Anyway, I live in NYC, stay off the BK Br roadway so I can get to work....
I like what these people stand for, am ashamed I am not there with them...
As far as Police brutality.....every job, every group, have bad apples....
You never hear about the good cops do, and there are thousands of great cops...
Realize cops put up with SOOOO MUCH Bullshit, it's inconceivable. Especially in this rotten town. Of course that doesn't excuse police brutality, but give the good ones a break...
And this is from a fireman
Who the f*ck goes around skinning cats~~Ed
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013
For those that know what the Tea Party is all about........A movement of millions of white Americans from Christian backgrounds and the Republican party. Tea Party members share similar core principles and beliefs that have nothing to do with the United States constitution or the founders, such as:
* You will never get my guns
* Make abortion illegal
* Keep the war machine rolling
* Don't bother trying to keep our people healthy
* Get that blackie out of the white house
Wow that is soooo wrong I don't know what to say! You must be joking right? :?
that's it! I get it ....
dont think he was joking, hell, harris interactive released a poll last year where the following % of republicans believe to be true:
57% think obama is muslim
45% still think he was not born here
24% think he MAY be the antichrist
now poll #'s can be skewed based on how question was posed, etc. but these sort of responses over the course of the last 3 years have been consistent in the far right's goal to deligitimize and demonize our president.
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
Oh, so that's why they shut down a bridge. Great job asshats. If I was trying to get home it would make me more likely to run them over than to support the cause.
Perhaps you are missing my point.
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
For those that know what the Tea Party is all about........A movement of millions of white Americans from Christian backgrounds and the Republican party. Tea Party members share similar core principles and beliefs that have nothing to do with the United States constitution or the founders, such as:
* You will never get my guns
* Make abortion illegal
* Keep the war machine rolling
* Don't bother trying to keep our people healthy
* Get that blackie out of the white house
Wow that is soooo wrong I don't know what to say! You must be joking right? :?
that's it! I get it ....
dont think he was joking, hell, harris interactive released a poll last year where the following % of republicans believe to be true:
57% think obama is muslim
45% still think he was not born here
24% think he MAY be the antichrist
now poll #'s can be skewed based on how question was posed, etc. but these sort of responses over the course of the last 3 years have been consistent in the far right's goal to deligitimize and demonize our president.
not charismatic enough to be the AntiChrist
the AntiChrist would appear with a new form of government
which isn't a bad idea
the other two points I can see the misinformed might think he is muslim
and not being born here...lots of controversy or at the least publicity with that...
sometimes that is all some need to think it true
lots of people are busy in their lives with politics being the last of their interests
and besides both sides are incredibly disappointing
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
Thanks Brian. That answer is quite good enough to explain why shutting down a bridge to get a point across is more important that anyone worrying about their stupid commute.
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
Thanks Brian. That answer is quite good enough to explain why shutting down a bridge to get a point across is more important that anyone worrying about their stupid commute.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
Thanks Brian. That answer is quite good enough to explain why shutting down a bridge to get a point across is more important that anyone worrying about their stupid commute.
Well, not really. But I appreciate the effort. I still think it's pretty lame.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
i somehow doubt you and others would be singing the same tune if it were a movement that you were passionate about and agreed with.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
i somehow doubt you and others would be singing the same tune if it were a movement that you were passionate about and agreed with.
I'm never for that type of action really. I'm trying to think about it and see it from their perspective but I still can't see it.
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
Thanks Brian. That answer is quite good enough to explain why shutting down a bridge to get a point across is more important that anyone worrying about their stupid commute.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
A peaceful protest blocking a bridge/road doesn't deserve to be arrested?
Pretty sure if I were to lay down in the middle of the road...if I didn't get run over before they showed up...the cops would arrest me.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
I agree proper planning and measures taken bring far more respect
and understanding to a cause and most importantly keeps peace and keeps people safe.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
I agree proper planning and measures taken bring far more respect
and understanding to a cause and most importantly keeps peace and keeps people safe.
You guys are really something else. "Get a permit" "Obey the law" "don't block a bridge"...
Enforcing rules that you individually see fit doesn't really apply when it comes to a movement to change the way our government works. It's called civil disobedience and I and you and WE all have that right to be disobedient... whether you like it or not!!
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
It's called CIVIL disobedience. Which means you do it in a civil way according to the mores (sorry, I don't know how to do an accent, but I mean more-ays) of the society within which you live. So, camp out in a park. March down the sidewalks with police PROTECTION (yes, get them to work with you, not against you. Public opinion will never be on your side if you f with the police). But, don't block other CIVILIANS' rights. That's selfish and myopic (in the sense that you will never get those people to see what you are trying to say).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
i somehow doubt you and others would be singing the same tune if it were a movement that you were passionate about and agreed with.
I would. I don't like disrupting people's lives. I just think it's inconsiderate and selfish. Set up a podium at the Lincoln Memorial (legally), get permits to march to Wall Street, but don't block the Brooklyn Bridge. You do deserve a skull cracking (so to speak) if you do that. There are ways to do things and be heard. This isn't Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and folks stupidly saying - you shouldn't sit in that seat. It's folks trying to get to THEIR JOBS!!!!! which these people obviously don't have. So, should those folks' livelihoods be at stake because of a few immature college kids that want their loans paid off?
And, I especially love how the Unions have now hijacked this thing and turned it into something completely different. I guess those college loans aren't getting paid off anymore... Get back to work.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
It's called CIVIL disobedience. Which means you do it in a civil way according to the mores (sorry, I don't know how to do an accent, but I mean more-ays) of the society within which you live. So, camp out in a park. March down the sidewalks with police PROTECTION (yes, get them to work with you, not against you. Public opinion will never be on your side if you f with the police). But, don't block other CIVILIANS' rights. That's selfish and myopic (in the sense that you will never get those people to see what you are trying to say).
dude i am not sure where you are getting your definition of "civil", but i am pretty sure it is not applied appropriately in this post. civil refers to "citizens", thus "civil disobedience" refers to citizens being disobedient. by your definition the civil war must have been fought in a civil manner...
from the american heritage dictionary.
civil disobedience
NOUN:
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
It's called CIVIL disobedience. Which means you do it in a civil way according to the mores (sorry, I don't know how to do an accent, but I mean more-ays) of the society within which you live. So, camp out in a park. March down the sidewalks with police PROTECTION (yes, get them to work with you, not against you. Public opinion will never be on your side if you f with the police). But, don't block other CIVILIANS' rights. That's selfish and myopic (in the sense that you will never get those people to see what you are trying to say).
dude i am not sure where you are getting your definition of "civil", but i am pretty sure it is not applied appropriately in this post. civil refers to "citizens", thus "civil disobedience" refers to citizens being disobedient. by your definition the civil war must have been fought in a civil...
from the american heritage dictionary.
civil disobedience
NOUN:
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
Very well. You are correct. Now get off my bridge before the people that we hired to protect my rights take care of you breaking the laws.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The poll tax riots in England in 1990 resulted in the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_R ... nsequences The riot in central London, with the countrywide opposition to the Community Charge (especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland) contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year, defending the tax when opinion polls were showing 2% support for it. The next Prime Minister, John Major, announced it would be abolished.
Approx 25,000 people attended this demonstration and the resulting riots helped overthrow a Prime Minister and abolish the tax system.
On February 15th, 2003 between one and two million people attended a demonstration in London, England against the upcoming invasion of Iraq. This demonstration was entirely peaceful and the result was that the Government ignored it and invaded Iraq one month later.
Very well. You are correct. Now get off my bridge before the people that we hired to protect my rights take care of you breaking the laws.
if anyone wants to blame anybody for the bridge being shut down, blame the COPS. they employed a crowd control technique called "corralling". see the article below for more info on that. they basically led them onto the bridge in what appeared to be a police escort and then they surrounded them from behind and then began to arrested them. of course the bridge had to be shut down in order for them to make the arrests and pull off the corralling maneuver. it the cops had not escorted them onto the bridge it may not have been sut down like that, but as it happens it was the only way the cops could have done it.
(CBS News) In New York City, the police department is trying to make sure the Wall Street protests don't get out of hand, as they have from time to time in Europe. The NYPD is using a controversial technique and CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports on how that works.
Last Saturday afternoon, Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge where police warned them not to go any further.
"If you refuse to leave, you'll be placed under arrest, and charged with disorderly conduct," a police official told the crowd through a bullhorn.
Protesters continued to march anyway with officers in front--in what looked like a police escort. CBS News producer Paula Reid was covering the story.
"And then there was a barricade about a third of the way across -- police vehicles," she said. "And then at the back of the protest, they unraveled an orange gate, and put that across the back of the protest."
Seven hundred protesters were penned in and then arrested.
"Did you feel in any way that the police department acted in a way that was dishonest?" asked Axelrod.
"No, I wouldn't call it dishonest," said Reid. "But I would say it's contradictory. You say, 'Don't walk on this bridge because it's illegal, you'll be arrested.' But then you walk with them, you lead them."
The technique is called corralling. Protesters are isolated by police and left to either stand for hours or be arrested. It's not new -- Washington, D.C. police used it in the spring of 2000 when protests got out of hand.
Former New York City Police chief William Bratton of Kroll and Associates said the idea is to diffuse tension.
"As far as the idea of corralling and arresting that group," he said, "after a notification was made and after they remained on the roadway, I see nothing wrong with it.
"We have come a long way from the days when hoses and dogs were routinely used to control crowds, and the use of batons was routine."
The courts will sort out whether what happened last Saturday on the Brooklyn Bridge violated constitutional protection to assemble. One lawsuit has already been filed.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The poll tax riots in England in 1990 resulted in the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_R ... nsequences The riot in central London, with the countrywide opposition to the Community Charge (especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland) contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year, defending the tax when opinion polls were showing 2% support for it. The next Prime Minister, John Major, announced it would be abolished.
Approx 25,000 people attended this demonstration and the resulting riots helped overthrow a Prime Minister and abolish the tax system.
On February 15th, 2003 between one and two million people attended a demonstration in London, England against the upcoming invasion of Iraq. This demonstration was entirely peaceful and the result was that the Government ignored it and invaded Iraq one month later.
Go figure!
Obvously, true. But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful. That seemed to work. So, we can both conjure up examples. The difference is this thing all started b/c a few snotty college kids didn't want to pay their bills. It has turned into something completely different now, and I'm sure nobody even knows the names of those kids anymore.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
I agree proper planning and measures taken bring far more respect
and understanding to a cause and most importantly keeps peace and keeps people safe.
You guys are really something else. "Get a permit" "Obey the law" "don't block a bridge"...
Enforcing rules that you individually see fit doesn't really apply when it comes to a movement to change the way our government works. It's called civil disobedience and I and you and WE all have that right to be disobedient... whether you like it or not!!
Well, I thank you for your input. I do find it interesting.
I personally don't think someone has the right to be disobedient when it is effecting the rights of others, but so be it. But, I do wonder if you have to create minor, short-term inconveniences in order to make a larger point. I do think though that it would probably cause me to be against their cause if it effected me, but who knows. I mean, if they don't care about you and only care about themselves, why should anyone else be any different?
"If you refuse to leave, you'll be placed under arrest, and charged with disorderly conduct," a police official told the crowd through a bullhorn.
Protesters continued to march anyway with officers in front
"And then there was a barricade about a third of the way across -- police vehicles," she said. "And then at the back of the protest, they unraveled an orange gate, and put that across the back of the protest."
Seven hundred protesters were penned in and then arrested.
The technique is called corralling. Protesters are isolated by police and left to either stand for hours or be arrested. It's not new -- Washington, D.C. police used it in the spring of 2000 when protests got out of hand.
Former New York City Police chief William Bratton of Kroll and Associates said the idea is to diffuse tension.
"As far as the idea of corralling and arresting that group," he said, "after a notification was made and after they remained on the roadway, I see nothing wrong with it.
"We have come a long way from the days when hoses and dogs were routinely used to control crowds, and the use of batons was routine."
Let's take out the producer's opinion. This makes perfect sense - they told them not to march, but they wanted to keep it safe and peaceful as possible. Them walking in front had nothing to do with leading a parade and everything to do with making sure they didn't get run over and they didn't do damage to cars. To say they thought they were leading is disengenious and you know it. Sounds like the police have learned from past incidets and did a perfect job. Bravo to the NYPD!!!! Job well done.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Let's take out the producer's opinion. This makes perfect sense - they told them not to march, but they wanted to keep it safe and peaceful as possible. Them walking in front had nothing to do with leading a parade and everything to do with making sure they didn't get run over and they didn't do damage to cars. To say they thought they were leading is disengenious and you know it. Sounds like the police have learned from past incidets and did a perfect job. Bravo to the NYPD!!!! Job well done.
why don't you watch the video. it clearly shows that the cops were leading them onto the bridge.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Let's take out the producer's opinion. This makes perfect sense - they told them not to march, but they wanted to keep it safe and peaceful as possible. Them walking in front had nothing to do with leading a parade and everything to do with making sure they didn't get run over and they didn't do damage to cars. To say they thought they were leading is disengenious and you know it. Sounds like the police have learned from past incidets and did a perfect job. Bravo to the NYPD!!!! Job well done.
why don't you watch the video. it clearly shows that the cops were leading them onto the bridge.
