Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
You do realize that this amendment is actually self-contradictory, don't you? It claims that freedom of the press will be maintained, then details various ways in which freedom of the press would be eliminated. Horrible, horrible amendment. It's basically a blank check for Congress to set whatever rules it wants to to govern its own elections. How naive do you have to be to think that the rules they write when given such unfettered power are really going to benefit anyone other than incumbents?
Click to expand...

You are mistaking naivety with cynicism. I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It is only, as I said, a start.
 
bookitty said:
You are mistaking naivety with cynicism. I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It is only, as I said, a start.
Click to expand...

The start of what? It would be a disaster if it actually passed. So why does its proposal count as any form of good news? Or are you just enamored of the title, and don't actually care about the substance?
 
WildCat said:
We're at the time of year where water cannons become particularly effective. :p
Click to expand...
I do not count myself among the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but I find comments around here supporting the police tactics at U.C. Davis disturbing. The actions and arguments of OWS protestors may be misguided, but I find it amazing that some posters here demonize them to the point that they would agree with such flagrant excessive force. What the police did in U.C. Davis would be just as wrong at a Tea Party protest as it was at an OWS protest.
 
Ziggurat said:
The start of what? It would be a disaster if it actually passed. So why does its proposal count as any form of good news? Or are you just enamored of the title, and don't actually care about the substance?
Click to expand...

It's the start of a dialog. We both know that the goals of OWS are not achievable in the immediate future. Campaign reform will take years but it has to start somewhere.

Seriously, what's with all the immediate thinking around here?
 
Bosozoku said:
I do not count myself among the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but I find comments around here supporting the police tactics at U.C. Davis disturbing. The actions and arguments of OWS protestors may be misguided, but I find it amazing that some posters here demonize them to the point that they would agree with such flagrant excessive force. What the police did in U.C. Davis would be just as wrong at a Tea Party protest as it was at an OWS protest.
Click to expand...
If they wanted to be arrested as an act of civil protest, all they had to do was sit quietly and wait for the officers to cuff their hands. That's what happened in Portland. Instead they choose to lock their arms and actively resist. You'd prefer they busted a few heads instead?
 
Neally said:
If they wanted to be arrested as an act of civil protest, all they had to do was sit quietly and wait for the officers to cuff their hands. That's what happened in Portland. Instead they choose to lock their arms and actively resist. You'd prefer they busted a few heads instead?
Click to expand...

No, but the police officers' choice in this situation wasn't limited to either indiscriminately pepper-spraying each and every protestor or "busting a few heads." There were only roughly a dozen seated protestors, who from the video appeared to present no physical threat to the police. Do you mean to suggest that this was such an imminent threat that the police had to choose between outright physical force or pepper spraying all of the protestors at close range? Do you not feel that this was excessive? Would you think this was acceptable if the police did this to someone on "your side"?
 
bookitty said:
Immigration reform is whole different topic, one that deserves it's own thread. The basics - getting rid of all illegal immigrants would not mean a huge glut of jobs.
Click to expand...
No, it would mean jobs at the low-skilled end of the workforce would have to pay much more to attract workers, especially for difficult ones like in agriculture and construction labor.

bookitty said:
Illegal workers do depress the wages of the low-end work force but foreign-born workers are primarily affected.
Click to expand...
No, it's US-born workers who are primarily affected. In particular the 28% who leave school every year without even a high school diploma.

bookitty said:
The cost of illegal immigration is often inflated to include the American born children of immigrants who are American citizens. Agriculture is reliant on immigrant workers, not just for low wages but because American won't do the job.
Click to expand...
Americans won't do the job because they demand higher wages, benefits, and improved wortking conditions. Things I thought OWS was concerned about?

bookitty said:
The cost of immigration is partially offset by benefits.
Click to expand...
So now you're claiming there's benefits to having certain jobs, indeed entire industries, composed of low wages, no benefits,and terrible working conditions? This is what OWS is fighting for?

bookitty said:
Not entirely because it's a social problem that has been dealt with in piecemeal fashion. It's not a "build a fence" or "kick 'em all out!" issue.
Click to expand...
Exactly, because those policies are doomed to failure. The solution is cracking down on employers who hire them.

bookitty said:
But it's cool that you support more government regulation.
Click to expand...
I absolutely support government regulations ensuring a level playing field for workers and workplace safety. Why is OWS opposing this?
 
bookitty said:
Oh hey! This is a nice start. An amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch to overturn citizens united, and get corporate influence out of our elections. Sweet title, too.

Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED)
http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf
Click to expand...
Wow, there it is. A proposal to repeal of a portion of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st Amendment. Under that amendment a GOP-controlled Congress could demand the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) submit every edition for approval of the government censor board-

This literally scares the living hell out of me that this would even be proposed.

PS - "the press" does not refer to corporate, for-profit journalism but actual printing presses and modern equivalents.
 
Last edited:
bookitty said:
Oh hey! This is a nice start. An amendment by Rep. Ted Deutch to overturn citizens united, and get corporate influence out of our elections. Sweet title, too.

Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED)
http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf
Click to expand...

Nothing in that link about overturning the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and what the heck is a "natural person"? No such wording is contained in the Constitution.
 
Bosozoku said:
No, but the police officers' choice in this situation wasn't limited to either indiscriminately pepper-spraying each and every protestor or "busting a few heads." There were only roughly a dozen seated protestors, who from the video appeared to present no physical threat to the police.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. There were far more than a dozen seated protestors; in fact they formed a large ring. There were only a dozen who got sprayed. You can get a feel for the size of the ring in the second photograph here. You can also see that there is a fairly large contingent of cops encircled by the ring.

Do you mean to suggest that this was such an imminent threat that the police had to choose between outright physical force or pepper spraying all of the protestors at close range? Do you not feel that this was excessive?
Click to expand...

No, I don't feel it was excessive. The police had a mandate to clear the quad. The protestors were actively interfering with that mandate. The only thing I think was a mistake on the part of the police was backing down afterwards.

Would you think this was acceptable if the police did this to someone on "your side"?
Click to expand...

That's easy. My side wouldn't resist arrest.
 
Bosozoku said:
There were only roughly a dozen seated protestors, who from the video appeared to present no physical threat to the police. Do you mean to suggest that this was such an imminent threat that the police had to choose between outright physical force or pepper spraying all of the protestors at close range?
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait for the police rationale, but the fact that they were not threatening is not what I see as the reason they were sprayed. I'd say they were sprayed in order to break them up in order to arrest and cuff them. That type of seated, human chain is very difficult to separate and haul away. Again they could have simply seated and waited to be cuffed and walked away. If they were just seated without locking together and got sprayed, I'd agree that it would have been excessive, but that's not how it went down.

Do you not feel that this was excessive?
Click to expand...
No and particularly not if they were given warning to "unhook" or they would be sprayed.

Would you think this was acceptable if the police did this to someone on "your side"?
Click to expand...
Sure. It's one thing to make a political statement and get yourself arrested. I'm fine with that. It's another thing to resist arrest then cry police brutality when you brought it onto yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom