are shakin like a bowl full of jelly from laughing at you dumbasses.

    ...as politicians see their careers being shortened if nothing is done to help the other 99%.

    The only politicians that have seen their careers ended are the ones that the tea party successfully opposed.

    I'll stop think that you're full of shit when you successfully primary Pelosi, Reid, Frank or any of the other dems that sold their souls to Wall Street decades ago.

  • cynical||

    "Unless the legislators have the courage to sort out the mess, capitalism is doomed. If that happens, there will be no 1%."

    Hear that, 1%? They're doing this for YOOOOUUUUUU!

  • sevo||

    Daniel Evans|11.19.11 @ 9:58PM|#
    "Yes that was a bit of hyperbole, but my point was it had nothing to do with Student Loans at the beginning."

    Awright, what did it have to do with?

  • Daniel Evans||

    Wall Street's Money in politics, the fact that the wall street bankers/financiers/whatever the fuck you want to call them committed fraud and have paid no price in the form of criminal prosecution, and the growing wealth disparity gap in the county.

  • Daniel Evans||

    the fraud that caused the economic crash.

  • sevo||

    "Wall Street's Money in politics, the fact that the wall street bankers/financiers/whatever the fuck you want to call them"

    Again, you have the cart before the horse. Unless the government has favors to pass out, there would be no reason for "wall street" (and using that term means you really don't know what you're talking about) to use "wall street's" money for anything other than to get rich.
    -------------
    ..."committed fraud and have paid no price in the form of criminal prosecution,"

    Uh, well, there are more than a couple of those who had addresses on Wall Street who have gone to prison. But I doubt you can either define "Wall Street" or give a number of people going to prison that would satisfy your generalized envy.
    -------------
    "the growing wealth disparity gap in the county."

    You're pissed that the middle class is getting richer slower than the wealthy are doing so? Oh, good! What ratio would satisfy the envious? Please, in exact numbers.
    ------------
    "the fraud that caused the economic crash."

    And I'm sure you must mean those government entities Freddie and Fanny, right? Or are you stupid enough to think otherwise?
    Just asking...

  • Daniel Evans||

    You asked my the reasons that OWS started, I stated them. I didn't say I agreed with all of them. I don't have a problem with wealth disparity if they aren't ill gotten gains. Like running your business so well that you need a bailout from the government in form of multi-billion dollar 1% loans and in turn give yourself a $14 million dollar end of the year bonus (Jamie Dimon). So while ordinary Americans were losing their pensions, retirements, and jobs the fat cats on wall street just got richer. Don't you worry though I am not putting the cart before the horse I am putting the cart right next to the horse like a motorcycle with a sidecar. I have a problem with both the government and the system.
    But you are right about me using wall street wrong because I am using it loosely clearly they aren't the only problem its corporate money in politics. I'm talking about Wall Street, The Defense Industry, Big Pharma etc etc. I supported the Tea Party that shit didn't work they tried to work with in the system and got smacked the fuck down. Now I am supporting a different strategy along with Ron Paul the last hope to change whats going on with in the confines of the system.

    -----------------------
    ""the fraud that caused the economic crash.""

    I mean Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, Goldman, AIG and the rest of those bastards. Not sure Goldman was involved in the mortgage fraud, but they sure as hell recommended investments to people all the while they are betting against it. That might not be fraud but its damn sure fucked up.
    ----------------
    "Uh, well, there are more than a couple of those who had addresses on Wall Street who have gone to prison. But I doubt you can either define "Wall Street" or give a number of people going to prison that would satisfy your generalized envy."

    Again I was stating the reason OWS was started not why I support it.

  • KPres||

    "Like running your business so well that you need a bailout from the government in form of multi-billion dollar 1% loans and in turn give yourself a $14 million dollar end of the year bonus (Jamie Dimon)"

    As usual, your facts are wrong. JP Morgan didn't need a bailout. They were told to take it by the Feds anyway, so that investors wouldn't know which banks were insolvent and which ones were OK.

  • Daniel Evans||

    No problem with Dimon is what you say is true, but you there are others that did give themselves bonuses based off money they didn't earn. Otherwise, there would have been bailouts.

  • Daniel Evans||

    wouldn't have been bailouts.

  • KPres||

    Let's assume that the government is run by corporate money (which I don't believe). Why would it be better if it was run by voters? Is it better to be robbed by your neighbor than by somebody in NY?

  • Daniel Evans||

    How can you not believe these lobbyist that spend millions of dollars don't get what they want? Do you REALLY believe they would spend the money if it wasn't effective?

    I would much rather get screwed buy a bunch of small pricks like a few giant ones.

  • ||

    Get this through your thick skull, dumbasd: we did not want the government to bail those companies out.
    We don't care if companies pay their officers trillion dollar bonuses since it's a private matter between them and their shareholders.
    We do not want the government handing out favors and picking winners and losers in the business world.
    We do not want lobbyists to matter, not because they are regulated, but because there are no favors to ask for.
    We do not want our government stifling economic activity between private parties out of "fairness" that is anything but fair.

    Get your facts straight. It all starts in Washington. It has for 80+ years and it's grown under every administration, Blue or Red, since.

  • Daniel Evans||

    "Get this through your thick skull, dumbasd: we did not want the government to bail those companies out."

    I know we didn't.
    ---------------------
    "We don't care if companies pay their officers trillion dollar bonuses since it's a private matter between them and their shareholders."

    I don't care either unless they are taking money from the government to keep their business's from failing. They shouldn't be getting that fucking money in the first place they damn sure don't deserve bonus's. I might have been wrong about Dimon but plenty of execs out there have that problem and its bullshit. Dimon is a whole nother issue, but if its true I don't have a problem anyone that didn't need the loans getting bonuses, but I do have a problem with them being forced to take the money on the hush hush, but then again I don't think too high of Obama and his cronies.
    --------------------

    "We do not want the government handing out favors and picking winners and losers in the business world."

    Amen brother
    ----------------
    "We do not want lobbyists to matter, not because they are regulated, but because there are no favors to ask for."

    Preaching to the choir
    ----------------------------
    "We do not want our government stifling economic activity between private parties out of "fairness" that is anything but fair."

    I feel like you weren't even talking to me because I hardly disagree with you
    --------------------
    "Get your facts straight. It all starts in Washington. It has for 80+ years and it's grown under every administration, Blue or Red, since."

    It starts in Washington, but it doesn't end there.

  • ||

    Take step one out of the equation (Washington), and the rest of it never even occurs.

    Again, the protesters are misguided insomuch as they need to focus 100% of their energy at Washington.

    Hell, even the student loan forgiveness protesters should be bitching at the government for creating a bubble in tuitions with the GSL's.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The only problem with that is we have been trying to fix Washington at least a generation. When do we realize the status quo isn't working? Putting 100% of their energy into Washington is what the Tea Party tried. We started with from Ron Paul the next thing you know we get Michelle Bachmang claiming the Tea Party and she isn't the only scourge. I am willing to support other ideas while continuing to fight in the polls. Moved to a new state that doesn't have open primaries already GOP registered in LA so I can vote for Paul.

  • ||

    I feel your pain, but we must stand firm to our principles. And no, the tea party did not try 100% in Washington. Or at least if they did, a lot of the ones who got elected fell back into the Team Red fold as soon as they got there.

    The next step is to vote all of them out. Wash. Rinse. Repeat every two years.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The problem with that, the Tea Party of Louisiana supports David Vitter who likes to vote for the PATRIOT ACT and warrant less wiretapping. That's my problem I support only candidates who support real personal liberty. I don't know that I will be eligible to vote for any of those except for Ron Paul in the Louisiana Primary. Vitter isn't up for re-election until 2016. Judging by where I live in south west Louisiana I would be willing to bet I won't find more than 1 other pol I am willing to vote for. Dem or republican, even Tea Party republican because its conservative country here.

  • ||

    I live in California, dude. How do you think I feel?

  • Maxxx||

    I supported the Tea Party that shit didn't work they tried to work with in the system and got smacked the fuck down.

    WTF are you talking about?

    The Tea Party is the most successful political movement of the last couple of decades. They did get rid or crony politicians (Castle, Crist, Bennett, etc.)

    That they have not had greater success so far is because of the enormous inertia built into our political system. It takes 20+ years of sustained and widespread political activism to effect major change in the country's political trajectory.

    We'll see if the tea party can maintain their effort for that long (I don't think they will) but they have had a better start than any group since the socon's emergence in the 70s.

  • Daniel Evans||

    The tea party now is not the same as the real tea party. Yes real Tea Partiers are still in the Tea Party, but so are the Neo Cons and the Evangelical right. Michelle Bachmann claims the Tea Party.....

    I believe Ron Paul is our only hope not only is he the only one capable of fixing our country that is running for President he is also the only one capable of beating Obama.

  • Repairman Jack||

    Why do cops hit the side of people's legs with their baton? Is it supposed to knock people on their ass in order to facilitate an arrest? I've seen it done many times but it's never actually accomplished anything other than make the person back up ie resist arrest. It also bothers me when police don't explicitly inform people that they are under arrest before starting to beat, taze, or pepper spray them. Hitting someone with your baton and then yelling, "get on the ground" is not an appropriate way to initiate an arrest imo.

  • LE type||

    we are trained to hit people in the meaty portions of their body with batons. It still causes immense pain, enough to make you collapse, but is less likely to injure or kill you than striking elsewhere.

  • Adbusters||

    Capitalism has a self destruct gene called GREED. The situation we face today in the US and other countries is not unique. Ever since the laissez faire proponents of the 18th and 19th centuries there have been numerous times when economies have been crippled by the GREED nurtured by unbridled capitalism. The situation is exacerbated in the US as the 1% has managed to buy the best government money can buy. Any one who can talk about corruption in other nations with a straight face and not realize that ours is by far the most corrupt is grossly uninformed. We have institutionalized corruption and made it legal hence the thousands of well funded lobbies. The slogan of the Occupy Wall Street folks should be " We have come to rescue capitalism from the capitalists" Also, "'We have come to save your arses but not to kiss them". The destruction of the American middle class by the 1% and their cronies has in fact killed the goose that laid the golden egg. GREED will not allow some people to recognize this truism. In a consumer society people who have jobs and money with which to feed, cloth, educate and shelter their families are the real job creators other than government sponsored work projects. The myth that corporations create jobs must be laid to rest once and for all. Corporations invest their money only when it is in their best interests to do so. It is stupid for the government to pay corporations to create jobs when there is no one to buy their products. What is really tragic is that the GREED of US corporations, aided and abetted by our government, has poisoned the financial well in many other countries. I despair of a rational solution to our problems being generated from within our current way of doing business. We need massive institutional changes and these can only come from an aroused and enlightened grass roots movement. Keep the heat on every Senator and Congressmen and forget the polite talk.

  • sevo||

    Adbusters|11.19.11 @ 10:58PM|#
    "Capitalism has a self destruct gene called GREED."

    Thanks! Thanks a lot! I'll be here all week!
    Try the veal, and don't forget to tip!

    Now, dipshit, would you like to try something a bit above kindergarten level or just admit you're an agnoramus?

  • cynical||

    They literally have no idea what the word nomenklatura means.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Yes, because we all know that giving the Central State lots more power and money will erase GREED from our fair nation once and for all.

  • ||

    You are a boring idiot.

  • sevo||

    OK, in the scant hope of learning:
    Please tell us, Adbusters, exactly what "greed" is, why it is bad and tell us what economic system prevents it.

  • ||

    People like Adbusters are the reason that I am against a state whose actors have the power to perpetrate actions seen in the videos above without repercussions.

  • db||

    So what is your solution? There are certainly problems with our society. However, the abandonment of capitalism would have to come with a replacement paradigm. Unless you have come up with a new, completely novel structuring of society from whole cloth, I imagine you are advocating some ort of socialism or communism, both of which have been shown to fail under their own weight of problems brought on by their inherent weaknesses and the fact that they rely on the theft of wealth from the productive in favor of the less productive. Please let ma know if I am wrong in this characterization, but I find it infinitesimally unlikely that you and your compatriots have come up with a fundamentally new and effective solution to the problem of greed. If you have you're not doing anyone any favors by keeping it to yourselves (unless you're waiting to tell us once you're in position to be one of the top dogs).

  • GILMORE||

    I despair of a rational solution to our problems being generated from within our current way of doing business.

    I despair of any of you idiots ever being able to pass the series 7 exam.

  • KPres||

    Capitalism is the ONLY system in which greed is not self-destructive. Under capitalism, a person's greed is only satisfied by producing products that other people want to buy, making everybody better off.

    Greed destroys socialism. And it's the socialist aspects of our MIXED-ECONOMY which have given rise to whatever corruption there is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, AdTards. Go spam somewhere else.

  • Maxxx||

    Capitalism has a self destruct gene called GREED.

    Absolutely,

    Greed never existed in human history before the invention of the joint stock limited liability business structure.

    Dumbfuck!

  • yonemoto||

    Socialism has a self destruct gene called POWER. The situation we face today in the US and other countries is not unique. Ever since the gas and water proponents of the 18th and 19th centuries there have been numerous times when societies have been crippled by the POWER nurtured by unbridled socialism. The situation is exacerbated in the US as the 1% has managed to occupy the government and concentrate its power. Any one who can talk about corruption in other nations with a straight face and not realize that ours is by far the most corrupt is grossly uninformed. We have institutionalized corruption and made it legal hence the thousands of well funded lobbies. The slogan of the Occupy Wall Street folks should be " We have come to rescue socialism from the socialists" Also, "'We have come to save your arses but not to kiss them". The destruction of the American middle class by the 1% and their cronies has in fact killed the goose that laid the golden egg. POWER will not allow some people to recognize this truism. In a consumer society people who have jobs and money with which to feed, cloth, educate and shelter their families are the real job creators, not government sponsored work projects. The myth that government creates jobs must be laid to rest once and for all. Governments invest their money only when it pays off its cronies to do so (see SOLYNDRA). It is stupid for the government to pay corporations to create jobs when there is no one to buy their products. What is really tragic is that the POWER of US govenment, has poisoned for-profit and non-profit free market solutions in our won countries. I despair of a rational solution to our problems being generated from within our current way of running government. We need massive institutional changes and these can only come from an aroused and enlightened grass roots movement. Keep the heat on every Senator and Congressmen and forget the polite talk.

  • ||

    Adbusters Is a left wing organization funded by corporations heavily contributed to by george soros.

  • Adbusters||

    We can send soldiers overseas to fight this sort of cruelty but when it happens at home we just tell the victims to get a job. If you haven't succeeded it's because you are lazy. If you have money problems its because you are too stupid to know better.

    How could we ever believe there may just be something fundamentally broken with how we conduct ourselves from day to day. It's an equal trade off for our iPhones I suppose.

  • sevo||

    Adbusters|11.19.11 @ 11:32PM|#
    "We can send soldiers overseas to fight this sort of cruelty but when it happens at home we just tell the victims to get a job. "

    Nominated for Most Stupid Comment of the Day!
    Do we have a second?

  • Adbusters||

    So you never suggested the Occupiers "get a job"?

  • sevo||

    "So you never suggested the Occupiers "get a job"?"

    Uh, did you go to the University of Houston?
    Or are you just trying for a "Misdirection" degree on the fly?

  • Adbusters||

    Wow are you good at not answering direct questions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What the fuck do you want, AdTards? A world where everyone has the same amount of stuff, with no exceptions? Two hots and a cot for 100%?

    Or is THAT too good for 'em?

  • ||

    I got the Houston joke. Well played.

  • sevo||

    So you read the entire thread?
    I'm impressed!

  • Apocaliptarian||

    give me a blow job?

  • ||

    Jesus, another fucking toady.

    Of course, the fact that "this sort of cruelty" is a definite feature and consequence of the society you advocate is something that you can't grok doesn't surprise me at all.

    Why not take your goosestepping authoritarian self somewhere you'll be more appreciated. I hear Stormfront has open registration you fascist fuck.

