So here's the real question? What exactly are the protesters trying to accomplish? It's been how many months now, and tell me, exactly what's changed because of the protests, with the exception of getting news coverage and clashes with the cities and police? If it's the bankers and wall street they're protesting against, seems like standing there holding signs and camping out isn't going to cut. If you really want to hit the bankers where it hurts, start cutting up the credit cards and get out debt. But that would be so unamerican I suppose. We gripe and protest about big bankers yet we think nothing about swiping our credit cards at the starbucks for a cup of coffee to keep warm while we camp out and protest.
It appears to me that these folks are utter failures and are simply looking for someone or somewhere to place the blame rather than take responsibility for themselves. A totalitarian society is what they want, which of course they will never achieve, ergo they project their frustrations on the rest of society.
The Democrats created a class of 'perpetual victims' in order to maintain their label as champions of the oppressed, otherwise they'd have no political power whatsoever.
WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations (which includes international corporations) in candidate elections. Will the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision damage democracy?
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling (January 22, 2010) Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption? (January 24, 2010)
{ECONOMYSTIC EXTRAORDINAIRE EDITORIAL COMMENT}
This was the beginning of the END. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can contribute as much money as they want to any political party, campaign or contender. This started the ball rolling. Even if, as is the revulsion we are witnessing, this could be changed it would literally take an act of congress; however, why would they do that. This ruling put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. In economics we call it an agency problem. Again, this would take legal action to rectify. Do you see THE problem with that?
(1) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in para25
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
429
\ S 1867 ES
1 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
2 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
3 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
4 Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition
5 under the law of war.
"I am very disappointed that the Occupy movement imploded so quickly. Frankly. the sight of Obama embracing a crowd waving signs that said 'Destroy Capitalism' and blatant affiliation with Nazi, Communist, and Socialist groups was the perfect Republican presidential campaign ad. "
Thought I'd share this comment I read earlier today, one with which I fully agree.
You seem to get your facts from some place like Fox news. The largest demographic for OWS protests in my city, Fort Wayne, were retired citizens marching with picket signs about corporate personhood and stopping lobbyists. There was pone who had a sign saying he had $30k in credit cards and wanted his bailout. Most treated him as if he were not there. Except Right leaning news centers who places his picture on their front page...
Would you like undercover police to come to your next convection to help with plans to break your group apart. If that thought bothers you in the least bit, you are nothing more than a closeminded bigot.
I get most of my news from Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow, all of whom I aasume are also your favorite sources...../sarc.
Seriously, some of us view the situation differently, some of us believe in personal empowerment, motivation and self respect instead of the Dems view of entitlements from the 'womb to the tomb'.
I find it highly commendable that the LA police only listened to people talk--- In many cases where the police want to move on people but don't have a proper pretext-- they sometimes infiltrate in order to actively pull the otherwise peaceful people in a direction that would warrant some heavy handiness. Only-- the article states that some of the people were "arrested" for "resisting arrest." Seems to me that if they resisted arrest-- the police must have been in the process of arresting them for something besides resisting arrest?????. WHAT EXACTLY was the something else?
Good point. Probably a new ordinance like the one in Tennesee their governor had passed in order to oust the OWS protestors. Federal judge overruled governor thoug. There are plenty of solid people left in our government and they seem to be stepping up as of lately. Like Judge Jed Rakoff who dismissed Citbank settlement proposal. Hell of a guy.
Who said Cointelpro was dead? Comparing to Germany and Hitler may be a bit eraly, but I do agree this is a major step in the wrong direction. Especially when you hear about the Senate Bill passed last week that allows the military to detain anyone they see as a 'terrorist' for as long as they want without represenataion or a trial. I have heard law officals and some politicans refer to OWS as domestic terrorists. Scary to think that our country is actually imposing and passing policy that violates all that we stand for. Even scarier that we are allowing it. Some even condone it out of ignorant politically driven ideaological bipartisan bs.
Get your facts straight instead of simply parroting the rhetoric you hear.
I personally feel that the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is an abomination, but a detainee held under this provision can still claim the right to habeus review by the courts. READ IT.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
This is taken from your document directly. I am assumning you did not rad 962 pages...
1. The
2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In4
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
7 interests of the United States.
2.The
2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In4
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
7 interests of the United States.
This Bill has left so many loopholes that anything can be done. There would be years of legal wrangling before they could prove or diporve whether habeus corpus applies in any spefic instant...
That makes being detained an indefinite process. Be realistic here. Not naive.
May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested. Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished. This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler's state police.
--------------
Is this what you want for your country???
One thing people often do not realize about Germany. As the Nazi p[arty first started their viscious and guile attack on humanity, it started with first slowly treading on individual rights and suppressing those they thought might interfere with their plans. The German people did not react at the first signs of this and let it escalate until we ended up with that horrific period of time in our world. That could happen again. There are many similarities to what happened then to what is happening here in the US. We are becoming fascist in the regard that fascism is when the military and police state are used to serve the interests of the rich and to squash efforts by the unrich to speak their mind. AHow many protests have been raided and how many people put in jail for portesting against a legitimate social issues such as income inequality and corporate personhood? We should all be scared. And we should all fight like hell right now to turn things around before the small fascist minority get too far along. Bloomberg appears to be a great example of one of our politicans who used the police as military henchmen to snuff out those who spoke up with the grievances.