  • Fluffy Got Demoted||

    How could we ever believe there may just be something fundamentally broken with how we conduct ourselves from day to day.

    Why, yes, there is.

    But just about everything broken with how we conduct ourselves is the result of previous times we listened to guys like you.

  • ||

    Liberals own the education system and virtually every cultural institution in America. And they own the lion's share of one of the major parties. Yet, curiously, they share none of the blame for our current situation.

    Being liberal means never having to say you are sorry.

  • ||

    we we we we.... Speak for yourself, genius.

  • ||

    Adbuster is one of our left wing brothern. Adbusters Is a left wing organization funded by corporations heavily contributed to by george soros.
    Be that as it may, there are many who have suffered from crony capitalism in the last 4 years . Solution is not to steal s corporations and politicians have done. The solution is to put an end to the government's ability to steal from us

  • ||

    Please explain to me what this statement means:

    I despair of a rational solution to our problems being generated from within our current way of doing business. We need massive institutional changes and these can only come from an aroused and enlightened grass roots movement.

    in plain English with details.

  • Adbusters||

    We have a memory of Democracy, somewhere in our lives, and that we want it to return again soon.

  • ||

    I wish your retarded posts were just a memory. Unfortunately, they're right here for all to see.

  • ||

    LOLOLOL Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

  • KPres||

    Unfortunately, we have too much Democracy.

    OWS is mad because they don't have the votes. Well, that's Democracy for you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    AdTars want mob rule. No surprise there.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Pretty sure he is saying the system is so fucked up that nothing will change unless we the people make them change the rules and play by them. He also wants those people to be horny and spiritually aware.

  • PermaLurker||

    I can't believe I'm the only one that caught this. The guy wasn't a protestor, he was walking home. Who exactly are the cops protecting again?

  • Daniel Evans||

    Technically he was a protester. He was protesting earlier in the day, but yes he was walking home and if I remember correctly he was walking home from the business he co-owns.

  • sevo||

    Daniel Evans|11.20.11 @ 12:48AM|#
    "Technically he was a protester. He was protesting earlier in the day,..."

    So if I protested three years ago, I can get whacked?

  • A Serious Man||

    O/T, but here is Ron Paul at a Christian Thanksgiving Family Forum. Unlike the debates, Dr. Paul was seated at the head of the table (yes, the candidates were placed at a dinner table) and was allowed enough time to clearly articulate his views.

    In short I think it was his best performance this campaign season and one of the best examples of public speaking I've ever seen him do.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElVCO5mdTrk

  • Apatheist||

    Awesome. All debates should be like this. It is no surprise to me that Romney sat this one out. His robotic soundbites wouldn't work and every person there would make him look like a fool (even Bachmann).

  • ||

    Mormons don't celebrate Thanksgiving. Something about green-bean casserole being a stimulant, but I may be wrong.

  • sevo||

    Naah.
    It's the soporific in turkey.

  • ||

    The guy has balls for not pandering like the others.

  • Amakudari||

    Huh, so nothing about the pepper-spraying of passive, seated protestors at UC Davis:

    Protesters sitting on the ground supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement on the campus of the University of California, Davis took a face full of pepper spray at close range from an officer in riot gear in an incident that was captured on cellphone video and spread virally across the Internet Saturday. ...

    In the video, an officer dispassionately pepper-sprays a line of several sitting protesters who flinch and cover their faces but remain passive with their arms interlocked as onlookers shriek and scream out for the officer to stop. ...

    Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters. ...

    After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

    "What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Kelly said. ...

    At Saturday's news conference, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said the decision to use pepper spray was made at the scene.

    "The students had encircled the officers," she said. "They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out."

    Of course, for California police, it isn't standard procedure. Standard procedure is where you directly swab non-violent protestors eyes with liquid pepper spray.

  • Amakudari||

    Direct YouTube link for the lazy.

  • ||

    We had a post about this yesterday, I think.

  • ||

    OT: Your link took me to this

    http://www.jpxjetprotector.com/

    I get the design, but if the other guy is packing, this looks like an excellent way to get your head blown off.

  • Apatheist||

    If by nothing you mean an entire post then yeah.

  • Amakudari||

    Cool, exactly what I meant.

  • ||

    Is Dunphy letting long time, first time, tool extrordinaire, do all of the top cover, copsucking an general State-worship on this one? Cops are definitely fucking lazy.

    Unless, of course, FTLT is a cop him/her/itself. Certainly seems to have the double digit IQ needed to be a cop.

  • ||

    His "One Good Cop"(tm) gig on Reason is beginning to wear thin. His libertarian fig leaf doesn't it very well over his thin blue line double standards.

  • ||

    What's starting to wear a little thin for me is the slightly misplaced, much too narrowly focused, and overt cop-hate. The type of person who haunts these pages as a regular should know better.

    These types of outrages are not the disease, they're the symptoms. The symptoms of a state apparatus that is so out of control that they don't even give a fuck what we think about them anymore.

    You can blame the attack dog for doing his master's bidding per his training, but you miss the greater point if you do. Me, I'm keeping my hate focused directly on the master.

  • ||

    You can blame the attack dog for doing his master's bidding per his training, but you miss the greater point if you do. Me, I'm keeping my hate focused directly on the master.

    An attack dog lacks the free will that a man enjoys. These fucking pigs have no excuse, and neither do the passive enablers like dunphy.

    Fuck each and every one of them.

  • ||

    Yes, Sloop. Fuck each and every one of them. But don't do so to the neglect of the masters, who after all still have their hand on the leash.

    They wouldn't act that way unless they were being allowed/encouraged to do so.

  • ||

    Also.......Flame me if you want, but I also seriously have to lament the nearly complete pussification of America.

    Getting a face full of pepper spray is more force than is necessary to effect the arrest of a nonviolent protester. It's painful, and enraging, and it's complete douchebaggery. But it isn't violence.

    Getting a knee pushed hard into your back while someone is trying to truss you up is just common sense. If it's me, and I have the upper hand, I ain't giving it back by being gentle and running the risk that you turn the tables on me. It's painful and humiliating for the trussee. But it isn't violence.

    Violence is getting sucker-punched with a wrench, and your jaw broken. It's getting your spleen ruptured with a truncheon via this video. It's getting your head caved in with a brick. It's getting shot/stabbed/slashed. It's getting your head literally sawed off your shoulders for being the wrong religion, or being turned into flying body parts by an explosive device.

    Science!, we've turned into such a bunch of whiny little fags.

    Disclaimer: Fag used in a nonsexual context, ala South Park.

  • Daniel Evans||

    It might not be violence, but it sure as hell is excessive force

  • yonemoto||

    Fag used in a nonsexual context, ala South Park.

    We need to bring back its use to refer to a cigarette BUTT.

    No homo.

  • sams||

    Seriously ?

    can Reason Magazine stop with the retarded anti-establishment juvenile colective orgasm already ?

    The dude had the bandana thing and was clearly looking for trouble and was a occunut ...

  • ||

    Oh, how I wish for a sarcasm font, so I knew how to respond. My meter is not functioning properly, I hope.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Yes, because wearing a bandana is reason enough to get your spleen busted then have medical treatment refused for 18 hours.

  • Mt||

    Try wearing black sometime. That's apparently code for dirty anarachist too.

  • ||

    http://www.jammiewf.com/2011/f.....ry-hotels/

    Figures: OWS Organizers Occupying Luxury Hotels
    Posted by Jammie on Nov 20, 2011 at 8:33 am
    wroom

    Their zombies are sleeping in feces and urine, but the so-called organizers of the anarchist Occupy Wall Street movement are living large at a luxury hotel. Goose-down pillows for me, but not for thee.

    Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.

    A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

    The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

    “Tents are not for me,”he confessed, when confronted in the sleek black lobby of the Washington Street hotel where sources described him as a “repeat” guest.Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is most excellent! Not only is there a nomenklatura (a Wall St. nomenklatura), but they want the traditional privileges of the nomenklatura.

    It's communists all the way down...and all the way up.

    I suppose Spitzer is one of those bankers who is "shaking in their shoes" at the OWS. Shaking with laughter.

  • ||

    Interesting take from Stacy McCain. The protestors are Marxist without really knowing why.

    Indoctrination: What the Occupiers Believe and Why They Believe It

    Posted on | November 19, 2011 | 41 Comments and 1 Reaction

    NYPD arrest Occupy Wall Street protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge, Oct. 1

    “In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
    – William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

    “We have a class called 21st Century Challenges and Choices. They’re studying the current world. They went on a field trip to see Occupy Denver.”
    – Dierdre Cryor, principal, St. Mary’s Academy

    “We want them to see the democratic process in action.”
    – Celia Bard, Social Studies Department chair, St. Mary’s Academy

    “You’re f–king up our future. . . . What do you think we learn at school? This is what we learned about. . . . We’re the 99 percent.”
    – 17-year-old student, St. Mary’s Academy

    Workers World Party national conference, New York, Oct. 8

    “An epic battle is underway for the direction of our country. The Occupy movement is not alone. . . . We stand with the courageous young people who have sparked this movement and join with the occupiers who are putting themselves on the line to transform our nation and achieve a secure and sustainable future. . . . The time has come to put people before profits.”
    – “Communist Party heralds Occupy Wall Street movement,” Oct. 18, 2011, CPUSA.org

    “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
    – Ronald Reagan, Sept. 25, 1987

    During today’s first anniversary broadcast of Da Tech Guy‘s radio show on WCRN, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom was discussing his video of Catholic schoolgirls who took part in an Occupy Denver protest against last weekend’s BlogCon:

    In discussing the beliefs of the Occupiers, including these 17-year-old girls who attend a private Catholic academy where the tuition is $14,000 a year, Jeff suggested they had been “indoctrinated.” This called to mind Buckley’s description of indoctrination in Up From Liberalism, and made me wonder how these girls were taught that they are “the 99 percent” on whose behalf the Occupiers claim to speak.

    Born in 1994, these girls cannot possibly have any useful memory of political events prior to the Bush presidency. They were in first grade during the 2000 election and were 14 when Obama was elected. Therefore whatever “knowledge” they have of history is what they have been taught, and the content of that curriculum undoubtedly accounts for their sympathy with the Occupy movement.

    These girls are scarcely alone in that regard. An entire generation of youth has been taught to view the radical protest movements of the Sixties as unquestionably righteous. Young people may never have heard of Mario Savio, Tom Hayden, Stokely Carmichael, Bill Ayers or Abbie Hoffman, but they have been rigorously indoctrinated with the worldview of the 1960s New Left. And so when they behold the spectacle of left-wing protests like the Occupy movement, it touches a chord that resonates, evoking the heroic conception of revolutionary struggle instilled in them by their teachers, by TV and movies, and by the news media.
    ‘Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out’

    Hagiographic treatment of Sixties radicalism convinces young people, who can know nothing of that long-ago era except what they have been taught, that the New Left represented all that was good and right, and that the protest movements of the 1960s were a glorious triumph. One wishes these kids could be de-programmed by exposure to such eyewitness testimony as Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers by Tom Wolfe, or perhaps even some seminal gonzo journalism:

    “In 1965 Berkeley was the axis of what was just beginning to be called the ‘New Left.’ Its lenders were radical, but they were also deeply committed to the society they wanted to change.
    “Now, in 1967, there is not much doubt that Berkeley has gone through a revolution of some kind, but the end result is not exactly what the original leaders had in mind. Many one-time activists have forsaken politics entirely and turned to drugs. . . .
    “The hippies, who had never really believed they were the wave of the future anyway, saw the [1966] election results as brutal confirmation of the futility of fighting the establishment on its own terms. There had to be a whole new scene, they said, and the only way to do it was to make the big move — either figuratively or literally — from Berkeley to the Haight-Ashbury, from pragmatism to mysticism, from politics to dope. . . . The thrust is no longer for ‘change’ or ‘progress’ or ‘revolution,’ but merely to escape, to live on the far perimeter of a world that might have been.”
    – Hunter S. Thompson, “The Hashbury is the Capital of the Hippies,” May 1967, collected in The Great Shark Hunt (1979)

    Thompson was always a man of the Left, but harbored no illusions about the Left’s failures. He watched young idealists follow the New Left downward, as the movement splintered and descended into a futile festival of drugged and disorganized (yet ironically herdlike) “non-conformity” that became known as the counter-culture.

    Not everyone in the New Left followed Timothy Leary’s advice to “tune in, turn on and drop out,” however. Many of the radicals made the Long March Through the Institutions. This is how Bill Ayers, a terrorist leader who spent years as a fugitive wanted by the FBI, eventually became an influential academic, along with many others who shared his revolutionary vision if not his penchant for revolutionary violence.

    “We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men . . . deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.”
    – Bill Ayers, et. al., “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” manifesto of the Weather Underground, 1974

    In all the 2008 uproar about Ayers’s association with Barack Obama, few seemed to take alarm at the thought that, from 1987 onward, Ayers was a professor of education — a teacher of teachers — at the University of Illinois. Ayers’s acceptance within academia suggests that many other administrators and faculty were sympathetic to his radicalism. And if, for the past quarter-century, admirers of Marxist revolutionaries have been so influential in our nation’s most prestigious educational institutions, are we surprised to find 17-year-olds sympathizing with the Occupy mobs?
    Understanding Marx and Lenin

    Marxism is a philosophy based on a theory of history, and anyone who does not understand this theory — “dialectical materialism,” as it is usually known — is ill-equipped to discuss what the Left believes, and how their beliefs are now propagated through the education system, through news media and through popular entertainment.

    A disciple of the German philosopher Georg Hegel, Karl Marx believed and taught that history develops through a dialectical process: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    Marx insisted that this process of development leads inevitably to social revolution, as changes in material conditions empower a rising class in their struggle to displace the ruling class, which had attained its dominant position during an earlier era. The supremacy of the ruling class had been made obsolete by new developments, and thus the triumph of the rising class was historically inevitable.

    This was how, Marx taught, the era of feudalism had ended with the rise of the bourgeoisie — the capitalistic merchant class, which displaced the hereditary aristocracy in the French Revolution. (It can be said that Marx, like many 19th-century Germans, was afflicted with a bad case of “revolution envy.”) Based on this understanding of history, Marx then prophesied that the very same material conditions that had empowered the bourgeois merchant class – innovations in science and technology, the growth of modern industry, the spread of democratic government — would inevitably lead to another revolution: The rise of the proletariat (industrial workers) to challenge the dominance of the bourgeoisie.

    Above and beyond Marx’s specific critique of industrial capitalism as a system whereby the wealthy exploited and oppressed the workers, it was his belief in class struggle as a permanent fact of human existence and material conditions as a force for revolutionary upheaval that distinguished Marxism from other socialist theories of the 19th century.

    Marx boasted that his Communism was “scientific socialism,” which he contrasted to the “idealistic” schemes of others. The famed Communist Manifesto of 1848 advocated specific measures such as the progressive income tax and free public education as part of a party platform, these ideas were not original to Marx and his co-author Friedrich Engels. Rather, the party platform incorporated a list of reform proposals that were broadly popular among socialists of the era. What distinguished Marx and Engels — the basis of their claim to leadership of a proletarian revolution they forecast as the inevitable result of a forthcoming crisis in the bourgeois capitalist system — was their assertion that this was an outcome they had discerned through their scientific understanding of historical development.
    The Revolutionary Vanguard

    Those who have read Socialism by Ludwig von Mises and A Conservative History of the American Left by Dan Flynn will know that there have been many other varieties of socialism promulgated over the years. Yet it was Marx’s “scientific socialism” that laid the philosophical foundation for the 20th-century revolutions that brought about Communist regimes in Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere. This was largely due to the work of Vladimir Lenin, which is why revolutionary communism (as contrasted to the slow-motion “reform” methods of democratical socialism, i.e., the European-style Welfare State) is properly known as Marxism-Leninism.

    Lenin’s place in the revolutionary pantheon was secured not only by his leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, but also by his two clever additions to Marxist theory.

    Lenin’s first innovation was the concept that became known as ”democratic centralism.” In a complex argument (elaborated in the 1902 treatise “What Is to Be Done?”), Lenin set forth his principles of leadership, advocating both his own party’s role as the legitimate “vanguard” of the proletarian revolution and the party leadership’s authority to act without internal dissent. Mocking socialist rivals whom he accused of “infantile playing at ‘democratic’ forms,” Lenin demanded “the consolidation of militant Marxism” to make it “the genuine vanguard of the most revolutionary class.” This argument was, in essence, Lenin’s way of issuing himself a license for dictatorship.

    The second of Lenin’s innovations was the concept of imperialism. Marx had taught for decades, until his death in 1883, that the crisis of industrial capitalism was both inevitable and imminent. By the early 20th century, however, even Marx’s most devout disciples could see that this crisis had failed to arrive. Capitalism was flourishing and the economic condition of workers were improving. In his 1916 treatise Imperialism, Lenin offered an explanation: Through their colonial empires, the leading industrial nations were parasitically expropriating resources from undeveloped parts of the world. The excess wealth thus gained was what had prevented the crisis prophesied by Marx.

    “Imperialism . . . means high monopoly profits for a handful of very rich countries [and] makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote.

    We can view the concept of imperialism two ways: First, as a genuine effort to explain the delayed crisis in capitalism, and second, as a cynical effort by Lenin to undermine socialist support for the World War that was then raging. The two greatest “imperial” powers were England and France, with whom Russia was allied. Russia was also an empire, of course, but was not a major industrial power and did not have overseas colonies like the English and French. By attacking “imperialism,” then, Lenin was accusing the Tsarist regime of helping its allies defend their own empires which, according to his theory, were being parasitically exploited to shore up decadent bourgeois capitalism.

    As subversive wartime propaganda, then, “Imperialism” served many purposes, and it is remarkable to note how it is also during wartime that the American Left revives Lenin’s ancient accusations. Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades saw themselves engaged in a “struggle against U.S. imperialism,” and isn’t this what anti-war protesters meant when they accused the Bush administration of fighting a “war for oil” in Iraq?
    Marxism by Osmosis

    Certainly, the teenage prep-school girls who made that field trip to Occupy Denver never read Marx or Lenin, and they probably wouldn’t know Bill Ayers from Justin Bieber. The same can be said for most of the rest of the ill-informed mobs who have assembled themselves under the “Occupy” banner. They cannot articulate any rational agenda, but are motivated only by a general resentment of “the rich,’ whom the Occupiers vaguely understand to be unfairly exploiting “the 99 percent” in some way.

    If the Occupiers are in any sense Marxist, then, they have absorbed their Marxism by some mysterious process of cultural osmosis, because it is impossible to imagine any of those nitwits taking time to work their way through “Imperialism” or “What Is to Be Done?” (And forget about Das Kapital, a book so notoriously unreadable that I doubt even the most devout Communists ever got past the second chapter.) What is important to understand is that Marxism is a belief system, and that a person may be influenced by Marxist ideas without ever realizing the origins of these ideas.

    http://theothermccain.com/2011.....elieve-it/

  • GILMORE||

    Fuck, John, just link the shit already. Even if I have a screed, at least I wrote it myself for H&R proprietary consumption.

  • ||

    I know. I meant to put in one paragraph and didn't check it before I posted it. My bad.

  • ||

    Reasons why I wish they had registration and edit function. I could go back and fix it.

  • GILMORE||

    LOL

    Hope your weekend is better than these kids

    i have a headache equal to a police-batoning it so happens... self induced

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Catholic School Girls in Trouble?

  • ||

    You have our gratitude!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is interesting...a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard a case about an interesting U.S. law.

    Congress passed a law that if you're born in Jerusalem, you can demand that "Israel" be listed on your passport as your birthplace. The Bush and Obama administrations refuse to enforce this, claiming that the law unconstitutionaly interferes with the President's authority over foreign affairs. Parents of a Jerusalem-born boy sued to enforce the statute. The lower court threw out the case as a "political question." The Supremes are considering the law now.

    http://wapo.st/vf8cvv

  • ||

    I don't see how anything the President does can't be overruled by statute. It seems to me that if you buy the President's argument, the President has dictatorial powers over foreign affairs. That can't be right. And Congress didn't just pass the law, the President signed it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ah, but President Bush made a Signing Statement(TM) that he though the law he just signed was unconstitutional!

  • ||

    Kant,

    Have no use for the occutards. But I recognize that if the Cops will brutalize them openly, it is only a short distance to brutalizing anyone the state feels like brutalizing. If you are too fucking blind to see that it is about a gradual instilling of a sense of violent entitlement (you didn't move fast enough granny / gradeschooler / pregnant woman, zap goes the taser), not about the navel gazing about details in the Use of Force procedures, then you are unreachable.

    This taste for violence and control never stops. I found myself in a mandatory anti-smoking discussion during a class for my Masters a while back. I was the only one opposed. The earnest young doofijencia reasoned since they were nonsmokers then heavy fines and sanctions would never be levied against something they care about.

    So yea, the occutards are fags. Yea, getting a faceful of pepperspray is not the same as getting your head sawed off. Yea, the cops are "just following orders". But random checkpoints and strip searches may be humiliating, but they don't actually hurt, just your pride. And the courts are rapidly showing their contempt for the 4th and 5th ammendments. But they'll only beat you if you get out of line. Just do as you're told and you won't get hurt.

    That attitude of passive acquiescence is faggotry personified. The whup them and not me I'm a good little slave attitude is unworthy of a human fucking being. I hope your chains rest lightly.

  • ||

    They shouldn't be brutalized. But at the same time, they have no right to set up camp and foul public spaces. They should be removed and arrested with the minimum force necessary. Sadly, that is a hard thing to do since the mob dynamic creates a situation where it is easy for the cops to overreact, which is what these assholes want.

  • Today...||

    Today I don’t have to think about those who hear “terrorist” when I speak my faith.

    Today I don’t have to think about men who don’t believe no means no.

    Today I don’t have to think about how the world is made for people who move differently than I do.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in.

    Today I don’t have to think about how I’m going to hail a cab past midnight.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether store security is tailing me.

    Today I don’t have to think about the look on the face of the person about to sit next to me on a plane.

    Today I don’t have to think about eyes going to my chest first.

    Today I don’t have to think about what people might think if they knew the medicines I took.

    Today I don’t have to think about getting kicked out of a mall when I kiss my beloved hello.

    Today I don’t have to think about if it’s safe to hold my beloved’s hand.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m being pulled over for anything other than speeding.

    Today I don’t have to think about being classified as one of “those people.”

    Today I don’t have to think about making less than someone else for the same job at the same place.

    Today I don’t have to think about the people who stare, or the people who pretend I don’t exist.

    Today I don’t have to think about managing pain that never goes away.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether a stranger’s opinion of me would change if I showed them a picture of who I love.

    Today I don’t have to think about the chance a store salesmen will ignore me to help someone else.

    Today I don’t have to think about the people who’d consider torching my house of prayer a patriotic act.

    Today I don’t have to think about a pharmacist telling me his conscience keeps him from filling my prescription.

    Today I don’t have to think about being asked if I’m bleeding when I’m just having a bad day.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether the one drug that lets me live my life will be taken off the market.

    Today I don’t have to think about the odds of getting jumped at the bar I like to go to.

    Today I don’t have to think about “vote fraud” theater showing up at my poll station.

    Today I don’t have to think about turning on the news to see people planning to burn my holy book.

    Today I don’t have to think about others demanding I apologize for hateful people who have nothing to do with me.

    Today I don’t have to think about my child being seen as a detriment to my career.

    Today I don’t have to think about the irony of people thinking I’m lucky because I can park close to the door.

    Today I don’t have to think about memories of being bullied in high school.

    Today I don’t have to think about being told to relax, it was just a joke.

    Today I don’t have to think about whether someone thinks I’m in this country illegally.

    Today I don’t have to think about those who believe that freedom of religion ends with mine.

    Today I don’t have to think about how a half-starved 23-year-old being a cultural ideal affects my life.

    Today I don’t have to think about how much my life is circumscribed by my body.

    Today I don’t have to think about people wanting me cured of loving who I love.

    Today I don’t have to think about those who view me an unfit parent because of who I love.

    Today I don’t have to think about being told my kind don’t assimilate.

    Today I don’t have to think about people blind to the intolerance of their belief lecturing me about my own.

    Today I don’t have to think about my body as a political football.

    Today I don’t have to think about how much my own needs wear on those I love.

    Today I don’t have to think about explaining to others “what happened to me.”

    Today I don’t have to think about politicians saying bigoted things about me to win votes.

    Today I don’t have to think about those worried that one day people like me will be the majority.

    Today I don’t have to think about someone using the name of my religion as a slur.

    Today I don’t have to think about so many of the words for me controlling my own life being negatives.

    Today I don’t have to think about still not being equal.

    Today I don’t have to think about what it takes to keep going.

    Today I don’t have to think about how much I still have to hide.

    Today I don’t have to think about how much prejudice keeps hold.

    Today I don’t have to think about how I’m meant to be grateful that people tolerate my kind.

    Today I don’t have to think about all the things I don’t have to think about.

    But today I will.

    OCCUPY WALL ST, OCCUPY THE WORLD!

  • sevo||

    What a whiny, self-pitying twit you must be.

  • Maxxx||

    Parroting propaganda isn't thinking dipshit.

  • ||

    I long for Anonymous-level hacking skills. I would locate the repository of all these mindless screeds, and take the website down.

    Then, we would only have to suffer through the occasional "derp!"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Today I don’t have to think about" etc.

    Yeah, but tomorrow you'll have run out of marijuana, at the rate you're obviously smoking it.

  • sevo||

    "Sadly, that is a hard thing to do since the mob dynamic creates a situation where it is easy for the cops to overreact, which is what these assholes want."

    And, as paid professionals, it is exactly what the cops shouldn't give them.

  • Maxxx||

    But I recognize that if the Cops will brutalize them openly, it is only a short distance to brutalizing anyone the state feels like brutalizing.

    And we have been at that point for at least a decade now.

  • ||

    Loather of Cops and Feds|11.20.11 @ 10:10AM|#
    Kant,

    Have no use for the occutards [...] If you are too fucking blind to see [...] then you are unreachable [...] But they'll only beat you if you get out of line. Just do as you're told and you won't get hurt.

    That attitude of passive acquiescence is faggotry personified. The whup them and not me I'm a good little slave attitude is unworthy of a human fucking being. I hope your chains rest lightly.


    Reading comprehension is FUNdamental.

    1. I speak out against the police state constantly

    2. I said right up front that it was excessive force and douchebaggery

    3. What gives me a chuckle is the sense that these sniveling entitled shits (such as those advantaged UC Davis students) who, at the minimum are mouthpieces for more oppressive government (in the form of a Marxist/Leninist state), aren't so appalled at the "violence" as they are by the fact that it's actually being used against them.
    IRON LAW #5, bitches!

    4. My main thrust is that they are so coddled and so isolated from the sort of actual violence which tends to be standard fare in the rest of the world, that they consider a light dusting of pepper spray to be "violence".

    If you are "horrified" by what happened at UC Davis, what adjectives do you have left in the tank for REAL atrocities? It's like idiots who proclaim everything beyond the mundane to be "AWESOME, Dude".

  • ||

    If you punch my friend in the face, I'm not going to be "horrified", unless I'm a pacifist Va-jay-jay. I'm going to be pissed.

    If you take a Louisville Slugger and turn him into a lifeless lump of roadkill, then I'll be "horrified".

  • ||

    If you punch my friend in the face, I'm not going to be "horrified", unless I'm a pacifist Va-jay-jay. I'm going to be pissed.

    I am if you have the backing of the government and are in no way held accountable.

    If you take a Louisville Slugger and turn him into a lifeless lump of roadkill, then I'll be "horrified".

    I will be enraged.

  • Amakudari||

    "Horrified" is a word you brought up here.

    Using pepper spray on non-violent protestors is bullshit, and should make anyone angry. "A light dusting" is irrelevant, because once that gets in your eyes and nose, it fucking burns. I'd rather take a baton to the gut.

    In any case, they were pepper sprayed for one reason: cop jollies. They knew they could do it, and the worst that would happen is a paid vacation. School and government administrations love it, because they can hide behind the police while they suppress nonviolent dissent.

    I'm not angered by someone accidentally catching tabasco sauce in his eye from shaking the bottle too hard. I am when it's government goons set out to stifle a very modest protest -- and a socialist one that arrived stillborn and is being continuously resuscitated by police violating the rights of protestors, at that. Yes, those students may very well want a world with a substantially limited Bill of Rights. Guess who's helping the cause?

  • Being Poor Is...||

    Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs.

    Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV.

    Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth a damn.

    Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away.

    Being poor is knowing your kid goes to friends’ houses but never has friends over to yours.

    Being poor is going to the restroom before you get in the school lunch line so your friends will be ahead of you and won’t hear you say “I get free lunch” when you get to the cashier.

    Being poor is living next to the freeway.

    Being poor is coming back to the car with your children in the back seat, clutching that box of Raisin Bran you just bought and trying to think of a way to make the kids understand that the box has to last.

    Being poor is wondering if your well-off sibling is lying when he says he doesn’t mind when you ask for help.

    Being poor is off-brand toys.

    Being poor is a heater in only one room of the house.

    Being poor is knowing you can’t leave $5 on the coffee table when your friends are around.

    Being poor is hoping your kids don’t have a growth spurt.

    Being poor is stealing meat from the store, frying it up before your mom gets home and then telling her she doesn’t have make dinner tonight because you’re not hungry anyway.

    Being poor is Goodwill underwear.

    Being poor is not enough space for everyone who lives with you.

    Being poor is feeling the glued soles tear off your supermarket shoes when you run around the playground.

    Being poor is your kid’s school being the one with the 15-year-old textbooks and no air conditioning.

    Being poor is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal.

    Being poor is relying on people who don’t give a damn about you.

    Being poor is an overnight shift under florescent lights.

    Being poor is finding the letter your mom wrote to your dad, begging him for the child support.

    Being poor is a bathtub you have to empty into the toilet.

    Being poor is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger’s trash.

    Being poor is making lunch for your kid when a cockroach skitters over the bread, and you looking over to see if your kid saw.

    Being poor is believing a GED actually makes a goddamned difference.

    Being poor is people angry at you just for walking around in the mall.

    Being poor is not taking the job because you can’t find someone you trust to watch your kids.

    Being poor is the police busting into the apartment right next to yours.

    Being poor is not talking to that girl because she’ll probably just laugh at your clothes.

    Being poor is hoping you’ll be invited for dinner.

    Being poor is a sidewalk with lots of brown glass on it.

    Being poor is people thinking they know something about you by the way you talk.

    Being poor is needing that 35-cent raise.

    Being poor is your kid’s teacher assuming you don’t have any books in your home.

    Being poor is six dollars short on the utility bill and no way to close the gap.

    Being poor is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor.

    Being poor is knowing you work as hard as anyone, anywhere.

    Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually stupid.

    Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually lazy.

    Being poor is a six-hour wait in an emergency room with a sick child asleep on your lap.

    Being poor is never buying anything someone else hasn’t bought first.

    Being poor is picking the 10 cent ramen instead of the 12 cent ramen because that’s two extra packages for every dollar.

    Being poor is having to live with choices you didn’t know you made when you were 14 years old.

    Being poor is getting tired of people wanting you to be grateful.

    Being poor is knowing you’re being judged.

    Being poor is a box of crayons and a $1 coloring book from a community center Santa.

    Being poor is checking the coin return slot of every soda machine you go by.

    Being poor is deciding that it’s all right to base a relationship on shelter.

    Being poor is knowing you really shouldn’t spend that buck on a Lotto ticket.

    Being poor is hoping the register lady
    will spot you the dime.

    Being poor is feeling helpless when your child makes the same mistakes you did, and won’t listen to you beg them against doing so.

    Being poor is a cough that doesn’t go away.