Bamboo sticks for weapons? Is there a bamboo forest in LA? Are bamboo weapons cheaper than AKs, which I assume are very plentiful and readily available in LA. Oh, these weapons were not even used as planned, the police indicated; what a stupid lie by the police. It is unfortunate that most people tend to trust police officers but most of them most of the time are dishonest and are not worthy of the trust reposed on them. It is only the stupid that would believe the police about this conspiracy of using potential bamboo weapons brewing among the OWS. It is definitely a stinking lie to justify the police undercover decision.
We all need a good slap in the face once in a while. Here is yours. You are a mindless sheep who has lost the ability to look at things from a fair and unibaised vantage point.
Please take that not as an insult but as a wake up call. I have been a mindless follower at one point in my life too...
"...most people tend to trust police officers but most of them most of the time are dishonest..."
That is such a lie, it takes away any credibility you may have otherwise had. Among any group there are *some* bad apples (including among the OWS crowd). But to claim, regarding police, that "most of them most of the time are dishonest" is an outrageous lie.
I grant you, there are *some* among the police who are dishonest. Nobody could reasonably argue otherwise. But MOST of them are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the general public.
It's generally not the police who need to be feared in, or by the demonstrations. They're just put in a no win situation by the powers that be. The danger to be watched out for would be privately employed agent-provocateurs, plus some unstable types among the real protestors, and cops who would get lured into the trap. That's why non-violence must be the path of protest.
I agree. But what happens when peacefull protestors are hit with violense from the police? Lokk at UC davis and Seattle. I think portestors have shown they are more capable to take high road than what our police force have. Also, could placing people in jail for peacefully protesting be seen as an act of oppression, which is in iytself a form of violence? Reads what the news in other countrys state about how the US us handling this.
Oh wow, so the OWS protesters were smart enough to be able to make bamboo spears out in public, without being seen by anyone but these undercover cops, but weren't smart enough to use them against the American gestapo? RIIIIIIGHT. Just like how OWS protesters are using sidewalks as toilets and slinging poo at people yet the only ones who ever see that are people from Fox news and yet oddly enough... no pictures or video to back up there claims...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
The Democrats created a class of 'perpetual victims' in order to maintain their label as champions of the oppressed, otherwise they'd have no political power whatsoever.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations (which includes international corporations) in candidate elections. Will the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision damage democracy?
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First
Amendment's most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that
allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would
corrupt democracy.
Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling (January 22, 2010)
Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption? (January 24, 2010)
{ECONOMYSTIC EXTRAORDINAIRE EDITORIAL COMMENT}
This was the beginning of the END. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can contribute as much money as they want to any political party, campaign or contender. This started the ball rolling. Even if, as is the revulsion we are witnessing, this could be changed it would literally take an act of congress; however, why would they do that. This ruling put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. In economics we call it an agency problem. Again, this would take legal action to rectify. Do you see THE problem with that?
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
429
\ S 1867 ES
1 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
2 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
3 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
4 Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition
5 under the law of war.
Thought I'd share this comment I read earlier today, one with which I fully agree.
Great job LAPD, keep up the good work.
Would you like undercover police to come to your next convection to help with plans to break your group apart. If that thought bothers you in the least bit, you are nothing more than a closeminded bigot.
Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
I get most of my news from Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow, all of whom I aasume are also your favorite sources...../sarc.
Seriously, some of us view the situation differently, some of us believe in personal empowerment, motivation and self respect instead of the Dems view of entitlements from the 'womb to the tomb'.
I personally feel that the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is an abomination, but a detainee held under this provision can still claim the right to habeus review by the courts. READ IT.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
This is taken from your document directly. I am assumning you did not rad 962 pages...
1. The
2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In4
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
7 interests of the United States.
2.The
2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In4
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
7 interests of the United States.
This Bill has left so many loopholes that anything can be done. There would be years of legal wrangling before they could prove or diporve whether habeus corpus applies in any spefic instant...
That makes being detained an indefinite process. Be realistic here. Not naive.
actually I do.
--------------
Is this what you want for your country???
We all need a good slap in the face once in a while. Here is yours. You are a mindless sheep who has lost the ability to look at things from a fair and unibaised vantage point.
Please take that not as an insult but as a wake up call. I have been a mindless follower at one point in my life too...
That is such a lie, it takes away any credibility you may have otherwise had. Among any group there are *some* bad apples (including among the OWS crowd). But to claim, regarding police, that "most of them most of the time are dishonest" is an outrageous lie.
I grant you, there are *some* among the police who are dishonest. Nobody could reasonably argue otherwise. But MOST of them are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the general public.