    Being poor is making sure you don’t spill on the couch, just in case you have to give it back before the lease is up.

    Being poor is a $200 paycheck advance from a company that takes $250 when the paycheck comes in.

    Being poor is four years of night classes for an Associates of Art degree.

    Being poor is a lumpy futon bed.

    Being poor is knowing where the shelter is.

    Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so.

    Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.

    Being poor is seeing how few options you have.

    Being poor is running in place.

    Being poor is people wondering why you didn’t leave.

    OCCUPY THE WORLD

  • ||

    "Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth a damn."

    So I take it you were against "Cash for Clunkers" then?

    Because being poor sucks when you need a cheap car, and the president offers people money to destroy their cheap cars to get them off the road--just so more people will buy new cars and support his bailout of the UAW at GM.

    Being poor sucks when the president uses language to suggest that he's helping the poor--but he's actually selling them down the river to support his cronies and their union.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Wasn't this shit on another thread? What is this, the "Poor-bot"?

  • Occupy VPS||

    NO! This is another phase of the Occupy Movement--the Occupation of Virtual Public Spaces (VPS), as we Occupy real spaces, so too we will occupy VPS and take back our Virtual Space from capitalism and the tyranny of brands and the tyranny of advertising, away from consuming and towards advocacy and acting for the common good.

    See here to join:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....or-OWS-VPS

    OCCUPY THE WORLD!

  • ||

    You are not taking back anything dipshit. No one cares. We crap bigger than you. And have dealt with a hundred times worse trolls. Fuck you.

  • OWS-VPS||

    In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein, best known for her 2000 book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, explores how capitalism came to dominate the world, from Chile to Russia, China to Iraq, South Africa to Canada, with the help of violent shock tactics in times of natural disaster or tragedy. Released in the U.S. September 18 and throughout Europe and Canada the week before that, the book counters the theory that unfettered capitalism and a successful democracy go hand-in-hand. TIME sat down with Klein to discuss her conclusions, the research process and what kind of impact she's hoping her new book will have.

    TIME: How did you come up with such a theory and what turned it into a book?
    Naomi Klein: I went to Iraq a year into the occupation and was researching the intersection between the shock and awe invasion and how it was supposed to have laid the psychological groundwork for [Bush's Iraq envoy]Paul Bremer's extreme country makeover that first summer. And what I was looking at, the tail end of Bremer's stay, was how shock therapy had backfired in Iraq — and by shock therapy I'm referring to the economic policies that were really seen by many Iraqis as a continuation of the war, like the huge layoffs in the public sector, the dismantling of the army, the opening up of the country to unrestricted free trade. It was an extraordinarily unfair way for Iraqis to enter the free market. And it was really seen as a kind of a pillage.

    So I became interested in this idea of what happens to our minds when we go into a state of shock and why was this is such a powerful metaphor for both the military and the economic architects of the war. But I still wasn't sure that this was something that went beyond Iraq. When I first used the phrase "disaster capitalism" it was because I had found out that something very similar was happening in Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami where just days after the tsunami hit the government started pushing a very unpopular privatization agenda of water privatization and electricity privatization, which had actually been rejected by voters in an election eight months before the tsunami.

    In your research did you find that you are the first person to come up with such a theory?
    People spontaneously started using "disaster capitalism" to describe what was happening with what they were seeing around them because it was so clear that this disaster was being harnessed to push through a radical vision of totally unrestricted markets. And Bush didn't make too much of a secret of it when he announced that his idea of reconstructing the Gulf Coast was to turn it into a tax-free, free-enterprise zone.

    What the book is doing that's new is it is connecting these contemporary capitalisms, which I think most of us can easily see in Iraq and in New Orleans, and saying actually this isn't just some twisted invention of the Bush White House. That actually there is a history. Every time there has been a major leap forward for this fundamentalist version of capitalism that really doesn't see a role for the state, the ground has been prepared by some kind of shock.

    In the book you frequently take the idea of "disaster capitalism" back to Milton Friedman. So is this his fault?
    Milton Friedman is held up as really the guru of the modern global market. But my view on Friedman is, I don't think it's his fault in the sense that the role he played was more dictated by history and forces far more powerful than him. I think he was a gifted popularlizer and a gifted communicator, which is one of the reasons why the University of Chicago was so lavishly supported by Wall Street and why his own projects were very much supported by [corporations].

    But the other side of it — and I think this is much more important — is the way in which the University of Chicago was used a tool of U.S. foreign policy. That's why I concentrate so much on Friedman and the University of Chicago because in the 1950s and '60s there was a strategy at the U.S. State Department to try to challenge the rise of economic nationalism in the developing world, particularly in Latin America. A move to the left in Latin America that was threatening the interests of U.S. foreign multinationals in countries like Argentina, and a sort of counteroffensive was launched that involved bringing hundreds of Latin American students to study at the University of Chicago under Friedman and his colleagues. When the peaceful battle of ideas didn't defeat the left in Latin America, then you had a wave of military coups, often supported by the CIA, and many of these U.S.-trained Chicago boys, as they're called in Latin America, rose to prominent levels of governments — heads of the central bank or finance ministers — where the economic shock therapists were working hand-in-hand with the very real shock therapists who are in control in these countries through repressive means, including torture.

    You mention tons of different instances in which "disaster capitalism" is at play, but which example best conveys what you are trying to say to your readers?
    Well I just got back from New Orleans and I was so struck to see these huge housing developments it's just so clear that this thing that's being called reconstruction is nothing of the sort.

    The tragedy, in part, was created by 25 years of neglect of the public sphere, by the culture of neglect, that allowed the levees to crumble, that allowed the transportation system to erode to the point where it couldn't handle an evacuation, that allowed FEMA to be this hollow shell run by contractors, who couldn't seem to find the Superdome for days. So here you have a disaster that was in part a disaster created by this very ideology. And then you have billions of dollars liberated in the name of the victims of this tragedy and suddenly there's a possibility for parents and teachers — for some of the poorest people in America who had been so betrayed by their government — to build the system they've always wanted, to build the housing projects that they've always wanted, and to heal from this shock by being a participant in the reconstruction. Instead of that, the trauma was actively exploited and the fact that people had been spread all over the country and separated from their families and their roots and their communities was taken advantage of, in order to turn New Orleans into this Petri dish for ideas that live in think tanks.

    Almost 60 pages of your book are dedicated to notes and citations. Can you talk about the research involved in this project?
    The book is combination of my own reporting in Iraq, Sri Lanka after the tsunami, New Orleans after the levees broke, Argentina after the economic collapse in 2001. So, reporting in disaster zones combined with a great deal of historical reading about the key junctures where the ideology of unfettered capitalism leapt forward — the southern cone of Latin America in the '70s, Bolivia in the '80s, [Margaret] Thatcher's Britain during the Falklands War, Russia in the mid-'90s under Boris Yeltsin, the Tiananmen Square massacre.

    I actually had seven research assistants at various points. We set up a sort of research institute to do a lot of research in a relatively short period of time. It took four years to do this book but it covers so much ground that it really did require this extraordinary team of people. And then we had four lawyers vetting the material through a really rigorous process of having to produce the original documents for every claim in the book.

    And what type of impact do you hope this book will have?
    There's been a huge amount of investigation and analysis about each of these key junctures and I'm drawing on that analysis. You asked me about my research, and the first draft of history was really written by the journalists in the field and a lot of it contained the talking points that various powerful institutions wanted to get out there at the time — you know, that Boris Yeltsin was standing up for democracy when he called the tanks in on Parliament. But a couple decades later you have a body of literature in each of these geographic locations whether its Latin America, Russia, Poland, China, where a second draft of history is emerging, and I'm citing these texts, many of which are academic texts. So all I'm doing with the book is connecting the dots and one of my goals was to try to connect this body of research that is location specific and put it into a context that is as global as the ideology itself, which is a ridiculously ambitious goal.

    Then the other goal is that, the more I learn about shock the more I understand that shock tactics work best when we are starved of information and are taken by surprise. Shock tactics rely on that element of surprise. They're about a gap between an event and the information we have to explain those events. So the sort of deeper reason why I wrote the book is because I believe that when we understand those tactics we become more shock resistant. That the mere act of sort of unpacking and looking at how we regress in moments of trauma is the best form of resistance against that very regression when the next shock hits. So even though much of the material in the book is despairing, my hope is that the overall effect of it is empowering.

    You're looking for the book to have a global scope. So, who exactly is your audience?
    The book is reaching mainstream audiences where its been released. It's a best seller and it's already the number one book in Canada right now, which is where I released it first because that's where I'm from. I think it's fair for me to say that at least in my own country I'm reaching the same people who are reading Harry Potter apparently. Why should we restrict this into some narrow audience? Who doesn't want to have a better grasp on how we got to where we are? The book tries to do that so I don't see why this should be a sort of wonky exercise for people who like to read big books on politics.

    What type of reaction have you received so far about the book?
    Well its certainly been mixed. The Guardian in England had the serial rights to the book so they ran four extracts in the paper and then they commissioned a bunch of people on different ends of the political spectrum to respond to different sections of the book. And then they've been debating it wildly online. But the conclusion was: "Wow, you either love her or hate her." Not much neutrality. And you know, in theory, I wrote the book to help spark a debate and certainly the debate is happening. I think the debate is really healthy. If I got universal approval for this thesis, it would contradict my thesis. My thesis is that this is a war and it's a war with very real casualties, so if I just got lots of pats on the head from The Financial Times and The Economist, then I suppose my thesis would be wrong. So I can't complain.

    This book seems much more serious of an undertaking than No Logo. How would you say you've changed from that book to this one? The tone of No Logo was a little bit girlish and anecdotal. The gravity of this material made me want to take myself out of it as much as possible. It felt like a distraction and it felt like anything that trivialized the material was inappropriate. So I concentrated on clarity. I really didn't want writing that was show-off or cutesy. I really poured my creative energies as a writer into the structure, and the sort of narrative flow of the argument and backing up the research.

    BUY DISASTER CAPITALISM! EDUCATE YOURSELF! OCCUPY VPS!

  • ||

    Just because it is longer, doesn't make it less stupid or any more convincing. If you want to convince people, make an argument. Posting cut and paste doesn't work. But sadly, I am sure that is all you are capable of.

  • KPres||

    1. If this is disaster capitalism, then the disaster capitalists suck at it, because government spending is at record levels, and the regulatory burden has increased dramatically since the recession.

    Plus, the top 1% has lost ~40% of their pre-recession income level, the top 1% has lost 16%, and the rest of the 99% have only lost ~2-3%.

    2. Actually, this is disaster socialism. Set up a bunch of corrupt incentives within the banking system, watch the capitalist class follow those f'd up incentives to their own demise, then cry "Market Failure" and organize a bunch of dumbfuck college kids into rioting in the streets.

    "We'll sell them the rope they hang themselves with." - Lenin

  • KPres||

    edit: that should read "...the top 0.1% has lost ~40% of their income..."

  • Daniel Evans||

    tl;dr

  • sevo||

    "Naomi Klein, best known for pitiable ignorance"
    FIFY

  • Anacreon||

    Still pissed her boy Gore -- whom she told to wear flannel shirts -- lost in 2000.

  • Mt||

    Sigh another spam.... Scroll, scroll, scroll....

  • ||

    You guys are doing a piss poor job of occupying virtual space. I just went to OWS dot com and it's some doctor. You don't even own that domain. Nor do you own the dot org. Laughable occupation.

  • Maxxx||

    This is another phase of the Occupy Movement--the Occupation of Virtual Public Spaces (VPS), as we Occupy real spaces, so too we will occupy VPS and take back our Virtual Space from capitalism and the tyranny of brands

    Hey dumbfuck.

    This virtual space never was yours to take back. In fact it never existed before these capitalists decided to create it.

    Fuck Off.

    Oh yeah, Kos is a corporation to, dumbshit.

  • ||

    I think it is the same troll under a new handle. Notice they spammed me in particular.

    Being poor apparently means being stupid.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs.

    You think rich people don't know exactly how much things cost? How do you think they got rich? Personal planning and budgeting, probably had a lot to do with it.

    The reason many people are poor is because they don't care how much something costs, just as long as they have enough money in their pocket, or credit on their credit card.

  • Maxxx||

    Not only that,

    The dumbfuck implies that knowing how much everything costs is inherently bad.

    Apparently, consumption without cost or consequence is the ideal.

  • Xenocles||

    Good thing I checked, because now I can +1 rather than unwittingly repeat you.

  • ||

    being poor is.....

    If you look closer, it's easy to trace the tracks of my tears......

  • ||

    Being poor prudent is knowing exactly how much everything costs.

    Being poor normal is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV.

    Being poor too stupid to save is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth a damn.

    Being poor a pussy is hoping the toothache goes away.

    Being poor an unpleasant parent is knowing your kid goes to friends’ houses but never has friends over to yours.

    Being poor paranoid is going to the restroom before you get in the school lunch line so your friends will be ahead of you and won’t hear you say “I get free lunch” when you get to the cashier.

    Being poor too lazy to find a different house is living next to the freeway.

    Being poor a fan of sugary cereal is coming back to the car with your children in the back seat, clutching that box of Raisin Bran you just bought and trying to think of a way to make the kids understand that the box has to last.

    Being poor paranoid is wondering if your well-off sibling is lying when he says he doesn’t mind when you ask for help.

    Being poor normal is off-brand toys.

    Being poor economical is a heater in only one room of the house.

    Being poor a poor judge of carachter is knowing you can’t leave $5 on the coffee table when your friends are around.

    Being poor an idiot is hoping your kids don’t have a growth spurt.

    Being poor a theiving bastard is stealing meat from the store, frying it up before your mom gets home and then telling her she doesn’t have make dinner tonight because you’re not hungry anyway.

    Being poor horribly unsanitary is Goodwill underwear.

    Being poor a poor judge of square footage requirements is not enough space for everyone who lives with you.

    Being poor really, really fast is feeling the glued soles tear off your supermarket shoes when you run around the playground.

    Being poor part of a failed system is your kid’s school being the one with the 15-year-old textbooks and no air conditioning.

    Being poor 14 years old is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal.

    Being poor lazy as fuck is relying on people who don’t give a damn about you.

    Being poor an Indian customer service rep is an overnight shift under florescent lights.

    Being poor the son of a deadbeat fuck is finding the letter your mom wrote to your dad, begging him for the child support.

    Being poor too lazy to plunge is a bathtub you have to empty into the toilet.

    Being poor a recycler is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger’s trash.

    Being poor unsanitary is making lunch for your kid when a cockroach skitters over the bread, and you looking over to see if your kid saw.

    Being poor a retard is believing a GED actually makes a goddamned difference.

    Being poor Brodie Bruce is people angry at you just for walking around in the mall.

    Being poor friendless is not taking the job because you can’t find someone you trust to watch your kids.

    Being poor the intended target of a no-knock raid is the police busting into the apartment right next to yours.

    Being poor a hipster doofus is not talking to that girl because she’ll probably just laugh at your clothes.

    Being poor lonely is hoping you’ll be invited for dinner.

    Being poor too lazy to keep your property clean is a sidewalk with lots of brown glass on it.

    Being poor a foreigner is people thinking they know something about you by the way you talk.

    Being poor normal is needing that 35-cent raise.

    Being poor an ignoramus is your kid’s teacher assuming you don’t have any books in your home.

    Being poor a poor budgeter is six dollars short on the utility bill and no way to close the gap.

    Being poor a hungry Canadian is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor.

    Being poor diligent is knowing you work as hard as anyone, anywhere.

    Being poor one that acts stupid is people surprised to discover you’re not actually stupid.

    Being poor one that acts lazy is people surprised to discover you’re not actually lazy.

    Being poor a normal parent is a six-hour wait in an emergency room with a sick child asleep on your lap.

    Being poor that guy above with second-hand underwear is never buying anything someone else hasn’t bought first.

    Being poor prudent is picking the 10 cent ramen instead of the 12 cent ramen because that’s two extra packages for every dollar.

    Being poor a human fucking being is having to live with choices you didn’t know you made when you were 14 years old.

    Being poor ungrateful is getting tired of people wanting you to be grateful.

    Being poor paranoid is knowing you’re being judged.

    Being poor a recipient of charity is a box of crayons and a $1 coloring book from a community center Santa.

    Being poor Jewish is checking the coin return slot of every soda machine you go by.

    Being poor one with enough money for a relationship is deciding that it’s all right to base a relationship on shelter.

    Being poor slightly smarter than a turnip is knowing you really shouldn’t spend that buck on a Lotto ticket.

    Being poor unable to put something back is hoping the register lady
    will spot you the dime.

    Being poor every parent in the entire world is feeling helpless when your child makes the same mistakes you did, and won’t listen to you beg them against doing so.

    Being poor a smoker is a cough that doesn’t go away.

    Being poor a resident of a furnished apartment is making sure you don’t spill on the couch, just in case you have to give it back before the lease is up.

    Being poor a willing user of a loan shark is a $200 paycheck advance from a company that takes $250 when the paycheck comes in.

    Being poor an idiot is four years of night classes for an Associates of Art degree.

    Being poor too lazy to flip it is a lumpy futon bed.

    Being poor familiar with one's town is knowing where the shelter is.

    Being poor paranoid is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so.

    Being poor a whiner is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.

    Being poor illiterate is seeing how few options you have.

    Being poor David Byrne is running in place.

    Being poor unable to take a hint is people wondering why you didn’t leave.

    OCCUPY THE WORLD

  • PantsFan||

    Being poor a hungry Canadian is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor.

    You bastard.

  • ||

    You gravitated to that like it was a fucking magnet.
    :-P

  • PantsFan||

    It's like a spidey sense

  • ||

    Who thinks this is what the progs want??

  • Hairy Plopper||

    Olsen suffered a fractured skull and had to undergo surgery to relieve swelling in his brain.

    I hate when that happens. That reminds me of the time I smashed my thumb with a hammer. I had to get out the drill, and the smallest cobalt bit I could find, and drill a small hole in my thumbnail. Man, that fucking hurt.

  • CraterMaker||

    Next time, take a sewing needle and heat it up.. It'll bore right through your fingernail like it was made of wax.

  • OWS-VPS||

    WHO ARE THE 1%?

    We KNOW who they are, they are:

    We know who the 1%ers are:

    - They are the oligarchs who control 42% of the wealth in this nation;

    - They collect 24% of the income;

    - They are wealthy enough to buy politicians on both sides of the aisle

    - They are wealthy enough to have bought a whole political party, which only represents their interests now;

    - They have paid for tax laws and public programs to be passed that only benefit them, even if it means the rest of the country suffers;

    - They own their own propaganda wing, composed of cable news, newspapers, magazines [such as KOCH OWNED and KOCH OPERATED 'Reason' Magazine], and think tanks;

    - They benefit by making the 99% blame and fight each other, rather than fighting to spread the wealth they have sequestered from the rest of the nation;

    - They have written credit laws so that the bottom 99% has 73% of the debt, in spite of controlling so little of the assets;

    They are so powerful that they are cannot even be prosecuted or punished for their misdeeds.

    OCCUPY VPS! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

  • ||

    Loser, everyone on here knows what you are posting is bullshit. You are wasting your time.

  • Daniel Evans||

    It's not all bullshit but he is a loser. Trying to Occupy virtual public spaces as a means to get change done in our country is asinine. If you remember #N17, OWS wanted to shutdown Wall Street, and Occupy the Subway. It was falsely reported they wanted to shut down the subway, in actuality they didn't want to shut down the subway because it would annoy the people they are "trying" to fight for. They occupied with pamphlets and knowledge. The wanted to spread their message not make people hate them. Kind of like the opposite you are doing here so shove it up your ass no one cares.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Opps sorry John kinda looks like that was directed at you, but only the first line was.

  • ||

    I figured as much

  • ||

    To spread a message you have to have a message. That is what this clown thinks he is doing. This is their message. This is coherent as it gets.

  • Daniel Evans||

    No he is a representative of the attempted co-opt of OWS, no different than the Neocon and Evangelical right co-opt of the real Tea Party.

  • KPres||

    "The wanted to spread their message not make people hate them."

    Their message is "you can benfit from theft!", and it IS why I hate them.

  • Daniel Evans||

    That is not their message nice try though. Hate them all you want.

  • KPres||

    Yes it is. The day I see an OWS group not dominated by socialists, social democrats, or any other group who wants to raise taxes on somebody else is the day I start listening.

  • KPres||

    You're lucky the 1% are so nice. If you tried to confiscate my shit, you'd find a bullet in the back of your head.

  • ||

    I wonder if this is rather on a manic phase or really a kosite troll. Hard to tell.

  • ||

    Here's the delicious irony: If one of us went to Kos and merely offered a short, polite, and well-reasoned counter to their bullshit, the "moderators" would delete it.

  • Mike E||

    Where is your link now?

  • ||

    You're lucky the 1% are so nice. If you tried to confiscate my shit, you'd find a bullet in the back of your head.

    Pathetic. If you shoot them in the back of the head, it means they've already got your stuff or they are leaving.

    Either way, you got PWNED!!!

  • cynical||

    They are wealthy enough to have bought a whole political party, which only represents their interests now;

    Look, guys, progress! Now they understand that the Democrats are the enemy.

  • OWS-VPS||

    What Wall St. once did to the Global South they are now doing to their own countries! We are being subjected to colonialism! After they sucked people of the developing world dry with austerity and disaster capitalism, they will come for us and they have! The contradictions of global capitalism are now destroying themselves, the One Percent can no longer use the wealth of the Global South to bribe the proletariat and bourgeoisie of the Global North as they live off their wealth, NO! Now they must also bleed us dry as well!

    DOWN WITH AUSTERITY AND DISASTER CAPITALISM! SAY NO TO FREE TRADE! OCCUPY VPS! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

  • sevo||

    "SAY NO TO FREE TRADE!"

    Why do you want poor people to stay poor?

  • PantsFan||

    To be fair, they also want the rich to become poor as well.

  • Occupy Space||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • Daniel Evans||

    That's because it isn't a chat room.

  • Bob||

    What's all this chatting then?

  • OWS-VPS||

    The United States of America is a Police State

    The process took decades, but we have finally arrived at a situation when one can confidently say that as of today, the United States of American is a de facto police state. A real one. It's not hyperbole, or some sort of exaggerated notion used to make a point about "isolated" cases of police brutality.

    Also, this undeniable fact has nothing to do with petty attacks on any one particular political party, or the president, or any one particular politician. It's a systemic issue. The system has turned fascistic, plutocratic, and oppressive.

    How did we get here? A powerful group of ideologues comprised of "thinkers," politicians, wealthy people, and the heads of multinational corporations, with a shared affinity, and motivated mainly by shared interests and values, greed, and power lust, came together with the intent of exerting influence on the government, with the eventual goal of controlling the levers of power.

    These people do not see themselves as evil, or greedy, or tyrannical. To the contrary, they see themselves as noble, with a "father-knows-best" view of the world. Some of the philosophical underpinnings of this movements are based on writings of people like Leo Strauss, which expounds the theory that the masses are too stupid for self-rule, and that they have to be controlled by a superior elite, and that that control sometimes requires grand lies and manipulation of the populace. And people like Ayn Rand, who helps perpetuate the mythology of a superior "race" or "type of person" who creates, who invents, who produces, who is smarter, and who deserves more for the sake of his superiority.

    There are also influences of Social Darwinism, and philosophies and social constructs used mainly to control the populace, including nationalism, superstition (or religion), fear, uniformity, hegemony, consumerism, and a massive propaganda machine (in the entire U.S. media landscape).

    Because of a confluence of interests, a certain segment of the moneyed elite, their intellectuals/philosophers/thinkers, and politicians (who were corrupted almost universally through campaign finance, favors, and job offers), became what is today the American Plutocratic Kleptocracy.

    They went about taking control of all the levers of power. They tore down all the regulations protecting against dangerous accumulation of wealth and power. After having completed this process, they went about enacting laws specifically-designed to transfer power and wealth to them, at the expense of the population. They bought off the entire media landscape across the entire nation, turning it into the most sophisticated propaganda machine the world has ever seen--one that is eerily effective.

    This situation resulted in a rapid deterioration in the economic security of the middle class, rapid and growing poverty, diminished access to education (which tyrants always like because it keeps the population dumbed-down, and easily-manipulated).

    As the criminal plutocratic kleptocracy was taking shape during the last few decades, eventually it also needed the protection of a police state. Keep in mind that a police state is usually deployed against the intellectuals, activists, labor leaders, and students who usually are the first ones to quickly identify the rise of fascism. It is always the case, that when fascism is coming to life, the vast majority of the population remains oblivious to its presence, mainly because of the effects of propaganda.

    In the United States, the propaganda apparatus not only includes the entire mainstream media, but also very powerful right-wing think tanks (American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, CATO, and others), corporatist public relations firms, and organizations like ALEC.

    The police state came into being (the country turned) right after 9/11, when a huge number of draconian laws that eviscerated many Constitutional protections, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, protection against illegal search and seizure, indefinite detention, torture, surveillance, extra-judicial assassinations, ability to designate U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.

    In every fascist police state, one of the most important components that helps protect it is the financial interests of the ruling class, and again, this is typically based on greed and lust of power (although the ruling elites never see themselves in that light).

    And so in an incestuous relationship (as it were), the greedy wealthy pays off the sycophantic greedy, money-grabbing politician (bribery) of both parties (which is basically, one party), and they become co-dependent. And the politician, being in charge of the government structure, then controls the security apparatus (intelligence services, police, military).

    This arrangement then becomes a de facto, real, tangible, and brutal fascistic police state.

    Once this status is reached, then the plutocratic kleptocracy becomes ever more oppressive, pushing down on the populace.

    The current economic calamity in the U.S., which has plunged tens of millions of people into economic insecurity, poverty, and despair, was the direct result of thievery and looting of the entire financial system and country's treasury by the plutocratic kleptocracy.

    Thus far, they have been able to get away with the crime because through the control of government, the wealthy elite has been able to codify into law their ability to pillage the wealth of the country. The saying "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" came about for reason...

    As it's always the case in history, for every action, there is a reaction... So as the thievery and oppression and subjugation and enslavement of the population increases, people have risen to oppose it. As this happens, the fascistic infrastructure (both legal and physical) that was put in place after 9/11 will be deployed against the population with increasingly brutal force.

    And because Americans, being Americans, with a long history of standing up against oppression, with a long history of revolutionary fervor, with a long history of not choosing to live bowed down, on their knees, as serfs of a god-dammed few greedy sociopathic tyrants, are going to resist the oppression, eventually it will become crystal clear that that the security apparatus, including the police, will ultimately protect the interests of the Plutocrats. Hence, a Police State.

    If Americans had remained silent, just taking abuse for too much longer, this nascent criminal police state would have had chance to consolidate power, and then it would have been much more difficult to defeat.

    But Americans have awakened form their slumber... They know that the U.S. media (ABC, CBS, CNN, FixNews, et al) is bullshit, and a propaganda machine. They have awakened, taken to the streets, created their own media (that reports the truth), and are telling the plutocratic sociopaths in no uncertain terms that the abuse and oppression and tyranny will end, one fucking way or another.

  • Get Help||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're right... we ARE in a police state, and Team Blue is nominally in charge of it.

    Feel better now, Occutard?

  • ||

    You know that I LIKE about these kinds of cyber-tantrums? When sympathizers go on about "this isn't what OWS is about", all I have to do is come back here for a little cut'n pasta.

  • cynical||

    "but we have finally arrived at a situation when one can confidently say that as of today, the United States of American is a de facto police state"

    Yes, because the same asshole cops that do this shit all the time started doing it to people like you, we finally crossed that line. All the stars were almost aligned; all that was missing was for cops to start brutalizing Over-privileged White Socialists the way they do blacks and hispanics.

  • ||

    Holy fuck! I finally went back and read that diatribe. (I originally thought is was John trying to post a two sentence quote and failing miserably again.)

    That's weapons grade crazy. Someone ought to send in the IAEA to see if his tent is safe.

  • sevo||

    Missed this until this evening:
    "And people like Ayn Rand, who helps perpetuate the mythology of a superior "race" or "type of person"..."

    Notice that ignoramus here is trying to play a race card where even the ignoramus' post says otherwise.
    How RACIST!

  • KPres||

    The police aren't attacking me. Of course, unlike you, I have no intention of annexing said police power to use in confiscating somebody else's shit.

  • OWS-VPS||

    WHAT DO YOU THINK of the FACT that top 1% controls FORTY-TWO PERCENT of the wealth in this country, while the bottom 99% are burdened with SEVENTY TWO PERCENT of the DEBT?

  • ||

    You mean people who can afford to pay for things don't have a lot of debt? Incredible!

  • KPres||

    1. It's their wealth. They created it.

    2. They should've learned how to live below their means and save money. Problem is all the left-wing economists told them that was bad for society.

    Anyway, debt isn't bad. Only consumer debt is bad. Taking out a loan for land, for example = net profit.

  • sevo||

    "...the bottom 99% are burdened with SEVENTY TWO PERCENT of the DEBT?"

    They probably shouldn't borrow a much as they do.
    Did I get it right?

  • Anacreon||

    From your numbers, it still sounds like the unfortunate 1% is saddled with 28% of the debt. They are thus over-represented in wealth and debt.

  • OWS-VPS||

    And what do you make of the *FACT* that the US has LESS SOCIAL MOBILITY than ANY OTHER WESTERN NATION with the exception of the UK?

  • KPres||

    1. Um, that's a statistical misrepresentation. When the difference between the highest quintile and the lowest quintile is smaller, it's easier to traverse the quintiles, even though doing so represents a smaller increase or decrease in income.

    Measured in terms of real dollars, the US has higher income mobility than those countries.

    2. Income mobility is not a good-in-itself. If it's achieved through violent state redistribution...it's nothing but theft. Fairness means what you get out is a function of what you put in.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Measured in terms of real dollars, the US has higher income mobility than those countries.

    Pulled that out of your ass?

    I guess in your second point means you wouldn't care if we lived in a world where three families controlled 99.9% of the wealth and the rest lived in dire poverty, because taxing any of the three families would be OMG THEFT, right? And therefore the greater evil? Curious morality you have.

  • ||

    No. It is called statistics. Use google and look for yourself.

  • KPres||

    "Pulled that out of your ass?"

    No, I don't get my statistics manipulated by some dipshit HuffPo blogger.

    "I guess in your second point means you wouldn't care if...."

    Do you understand what the word "wealth" means? Here's a hint...it doesn't mean "income". What that means is that it does not follow that if 3 families controlled 99% of the wealth, that the rest would live in poverty. If that situation arose, it would be because those 3 families had created such fantastic improvements in people's lives that almost nobody would be living in poverty.

    The above assumes a CAPITALIST economy. Under socialism, those 3 families might have just confiscated all that wealth through the threat of military force. In which case, yes, the rest might live in poverty.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Then use a cite that that says "in dollar terms mobility is greater". Prove it.

  • KPres||

    It's in the exact same study you no doubt got your info from. See I actually read it.

    So you do the work. Provide the link and and I'll show you where it is.

  • Anacreon||

    This cite should explain all you need to know about mobility between the quintiles:

    http://jewishworldreview.com/c.....10811.php3

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Morality has nothing to do with it, asshole.

  • Daniel Evans||

    OK so the police don't attack you so that's evidence we don't live in a police state?

    We do live in a police / surveillance state. You might live in a happy middle class / upper class neighborhood but even as a tattoo-less middle aged white male I never got fucked with as long as I lived in nice neighborhoods, but after the housing crash we lost our investments, closed our business, and lost our house. No job we had to move to an apartment in a pretty area, but with no job it was the only place I found that would take my money and give us a 3 month lease while I figured out what the fuck to do. I experienced the police state first hand before I was there for 40 days. The police state is here, just because you aren't affect doesn't mean its not there.

  • sevo||

    Daniel Evans|11.20.11 @ 12:41PM|#
    "OK so the police don't attack you so that's evidence we don't live in a police state?"

    Um, you need to read some history. Yes, the cops are getting away with stuff (sometimes murder), but the 20th century had *real* "police states" and we don't.

  • iguanodon||

    "yet"

  • Mr Whipple||

    Well, since we have a wall o' text party going on here, I think I'll post something that is actually worth reading.

    From Claire Wolfe:

    Occupy Your Ownself

    Everybody, but everybody, wants to get in on the Occupy Wall Street act. Since the leaderless, focusless band of creative protestors began getting media coverage, all manner of commentators have commentated. Multitudes claim to know what OWS really is or really ought to be. Political people who may have something or nothing in common with the vague aims of OWS or the vague band of jugglers, gypsies, drummers, retro-hippies, sincere-if-ignorant fogheads, and genuinely angry activists are cautiously trying to bend OWS to their own purposes.

    The third-biggest bonehead ever to win a Nobel Prize, Paul Krugman, demonstrates what an old fogey and conventional thinker he is by urging OWS to coalesce around (his) establishment goals. Oh yeah. Infrastructure investment! That’s worth taking to the streets for.

    Democrat party leaders cautiously circle OWS, wondering if they can co-opt it as their R-comrades so quickly and successfully co-opted the Tea Party. When Obama so much as makes a wussy comment in favor of OWS, TV mavens say he wants an Arab spring (never mind that the Arab spring was all about toppling … oops, people like Obama). And R leaders screech that The Big O is supporting mob rule.

    The OWS is a bunch of teenage tyrants!. No! The OWS is full of freedom-fighters! Yes, they’re freedom-fighters, but they’re misguided. Let me show the way!

    Some of the commenting is enlightening. A lot just takes up space. We comment because we comment in this 24/7 (god, I hate that term) newsworld.

    The Christian Science Monitor speculates that newcomers are hijacking the movement. There’s truth in that, as even some of our own hope to influence the OWS in a more informed, freedomista direction. (Good luck, guys!)

    Even the Tea Party itself, in its R-approved corporatized form, gets in on the act, sniffing that those people — you know, those grubby sorta-kinda-anarchists in the streets — are nothing like us.

    The Monitor retorts: Oh yes, they are.

    Meanwhile, Wall Streeters (or at least their Chicago analogs) shout FU! (Um, guys, you might want to watch your step there. That’s the sort of response that historically gets rich-folk guillotined.)

    You know things have gone from the sublime to the truly ridiculous when even I get a demand (thoroughly tongue-in-cheek, I devoutly hope) to quit blogging about sick dogs and take up the leadership flag now that OWS shows that the “it” moment is here.

    Um … yeah.

    Enough, already. Enough, enough, enough!

    I’m not against Occupy Wall Street. Nor am I for it. It’s interesting theater. It’s good comment-fodder. It’s certainly a sign that otherwise unemployed people are fed up and furious. It’s an encouraging sign that many are beginning to grasp that politics as usual is a game ordinary folk can’t win. It’s a discouraging sign (per interviews with some of the participants) that even fed-up folk still imagine that government can or will save them from banksters. OMG, will some people never get it?

    Yes, OWS makes a good show. And depending on how things go, it might even result in some action from government. Though anyone who expects that action to be good is smoking something better than I’ve ever had.

    There’s a persistent myth — myth so potent it’s become accepted history — that the street protests of the 1960s ended the Vietnam war. See? people say, If we just take to the streets in big enough numbers, they’ll have to listen to us!

    Actual history shows otherwise. The first demonstrations against the Vietnam war began in late 1963 or early 1964. By 1966 peaceful protests and marches were drawing hundreds of thousands of ardent, earnest participants (I was cutting high school classes to be one of them). The protests reached their height — and turned wilder — between 1968 and 1971.

    And when did the fedgov finally wend its leisurely way out of Vietnam? Sometime between 1973 and 1975, depending on whether you count from the gradual withdrawal of troops or the undignified skedaddle of U.S. ambassador Graham Martin just ahead of the victorious North Vietnamese forces.

    That’s 10 years. Or more. Can anybody really believe that street protests “ended the Vietnam war”? Not really. And OWS isn’t going to “reform” Wall Street, either. Or accomplish anything else its naive participants hope.

    It may and probably will result in police crackdowns, new laws against protest, new surveillance programs, and other forms of suppression. It may result in a host of new laws that pretend to be for “the people” while just doing the usual thing that laws do — put more money and power in the pockets of those who already have enough money and power to buy the laws they like. It may, if it continues to grow, become a memorable cultural phenomenon that someday people will look back on with awe, nostalgia, fondness, or rage.

    But change anything for the better? Well, good luck with that.

    Would it be fun to join the party (provided some thug doesn’t walk up and pepper-spray you in the face without provocation)? Sure. Would it feel good to shout out, “Hey! I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more — and I’ve got friends!”? Sure. It it exciting and meaningful to see Americans get so angry they roar in protest? Absolutely.

    But you want real change? Real freedom from those who would impoverish and abuse you for their own benefit? Well, if you’ve been reading my stuff for very long or thinking for yourself since you escaped the government propaganda camps, you know exactly where to find it. If you don’t, then here’s the Big Clue:

    YOU are the one thing that government and their Siamese twins in the financial world can’t manipulate, can’t “reform,” can’t control. Your independent mind and your intelligent desire to live separately from their concepts are the most powerful freaking weapons in the whole wide world.

    Can government and their incestuous siblings in power really, truly eff up your world? Oh my. It’s the one thing they’re absolutely great at. We always have to work around the damnable things they do, and it gets harder by the day.

    But that won’t change if we do them the honor of throwing ourselves at them in protest. That just tells them we believe in their authority.

    You want a real freedom revolution? Then go inside your own head and demand that you free you. Heavens, the influence you can have there! The change you can spark! It’s awesome.

    You can just go in there and tell your ownself what it needs to do to be more free — and it happens. No v*ting, no protesting, no petitioning, no lawmaking required.

    Do the details get complicated? Of course. That’s the nature of the real world. Will outside influences always try to keep you from thinking and living free? Yes. Does individual freedom (as opposed to the eternally elusive ideal of political freedom) require hard, sometimes frustrating, work? Do bears sh*t in the woods politicians sh*t on reality?

    Yes, what’s ahead of us is difficult. But it’s difficult no matter what we do — whether we hang our heads and comply, whether we v*te, whether we protest in the streets — or whether we build a homestead, build our skills, build a Good Bad Attitude and establish a freedom bulkhead in an unfree world.

    The question is, are you going to give your mind and your life to outsiders, hoping those outsiders — who fundamentally don’t give a damn whether you live or die — will eventually change in your favor? Or are you going to give your mind and your life to you, your ownself — to do with as you think best?


    And for anyone interested, a rare interview with Claire Wolfe:

    http://www.wspd.com/player/?pr.....ra=podcast

  • Thom||

    In short, we're fucked. Government reacts like third world thugs to the slightest threat to their authority and internet reaction is name calling. Instead of bitching about the dirty hippies trespassing on public property, or whatever, put your balls on the ping pong table and get out there yourselves.

  • ||

    Get out and do what? tear shit up and make public spaces unlivable? The cops being thugs doesn't make the OWS people any more coherent or any more attractive.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'll keep my balls, thank you. Get your own.

  • Thom||

    @Eduard van Haalen - you clearly don't have any. The easiest way to get people to be complicit as you strip them of their rights is to get them on separate teams. Grow a fucking pair, swallow your pride, and deal with the threat at hand.

  • Thom||

    Shit is getting torn up because of the cops. If public spaces can't be used for Constitutionally protected protest, or they can only be used for protest in a way sanctioned by the government being protested, then they're not really public places.

  • Amakudari||

    they're not really public places.

    Correct, they're really government property. They're owned and/or regulated for only government-allowed public benefits.

  • ||

    Violent anarchists terrorize cops who are just following orders!

    At a news conference Saturday, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said the decision to use pepper spray was made at the scene.

    "The students had encircled the officers," she said. "They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out."

    Those cops were clearly in mortal peril.

    OFFICER SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT.

  • ||

    I totally agree with you Brooks. But seriously, what kind of a sheltered dumb fuck do you have to be not to know that was going to happen? Did they think big city cops are nice guys?

  • John, 1960||

    Those dumb yankee Jews that went down south trying to register the Negroes had it comin' to 'em when they got shot--what, were they expecting flowers? They should've minded their own damn business.

  • ||

    Yeah because a bunch of idiot college student are just as oppressed as blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    I guess part of being this stupid is no understanding how stupid you are.

    Get a real cause besides shitting on everything and you will generate some sympathy.

  • John, 1960||

    "Those dumb yankee Jews that went down south"

    Er, didn't compare them to the blacks in the South but the college kids who went down there to register them.

    Try reading next time, unless you're too busy blaming the victims of police brutality.

  • ||

    And who do the college kids at OWS speak for besides themselves? They don't speak for any poor people I can see.

    Again, get a cause besides whining for other people's money and you might generate some sympathy.

  • John, 1960||

    Yeah, get a cause, like mine which is cheering and defending hippie whomping!

  • Maxxx||

    How 'bout they protest for all of the people that are terrorized in their own homes by the drug warriors?

    Oh they can't do that, cause it won't lead to free stuff.

  • ||

    oligarchs who control 42% of the wealth in this nation

    How is this in any real sense meaningful?

  • ||

    how is any of it meaningful? It is all just regurgitated Marxesque crap. These guys have never thought about anything in their lives beyond what to regurgitate to please their lefty profs.

  • ||

    IDEAS ARE OPPRESSION

    ONLY FEELINGS MATTER

  • ||

    Your other screen name isn't Dunphy, is it?

  • Otter||

    [Ignoring the walls of idiotic troll-text...]

    Good work, Lucy.

    The last video is appalling. What kind of sick f*** thinks it's OK to risk taking out a protestor's eye to prevent filming?

  • ||

    A agree that it's appalling. I almost punched my monitor watching it. But hyperbole never helps anything. You can watch the "track" of the beanbag. It was clearly aimed at the legs.

  • Otter||

    I hear you, KFP. Nonetheless, with bad aim or bad luck, the cop could have hurt someone, perhaps seriously. In my view, even if the probability of serious harm is low, a cop who takes risks with others' safety for his own gratification is sick.

  • ||

    It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye......

  • Mt||

    Yeah but it doesn't seem justified. What possible need was there to use force on him, let alone to shoot him with a bean bag? Is that all it takes to get legally assaulted? If so then I guess everyone should run when they see a cop, every time. Run!

  • RINOceros||

    Here's a thought- no matter how much reform (and certainly in the case of cities like Madison, Wis.- disbandment) of police forces we should continue to strive for, if we aren't also more successful in strengthening castle-doctrine, self-defense, gun rights, and conceal/open-carry laws; the rest of us outside the "Reason-sphere" will still call 911 on your ass ("efficacy" or no, "minutes away when seconds count" or no). Not everyone lives in a Castle Grayskull with their own fallout shelter and will still rely on a measure of state power to preserve life and limb.

    One more thing- even if this particular (somewhat-edited) video turns out to "kinda sorta" accurately reflect the events, it might be taken a bit more seriously if y'all would turn off your default excuse-making of O.W.S. (with all its rape, assault, vandalism, and now with even more rape) and the "Battle in Seattle"...

  • ||

    The OWS people are a frothing mob of illiterate morons. You will get no argument from this board. But that doesn't justify unnecessary force. You have to defend anyone against that.

  • RINOceros||

    "The OWS people are a frothing mob of illiterate morons."

    I'm not too sure their literacy rates, IQ/GRE test scores, or salivary gland discharge are really the issues here, John.

    "But that doesn't justify unnecessary force. You have to defend anyone against that."

    Indeed, but since Reason was against the clearing of the PRIVATELY OWNED Zuccotti Park by Bloomberg's "private army", the posted video will most likely change nothing. Seriously, there is a TON of reform needed in law enforcement, but these bullshit fishing expeditions are counter-prodective (much like the Colorado professor who brought a vibrator to his course on the evils of the drug war).

  • At leqast you owned up...||

    "but since Reason was against the clearing of the PRIVATELY OWNED Zuccotti Park by Bloomberg's "private army""

    Lie.

  • Mt||

    Indeed. The use of force on someone for being stupid isn't even necessary. The OWS tards are doing a great job of undermining thir "arguments" the more they talk. Please don't shut them down, it's just making them into martyrs. Give them bullhorns please! The more they talk they less people are listening to their insane Marxist ramblings.

  • RINOceros||

    Please don't shut them down, it's just making them into martyrs. Give them bullhorns please! The more they talk they less people are listening to their insane Marxist ramblings.

    Well that WAS a bit tempting, but with the midnight drumming, the public defecation, the rapes, the assaults on passersby and Americans for Prosperity attendees in D.C., their time is up. Perhaps in the future we can just arm the neighborhood residents, landlords, food vendors and baristas to shoot back but in the meantime I'll settle for Big Boss Man given the circumstances.

  • crunchy con||

    has anybody wondered why these "occupiers" who are upset about government cuts and lack of work don't think about how much our suicidal immigration situation is to blame? immigration has costs our governments and taxpayers billions of dollars, if we had these dollars cuts in things like student loans would not hit them so hard. additionally how many jobs are lost to immigrants that could be available for these young persons?

  • ||

    Occupy Mexico!

  • RINOceros||

    Occupy Mexico!

    I may just occupy my neighborhood taqueria for a bit, but I'll also do my wizzing in their restroom and, uh, pay for my damn food.

  • ||

    These clowns with the MFAs in puppetry and hate studies would never work the jobs immigrants do. They just want free shit.

  • crunchy con||

    thanks to our liberal social engineers immigrants do far more than 'menial' jobs. they cost us billions of dollars and take jobs both white and blue collar. those young people concerned about government debt and lack of jobs should look to our social engineers who are trying to reengineer this nation into something like to our south.

  • ||

    I thought it was Team Blue who liked to play class warfare. Why does Team Red have a hardon for immigrants?

  • crunchy con||

    loving your country and resisting liberals attempts to artificially socially reengineer it into a vastly different place is class warfare now?

  • OWS-VPS||

    Indeed--the top 1% want to do in North America and Europe what they've already done in Latin America and Africa--colonize the bottom 99%, suck them dry, and live off their wealth while they live in gated communities and send their kids to private schools while the rest of us suffer from unemployment, debt, and rising prices.

  • crunchy con||

    it is not the 'top 1%' who are socially reengineering this nation. it is their pushing of policy while ignoring basic laws that has subverted our territorial integrity, altered our cultural landscape and radically changed our demographic make-up in just a few decades. this is not all. through democracy-subverting paths such as court decisions and media propaganda they have made homsexuality and other forms of sexual deviance go from stigmatized to celebrated; they have undermined families via lax divorce laws; encouraged a hyper-sexualized culture among our young via pushing of birth control and judicial overturning of obscenity and abortion laws; inculcated an anti-American view of history in our young via educational policy; and more.

    dinesh d'souza's works have described how liberals hated pre-1960 America and have set out to use the largely undemocratic levers of government policy and media propaganda to radically change it. everyone should read them.

  • crunchy con||

    my apologies, but i left out "it is our governmental masters" as the second sentence above.

  • ||

    In other words, you know what all the right decisions are, and, exactly like Team Blue, you'd like to be able to dictate them to the rest of us.

  • crunchy con||

    i want our nation to protect its national integrity, yes, but for the most part i'm talking about curbing government action, not promoting it. its government providing of services to illegals i oppose; its government recognition of gay marriage, military service and adoption i oppose; government barring of people following the once predominate inclination to not hire or serve homosexuals I oppose; government providing of birth control to young persons and the federal government's judiciary gutting state restrictions on abortion and obscenity I oppose; government miseducation I oppose.

    conservatives and libertarians should stand together in opposing liberal social reengineering. there is a reason why the most prominent libertarian is a republican representing a conservative texas congressional district.

  • Daniel Evans||

    Conservatives are just as worthless as liberals. Thank god that most prominent libertarian is a wolf in sheep clothing because I can not stand to have another Authoritarian conservative running the place.

  • ||

    Here's the libertarian perspective on your gripes. See if you agree with any of them.

    We oppose government providing services to anyone (legal or illegal).
    We oppose government recognition of any marriage, gay or straight.
    We don't give a damn if gays want to enlist in the military, but the military has no reason to exclude them on that basis alone.
    Government shouldn't be putting kids up for adoption, and certainly has no business deciding if a gay couple make good parents.
    Libertarians don't want any government restrictions on who a business can hire or serve.
    Libertarians don't want government providing birth control.
    Obscenity is a first amendment issue and government should not be restricting it.
    Abortion is none of the government's business either.
    Government shouldn't be giving anyone an education.

    I'm all for less government, but I don't believe that's what you really want.

  • crunchy con||

    its not about government 'recognizing' marriage any more than they 'recognize' the sun coming up. heterosexual marriage predates government, it is like property in that it is a natural right. we're not talking 'big government' to have government recognize it and treat it accordingly.

    because of past engineering by the government we might need some governmental coercion that we otherwise would not. for example, government intervention has made gay lifestyles 'acceptable' and therefore we should bar the disaster that would be gay marriage and adoption; previous to that intervention no adoption agency or minister would have even thought to do such things.

    on the other issues, abortion is simply murder, trite though you may find that line, and so even a minimal state must morally prohibit it. obscenity is simply community recognition of the standards they want to live around. the first amendment was never supposed to be applied to the states and their laws on that subject, and obscenity has never been even recognized as protected speech.

  • ||

    But you don't want government to "recognize [marriage] and treat it accordingly." You want some people to be able to get married, and others would be shit out of luck. Marriage is a contract between two people, and if those two people want to get their church involved, good for them. What you want is for the icky gays to not even have the option. So, yes, we are talking "big government" here.

  • ||

    You want some people to be able to get married, and others would be shit out of luck. Marriage is a contract between two people, and if those two people want to get their church involved, good for them. What you want is for the icky gays to not even have the option.

    Reading comprehension fail.
    libertarians do not want government to recognize marriage at all. We do want government to recognize contractual arrangements among consenting parties IRT shared property, custody arrangements, survivorship rights, etc. regardless of whether the contract is between a man and a woman, two men, two women, (and for polygamyous and polyandrous arrangements from some of us). We want people to recognize their "marriage" outside the scope and focus of government, whether it be through their church, synagogue, temple, coven, spaceship, atheists group, gay group, or what-the-fuck-ever they want.

    Way to either be retarded or intentionally disingenuous. Although, I'm pretty certain it's a combo platter.

  • ||

    Damn, sloopy, talk about reading comprehension fail. Where did I say libertarians want the gov to recognize marriage? I've been arguing the exact opposite with crunchy con.

  • ||

    I responded to your post, but was responding to his asinine sentiment. Sorry if I cama asross as a dick to you. I meant to be a dick to the homophobic faggot upthread, even if he is correct on the abortion issue.

  • ||

    Abortion is none of the government's business either.

    Unborn person: Damn. Sucks to be me. Can't wait till I pass through that tunnel and get human rights.

  • Another Phil||

    Yeah, sucks to be you, but those are the breaks when you live inside another person.

  • jtuf||

    Crunchy, did you know that around 100 years ago, we allowed unlimited immigration from the free republics of Latin America but put quotas on the number of Italians who could come in?

  • crunchy con||

    immigration had awful results back then too. corrupt governments, ethnic brawling, gangs, all the things we see, not coincidentally, in this time of insane, self-destructive immigration policy. why do you think they restricted it, because they loved it and the results so much?

  • sevo||

    OWS-VPS|11.20.11 @ 1:22PM|#
    [...lefty propaganda...]

    Saved you some entry time.

  • RINOceros||

    immigrants do far more than 'menial' jobs. they cost us billions of dollars and take jobs both white and blue collar.

    A bit ironic for social cons to hold signs at OWS rallies saying "Get a Job!!" yet turn around to the new Mexican immigrants/migrants and say: "DON'T get a job!"

    Almost like being pro-life yet telling a "welfare queen" to stop having children...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    How many pro-lifers use the term "welfare queen?"

    What prolifers *do* tell welfare recipients is that if they can't raise their child they can put it up for adoption, without using killing as a solution.

    I suspect that prochoice libertarians would be far more passionate than pro-lifers about welfare recipients not having children.

  • RINOceros||

    What prolifers *do* tell welfare recipients is that if they can't raise their child they can put it up for adoption, without using killing as a solution.

    Eddy, to clarify- I was referring to social cons in general and not groups like Prolife Across America or Catholic Charities. But even if I'm exaggerating the sentiment I encounter among social cons (and I am otherwise glad they're around), the thrust of my argument is that it would be as ridiculous as telling an "illegal" NOT to work (and then bitch when they subsequently have to rely on charity or welfare).

    I suspect that prochoice libertarians would be far more passionate than pro-lifers about welfare recipients not having children.

    I can see why, but it's none of their damn business if they do.

  • jtuf||

    John, on the contrary, a stateless migrant who was born in Africa is perfectly capable of pointing a camera at a flower and shooting a picture of it. An man born in Iraq is capable of running CAD software. A man born in Egypt is capable of fixing computers. Egypt has thousands of college graduate who can't find work there, because the Egyptian economy is collapsing.

    Liberals stick to the "immigrants do jobs Americans don't want to do" line, because they don't want to introduce the idea of letting immigrants become photographers, ect. I say, let people with all types of employment skills immigrate if they want. I would love to see a flood of K-12 teachers bring the salary for the education industry down to reasonable levels.

  • ||

    our suicidal immigration situation is to blame

    Oh, for fuck's sake.

  • crunchy con||

    a nation is by definition a demarcated political-social unit. one that casually disregards its territorial and demographic make-up is by definition intent on self-destruction.

  • crunchy con||

    "A nation without borders is no nation at all." Dr.Ron Paul

  • Apatheist||

    Yes, this thread has abundant examples of the economic illiteracy and government cocksucking of both TEAM RED/BLUE.

  • OWS-VPS||

    As part of OWS-VPS, try the new online game SPENT where you can see how hard it really is to make ends meet as a working class worker in America:

    http://playspent.org/

  • Austin Powers||

    I'm SPENT!

  • sevo||

    What a piece of crap!
    'Imagine you're poor and can't get any richer. See, that's proof the poor can't get any richer!'

  • ||

    This is another phase of the Occupy Movement--the Occupation of Virtual Public Spaces (VPS), as we Occupy real spaces, so too we will occupy VPS and take back our Virtual Space from capitalism and the tyranny of brands and the tyranny of advertising, away from consuming and towards advocacy and acting for the common good.

    Seriously?

    You're a regular Joan of Arc, aren't you?

  • ||

    they cost us billions of dollars

    You don't actually know what a "job" is, do you?

  • crunchy con||

  • OWS-VPS||

    Try playing spent and see what it's like to live at the bottom of the income ladder:

    http://www.playspent.org

    see? It's impossible to get ahead in America anymore for the 99%.

  • PantsFan||

    stupid taxes.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Stupid Occutard, Pants. And yet, it keeps posting its socialist utopian bullshit.

  • PantsFan||

    why can't I stay with friends or family until I save up money?

  • PantsFan||

    why am I forced to only 1 job?

  • OWS-VPS||

    Because the economy is bad you're lucky to have the job you do.

  • PantsFan||

    I dunno, there are plenty of stores around here looking for extra holiday staff.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Plus you have a kid.

  • PantsFan||

    Again, why is there no family support?

  • OWS-VPS||

    Check your privilege, PantsFan. Not everyone has a supportive family.

  • PantsFan||

    No friends, either?
    I'm a real asshole, huh.

    This game blames all misfortune on others.
    What a bunch of brats poor people are.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Your friends are just as poor as you are.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Besides, I thought in America anyone, ANYONE can be a super-individualist and pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Who needs other people in AMERICA because we're EXCEPTION and have the AMERICAN DREAM that ANYONE can get all by themselves right?

  • PantsFan||

    You're a walking fire hazard carrying around all those strawmen.

  • sevo||

    "Besides, I thought in America anyone, ANYONE can be a super-individualist and pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"

    First, quit lying; what you consider thought has nothing to do with the actual item.
    Secondly, all you've said so far is 'imagine all this stuff is true; see how bad it is?'
    Well, yeah, if someone is actually stupid/unlucky enough that *every one* of those conditions were met, they'd be in real trouble. They'd have to go to a soup kitchen to eat.
    *IF* every one of them was correct....

  • OWS-VPS||

    EVERYONE OF THOSE IS correct for the 46 MILLION Americans in poverty.

    Here's another game for you. Try living off of food stamps and see how much "fun" it is:

    http://frac.org/federal-foodnu.....hallenges/

  • sevo||

    "EVERYONE OF THOSE IS correct for the 46 MILLION Americans in poverty."

    Typing in all-caps does not change a lie into anything else.

  • Xenocles||

    Maybe he wasted a ton of money on a comprehensive survey.

  • sevo||

    Dunno, but his link proves that if you want to live totally on food stamps, why you have to 'make difficult purchasing decisions'!
    The horror of it!

  • Mt||

    Why can't I hunt for food?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, Occutard:

    Why bother trying to pull yourself up at all? Just lie around and sponge off the productive fools!

    /snark.

  • ||

    Sloopy say: Man who hunts for food gambols on his future.

  • Mt||

    Why can't I start a business?

  • Mt||

    Why can't I enlist in the military?

  • PantsFan||

    Also, why isn't "Craft Butterflies from discarded newspapers and sell them at the Farmer's Market" an option?

  • sevo||

    "see? It's impossible to get ahead in America anymore for the 99%."

    Yep, that piece of crap says so!

  • OWS-VPS||

    Ever read "Nickled and Dimed"?

  • sevo||

    No, I haven't.
    If it is of the same pathetic value as the rest of your links, I'm not about to waste time.

  • sevo||

    Looked it up; NOW I remember it:
    "She is surprised that there is never a dramatic response to the confession, but the workers are caught up in their own low-wage situations and show little interest in her reasons for leaving."
    Strangely, she simply cannot live on the amount she's making, but everyone else seems to. Wonder where she's lying.
    http://www.wikisummaries.org/Nickel_and_Dimed:_On_(Not)_Getting_By_in_America
    ----
    "With only $25 in his pocket, Adam Shepard spent 10 months in South Carolina, eventually landing a job, buying a pickup truck, and renting his own apartment."
    And then someone else tries it and gets very different results.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
    So much for lefty propaganda.

  • jtuf||

    Wait!? You mean we're not providing federally funded housing, food, medicine, k-12 education, and counselling to the poor? Hmmm. I guess it's time to fire all the workers at HUD, the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, the state run pysch wards, and government schools for doing such a pitiful job. If you love the poor, you will replace those workers with someone who will actually help them.

  • At leqast you owned up...||

    "the state run pysch wards"

    You'd find little to hang your hat on in this sector these days, your point is true, but not there.

    Most state run psych facilities are gone, the ones that are left are often semi-private.

    You really are wrong on that one.

  • sevo||

    "Most state run psych facilities are gone, the ones that are left are often semi-private."

    Yep:
    "ACLU Achieves New Heights in Hypocrisy"
    "Ennis and other representatives of the ACLU played a major role in shutting down most state psychiatric hospitals and in blocking all attempts to treat patients who do not know they are sick."
    http://mentalillnesspolicy.org.....rties.html
    I'm certainly no fan of coerced treatment, but you can't keep a hospital open if there are no patients.

  • rsi||

    I got a BA in economics. Didn't work. Got couple of IT certs, got a job; crappy but i worked my way up

  • rsi||

    Oh by the way, there is something called the GI Bill.

  • rsi||

    Oh by the way, there is something called the GI Bill.

  • Dan||

    Well, Kayvan was trying to piss them off. Looks like he succeeded.

  • ||

    It's impossible to get ahead in America anymore for the 99%.

    Based on a "simulation" which has obviously been designed to yield a predetermined outcome.

    You need to occupy the Bursar's office until they refund your tuition.

  • PantsFan||

    Brooks: They refund kindergarten?

  • ||

    why is there no family support?

    It takes a VILLAGE, not a family, for crying out loud.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

  • ||

    I think "Nickeled and Dimed" was the book which PROVED the American Dream is a hoax, because some woman didn't get to be CEO of Citi, or something.

  • jtuf||

    Speaking of police brutality, Egyptian police clear protesters in Cairo, Egypt ( http://www.israelnationalnews......slePWMk67s ). I'm glad that Reason is focusing the USA, because it is an American publication, but could you spare a couple of posts to update us about the situations in Egypt and Syria. Egypt is about to have elections, and the Arab League is threatening to suspend Syria over it's attacks on protesters.

    Ironically, OWS sent a representative to the Arab Spring rally at the UN this September to pledge solidarity. At the massive NYC OWS demonstration on Thursday, I saw a single PA flag and nothing else even remotely referencing the Arab Spring. We've had dozens of Reason posts about OWS already. Let's mix it up a bit.

  • romulus augustus||

    There is apparently some sort of libertarian/free market group in Egypt as I understand they want ISIL to support some sort of conference there this year. Anyone heard of this?

  • ||

    I heard about it a few weeks ago, but I think (seriously) most of those guys were Coptic Christians and had been in hiding since the ethnic cleansing that went on recently. Also, there was a lot of property confiscation that's taken place since Mubarak's ouster. A lot of people who hoped to have some influence lost everything they had when the rebels went all Mugabe on the country's industrialists. That has probably diminished the libertarian/free market movement since libertarianism is anathema to islamicism.

  • jtuf||

    Damn! The socialists take over and kill the islamists and capitalists. Then the islamists take over and kill the socialists and capitalists. Then the socialists take over and ...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    THIS IS WHAT DUMPFY ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN.

  • ||

    The Europen Union goes full fucking retard.

    This gem, FTA: “If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

    The rest of the world collectively LOL's.

  • ||

    Also FTA:
    EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact (that drinking water reduces risk of dehydration).
    Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month

    This is priceless. Absolutely priceless.

  • Anon||

    I mean, that is the question we are trying to answer: do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?

  • PantsFan||

    Breaking News: Sidney Crosby to play on Monday.

  • ||

    Breaking News from 2 weeks into the future: Sidney Crosby out for remainder of season with strained vagina.

  • ||

  • Mr Whipple||

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Banjos, I knew I liked you. All over the horror-troll thread, you (and Sloopy) were there with the kick-ass youtube suggestions.

    Also, your name is Banjos. I mean, come on.

  • ||

    Give a pusher his props as well. "Bird" wouldn't have been shit without him.

  • ||

    Ah Luc, you are making me blush. I adore you, anarcho-cap goddess. This pic alone proves the depth of your awesomeness.

  • ||

    Aw, why don't you two get a room!*

    *Please remember the video camera.

  • Liberty Requires Order||

    Every one of those communist-wannabes had that coming, and then some. They do not deserve rights, or respect. Do not shed any tears for those who would enslave you in their socialist agenda. They deserve summary execution.

  • ||

    D-. More creativity in your next trolling attempt, please.

  • Mr Whipple||

    You know who else said that a certain group of people do not deserve rights....

  • sevo||

    Ah, Stalin? Did I get it right?

  • Liberty Requires Order||

    Stalin, exactly. Given the chance, these OWS people would have us all in gulags. Police brutality against them is not only justified, it should be encouraged. Do you hate humanity so much, and hold life in such little regard, that you would shrug off the tens of millions that Stalin killed, if a cop bashing his skull in early on would have prevented it, even if that was infringing on his precious "rights"?

    Those who would put us under communist or muslim dictatorship deserve NOTHING. Crack a few thousand leftist skulls now, save a few million lives down the road.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Do it to them before they do it to you.

    Sounds like a plan mental defect.

  • imhotep||

    Fascist pigs can rot in hell
    Oh what robbers these cops be

  • MNG||

    Man, the weekend threads have really sunk in quality. White Indian under various handles seems busy ruining the thread. Crunchy conservative let's us know Lonewacko and Mad Max seemed to have interbred.

    As to the substance of the thread, this police violence is abhorrent. I predicted a while back that the right constantly leading two minute hates against the OWSers would embolden LE and foster their usual tendency to beat on people here. People like John and the other LGFers here have been putting down their Iran war drums long enough to fan those hippie-beating flames regularly, credulously repeating every negative media charge and rushing to generalize them, heck even our resident "Too Kool 4 Skool" anarchist reference librarian-in-training Sugarfree was busy leading two minute hates at the OSWers. Off course LE chomps at the bit at such things...

    Kudos to Sloopy and several other regulars here for unequivocally sticking to principle and criticizing this police violence in no uncertain terms. Shame on those like John who minimize it by doing more victim blaming and hating.

    There was a time when those kind of LGFers would have been laughed off this board by the real libertarians here (remember Eric Donderdo? his views are pretty indistinguishable from John and many of the LGFers here). But H&R has really gone down hill lately.

    Back to the NFL, no Steelers this week and the Ravens won, but whaddayagonna do?

  • ||

    I predicted a while back that the right constantly leading two minute hates against the OWSers would embolden LE and foster their usual tendency to beat on people here.

    The only thing is: these are all police departments in overwhelmingly progressive cities. That sort of runs counter to your argument.

    Kudos to Sloopy and several other regulars here for unequivocally sticking to principle and criticizing this police violence in no uncertain terms.

    Thanks. And although we disagree pretty frequently, I believe you argue with integrity.*

    *Don't worry, John. I'm not gonna try to steal him away from you :-)

  • ||

    If read the thread I say about four different times the police are wrong and no matter how horrible the ows people are that doesn't justify police uneccesary force. But reading comprehension was never your strong suit

    I am sorry no one here likes you. Not my fault. It is only because you do things like this post where you lie about something that anyone reading the thread can see. I never defended the cops once on here other than to say the mob dynamic creates the real potential for police abuse and that is what the ows wants But you lie about it. And that is why most people on this board can't stand you. And no matter how mendacious you are i am going to keep calling you on it.

    And I have been on this board before you ever were. And no one ever laughed me off of it.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Minge:

    Cops are pigs.

    So are filthy hippies.

  • ||

    But H&R has really gone down hill lately.

    I'm gonna drink a toast to Jersey McJonesy, just for you.

  • veemee sashimi||

    I think some of this is the fault of abandoning the "football tackle" method of arresting someone who doesn't want to be arrested. Used to be that cops would jump on top of the guy, three would hold him down and the fourth slaps the cuffs on him. It looked terrible, but most of the time nobody got hurt worse than a scrape or bruise.

    This came into disfavor and they started trying things being preached in criminal justice classes, and I think that breeds this sort of thing (IE, controlled violence intended to subdue which was the technique at issue with the Rodney King fiasco). As you might suspect, allowing police to commit controlled violence leads pretty quickly to uncontrolled violence disguised as what they had been taught to do.

    They should go back to gang tackling, I guess. Either that or be less quick to arrest in these sorts of situations.

  • PermaLurker||

    Ah hell no. Do you see how much the average popo weighs?! Having 3 or 4 300+ porkers kneeling on one is a death sentence.

  • ||

    I wonder how of many OWS sympathizers in Ohio voted against the repeal of collective bargaining reform, which (unlike Wisconsin) included police and the firefighters. We could really put on dent on police brutality by preventing the union from protecting the few bad apples (remember, 99% of the police are exemplary, just like the OWS). Some right wing lunatics have even proposed denying pension for police officers convicted of a crime!

    Of course we don't approve of police brutality. But WE don't engage in behavior that warrants police involvement of this scale, nor do we antagonize them (especially their trigger happy minority) by engaging in verbal and physical assaults. We don't approve of feel good affirmative action hiring policies either. Just look at the police, they're a certifiable rainbow underneath their dark uniform. The officer who threatened to "F---" up Kelly Thomas with his dukes was a Latino. The other guy was a cyclops.

    Again, how many arrests were made at Tea Party rallies? The OWS have to admit that they're partially responsible for enabling police brutality - by acting like the way they do out on the streets, and standing by their union buddies that also cater to the police.

  • ||

    Again, how many arrests were made at Tea Party rallies? The OWS have to admit that they're partially responsible for enabling police brutality - by acting like the way they do out on the streets, and standing by their union buddies that also cater to the police.

    And you know what else? Those women who dress provocatively. They are partially responsible when they get raped because they dress like whores. How many nuns in their habits do you see getting raped again? By acting the way they do on the streets, especially late at night after a few drinks, and by walking home alone.

    /fucking idiot

  • cynical||

    Um, ok about the "acting the way they do", but there's no doubt that casting votes that empower police unions also facilitate police brutality by reducing accountability for the worst officers.

  • ||

    Your analogy seems a bit off. Let me try.

    If a woman dressed like a whore and knowingly traveled (alone, late at night) into a spot known for rapes that befall women who dress just like her, in spite of warnings from friends and common sense, then yes, she's a self inflicted victim waiting to happen. It's fair to question her judgment.

    Hundreds of protesters who defy the law as part of their activism are not an equivalent of a woman dressing in a provocative fashion. If you held up a sign that read "F--- the police" and marched around quietly around the park before going home at 8, the police will likely just leave you alone.

    If the police had to endure hours of "F you pigs" chants from hundreds of people and makeshift projectiles thrown at them, then eventually someone will snap. If hundreds of people insist on squatting on one area and refusing "peacefully" to move, the police are compelled to use certain tools to disperse them. Flash bangs and pepper sprays are dangerous toys in the hands of unqualified officers.

    The police should be accountable for brutality, but all of that was completely avoidable. I don't like police armed with guns shields raiding a single home suspected of marijuana usage. That's not what happened in Oakland.

  • sevo||

    "If a woman dressed like a whore and knowingly traveled (alone, late at night) into a spot known for rapes that befall women who dress just like her, in spite of warnings from friends and common sense, then yes, she's a self inflicted victim waiting to happen. It's fair to question her judgment."

    Yes, it is. Which does nothing to deny that RAPE IS ILLEGAL.
    See how easy that is? If someone waves hundred-dollar bills in front of you, it is STILL ILLEGAL to steal them from her.
    That's not hard, is it?

  • DuncePhy||

    And if a cop did it, it would be not be justified. But it would also not be wrong.
    That's not hard, is it?

  • sevo||

    Ooops.
    Just caught the spoof before I responded.

  • ||

    Of course rape is illegal, as is police brutality. Doesn't mean I can't question the wisdom of people who intentionally provoked a response of force from the police, where injuries and mishaps resulting from chaos was inevitable. A provocative dress doesn't warrant any actions by default. Occupying public space for a month and resisting eviction (sometimes violently) does.

    I do expect a few of the police to make human errors and use excessive force in lawfully removing unruly crowd of this size. Wayward canisters, bean bags and pepper sprays will hit innocent bystanders. If I had to guess, fair minded juries informed of all facts may find these officers guilty of error in judgment in a fluid and developing situation. Not quite "brutality" in the voyeuristic sense that some have used here.

    What can I say? I don't hate the police. I have more faith in our democracy than the OWS. 99% of the police did a commendable job dealing with these people, and I expect officers who acted like outright criminals or used questionable tactics to be disciplined or thrown in jail. I'm not going to lose sleep over hysteria over the some "police state" when I'm safe most of the time when I play by the rules. And who preaches perspective on random hysteria over porn or rape that sweep the nation like Reason magazine?

  • sevo||

    "The OWS have to admit that they're partially responsible for enabling police brutality"

    We pay police to be professionals. Did you know that?

  • Amakudari||

    The OWS have to admit that they're partially responsible for enabling police brutality

    No.

    I don't even care if they intended for the police to mace or club them. The responsible decision is to not use violence against non-violent protests, period. Non-violent protests succeed because they clearly demonstrate who's committing violence against whom, and the State, knowing nothing else, often just can't help itself.

    These protests live and die on attention. They don't get attention if cops stop pepper-spraying an innocent person every damn day. They were dead on arrival until Tony Baloney walked up and started pepper-spraying some hippie chicks.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I wonder how much overtime pay the OWS protests are generating for the policemen and their unions.

  • Mike E||

    Fort Worth Man Gets 80 Years For Buying A Hot Dog With Fake Money

    So how many years will the Federal Reserve get?

  • ||

    Lee Corso sums up the University of Houston vs SMU football game.*

    *UH alumni may need to watch it in slow motion if it goes too fast for them.

  • sevo||

    Hey, I have the monopoly on University of Houston jokes on this thread!

  • ||

    Oh, I wasn't joking.

  • Amakudari||

    So, I Google Corso to see if there was any fallout, which took me to TMZ, and I found this article:

    SASHA GREY: I Will NOT Quit Reading to Schoolchildren

    Porn legend Sasha Grey says she will NOT back out of a national elementary school reading program -- despite pressure from parents -- claiming she will "not live in fear" of her XXX past.

    TMZ broke the story ... Grey -- who once won a Best Oral Sex award for her role in "Throat: A Cautionary Tale" -- participated in the "Read Across America" program at Emerson Elementary School in Compton, CA last week.

    Why did this not happen when I was in school?

  • Mt||

    Kids today, they just have it too easy with their hot ponstars reading them stories. Bah!

  • Old Salt||

    In my day, we were read to by hot librarians and we liked it!

    ...hot librarians...

    ...fap...

    ...fap...fap...

    FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!FAP!

    ...fap...

    ...WHEW...

    ...OH, FUCK ME...

    ...I FORGOT THAT I'M STILL AT THE GREYHOUND TERMINAL!

  • ||

    Who comes up with all that nonsense. I mean like seriously.

    www.true-anon.au.tc

  • sevo||

    And not all news is bad:
    "Two UC Davis police officers involved in the pepper spraying of protesters who were peacefully sitting and linking arms were placed on paid administrative leave today,..."
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/......DTL&tsp=1
    But, yeah, they're probably still getting paid (thanks, cop union).

  • Amakudari||

    I think I said this above, but in terms most people can understand, that's called a paid vacation. They get 30 days to dick around, then they get slapped on the wrist (and patted on the back) and are back on the force.

    Unless they're fired, of course. But try to stifle your laughter.

  • sevo||

    "They get 30 days to dick around, then they get slapped on the wrist (and patted on the back) and are back on the force."

    Got to admit, this may be nothing more than the Davis admins 'making a statement'.
    And the result is probably a month off and will get buried under the fold on page ten.
    Aw, well....

  • Mt||

    Well OWS should be happy the collective bargaining agreement is protecting these two members of the 99%. Hurray! A job is a right!

  • ||

    yes, admin leave means they are getting paid

    contracts? how do those work?

    due process? how does that work?

  • sevo||

    "contracts? how do those work?"

    Seemingly always in the favor of the union (as 'negotiated' by our 'representatives', and both terms are purposely in scare-quotes)

  • ||

    bwahahahahaha!

    again this just shows the incredible bias.

    right... ONLY In favor of the union. really?

  • ||

    Go.
    To.
    Hell.

    That's all I wanted to say.

  • ||

    well, at least that's better than blatant misrepresentation of the real world... e.g. "Seemingly always in the favor of the union "

  • ||

    Oh, trust me. That sentiment is 100% accurate.

  • sevo||

    "blatant misrepresentation of the real world... e.g. "Seemingly always in the favor of the union "

    You should get out more often.

  • ||

    you should stop lying

    why do ideologues, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum, fall prey to the same lies and distortions?

    why?

    because they only see what they want to see. anything that refutes their metanarrative is ignored.

  • DuncePhy||

    but we see it all. RIGHT?

  • sevo||

    "again this just shows the incredible bias."

    You're right. I am biased against rent-seeking corruption (called 'contracts') awarded various public unions and government contractors using my tax money.

  • ||

    no, you're biased because you could actually post "Seemingly always in the favor of the union " which is so gobsmackingly wrong... but it doesn't matter

    your bias against police unions is like a leftist's bias against corporashunz

    they think corporashunz have the upper hand and always win

    you think police unions (granted, a form of corporashun) always win

    both of you are deluded.

    but that's what being a blind ideologue does

  • sevo||

    "which is so gobsmackingly wrong."
    Cite missing.

  • ||

    actually, you made the claim. so if unions always win, please provide evidence of that.

    heck, my union gets proposals shut down all the time. we LOSE fights over shit all the time.

    again, you made the unbelievable statement.

    YOU support it.

  • ||

    my prediction. he won't support it.

    because he can't prove it

  • DuncePhy||

    yeah! We got him good. I won't tell him it's impossible to prove a negative if you won't.

  • ||

    so you don't understand analytical reasoning either.

    typical for a troll

  • DuncePhy||

    We're right, of course.
    Cops never err.

  • sevo||

    Oh, and:
    "right... ONLY In favor of the union. really?"
    How about even some anecdotes where that isn't true?
    C'mon, I'm sure the union has posted one or two in the union hall. We'd love to see them.

  • ||

    Here is a cite for the CHP. Their pay is union scale.

    dunphy, what on here is not in favor of the union?

  • ||

    i can't cite shit specific to MY union, since it would identity my agency

    suffice it to say that people have been fired over the union's objections (and note the union DOES support firing a guy when we think its justified).

    policies have been enacted over the unions objections

    officers have been disciplined over the unions objections

    in cases we go as far as litigating... we win some, we lose some

    again, a liberal ideologue would say "corporashuns always win"...

    a libertarian ideologue says the exact same thing about police unions

    it's the same disease. ideology induced myopia

    you only see what you want to see

  • DuncePhy||

    the union DOES support firing a guy when we think its justified


    eating too many donuts.

    officers have been disciplined over the unions objections

    I hate getting desk duty, or stuck at home with full pay and benefits. daytime tv sucks.

  • ||

    you only see what you want to see

    Oh, trust me when I say we do not want to see this. It just smacks us in the face on a daily basis.

  • ||

    no, you DO want to see this

    like all the reason memes. just the other day here in WA, a cop was convicted of a crime and given a stiffer sentence than we would have gotten if not a cop. that goes against the lies you spew

    so you ignore it

    e.g.

    PORT ORCHARD, Wash. — A former Port Orchard Police officer convicted of pushing his girlfriend out a window was sentenced Thursday to 23 years in prison for assault.

    The Kitsap Sun reports (http://bit.ly/rwA3oz) 49-year-old Dennis L. McCarthy was given the maximum sentence for his conviction.

    The woman injured in the May 2010 fall is now confined to a wheelchair.

    Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Theodore Spearman said Police officers should be held to higher standards of conduct.
    McCarthy had a 28-year career as a Port Orchard Police officer and as a Defense Department officer at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

    Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Theodore Spearman said Police officers should be held to higher standards of conduct.


    that's the kind of thing you will never see in reason, and you have a hard time seeing. because it goes against the lies you tell yourself. that the double standard only works in FAVOR of cops accused of crimes

  • ||

    dunphy: 1
    h&r regulars: 8,749

  • ||

    fortunately, the truth has a dignity all its own

    it's not subject to voting on a niche blog, as to whether it's true or not

    i support my statements with facts, you support them with appeals to the bigorati

  • ||

    So a guy who happens to be a cop pushed his girlfriend out a window. That's your example? How about you bring something relevant to the discussion, you know, something that has to do with police brutality.

  • ||

    it's entirely relevant to the (false) meme that there is a double standard that cops accused of crimes are treated more leniently

    as i have said, in SOME respects cops have a benefit, and in some respects they are given harsher penalties and more scrutiny

    i gave an example of that.

    sorry, if you don't like it. but it's a lie that needs to be refuted.