I get that they were in front. There's no disputing that. But LEADING versus being in front is 2 totally different things. If the police said to me - if you come in this building, I will arrest you and then they started to walk into the building I WOULD NOT FOLLOW THEM!!!! How hard is that to understand?
So, if I followed them in, I could tell the judge they were leading my march?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Obvously, true. But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful.
There was a lot more to the civil rights struggle than Rosa Parks. There was huge rioting in many American cities throughout the 1960's.
The fact is, peaceful demonstrations tend to achieve nothing. The only time the powers-that-be pay attention is when things get heated.
I know. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. That was a clear case of injustice (civil rights). I do agree it took that movement to shake everyone up, but it wasn't really a debate. Folks knew it (at least in the North) more broadly, they just weren't moved to action.
This is not the same thing. People took risky loans that they knew they couldn't afford and now want mommy and daddy to come to their rescue. Attempting to rescue a business with thousands of employees is not the same as bailing out an individual.
I have friend who unfortunately lost his job not too long ago. He doesn't grouse about Wall Street. But, by the same token he has told me that it doesn't make sense to take a temporary job for only marginally more than unemployment. I can't really disagree with him. So, to bring this all back to reality - that is why Obama's idea to extend unemployment yet again is the worst possible idea. You know the fishing parable I assume.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hey Gimmie... the article says the crowd was gathered at the foot of the bridge and told to stop. So how exactly is it the cops fault for them to march on the bridge?
I know. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. That was a clear case of injustice (civil rights). I do agree it took that movement to shake everyone up, but it wasn't really a debate. Folks knew it (at least in the North) more broadly, they just weren't moved to action.
This is not the same thing. People took risky loans that they knew they couldn't afford and now want mommy and daddy to come to their rescue. Attempting to rescue a business with thousands of employees is not the same as bailing out an individual.
I have friend who unfortunately lost his job not too long ago. He doesn't grouse about Wall Street. But, by the same token he has told me that it doesn't make sense to take a temporary job for only marginally more than unemployment. I can't really disagree with him. So, to bring this all back to reality - that is why Obama's idea to extend unemployment yet again is the worst possible idea. You know the fishing parable I assume.
Did you tell your friend that? That he shouldn't get more unemployment? Or are you just talkin tough to support your point? Most people took on student loans based on the premise that it would get them a good job. They spent their lives being told the education would pay for the loan in the end (this from a guy who took an entirely different route and has no stake in this stance)...I do know the fishing parable...So we teach people to fish under the notion that they owe us their first 20 harvests for teaching them. We just don't tell them they have to fish in a cesspool. But hey, lets pick the most easily argued of the issues at hand, and beat it to death, shall we?
"But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful. That seemed to work. So, we can both conjure up examples."...that was not tongue-in-cheek. You defended your statement and when called out on your mistake, you backpedalled. Conjure up some more examples, please? Lets see how many you've got...
Have you paid attention to ANY protest movement in the last 10 years? The police work 100% in support of the government and the corporations who are being protested. This has pretty much always been the case, but has accelerated exponentially since the 04 election conventions.
If you get permits, you are sent to a 'protest zone'; essentially fenced in, in an area where you are least disruptive to what the powers that be determine to be important – ie: the institutions being protested. The protest permits make it nearly impossible to have an effective, large demonstration because of restrictions on when and where you can march. No marching on the streets – sidewalks or parks only. It’s nearly impossible to get a road closed for a demonstration these days. If keeping the protests ‘out of sight-out of mind’ doesn’t accomplish the police goal of stopping them from growing (again – a goal completely at odds with the movement, and in full support of the ‘other side’), they use undercover agents to gain an excuse to shut it down. Look up “Toronto G20 exposed” on youtube to see how corralling and the use of provocateurs works.
The police don’t play by the rules. The government doesn’t play by the rules. Why should the people? When ‘they’ decide to break a rule, there is no consequence to them, and far-reaching repercussions for the public. Then they change the rules so that the next time, they don't even need to break a rule. When the people don’t play by the rules, they get assaulted, pepper sprayed, arrested, and illegally detained. But you’re ok with that as long as you’re not late for work???
All this bitching about inconvenience….and I bet the conversation at work, for 99% of these people, went something like this:
“sorry I’m late boss, a protest shut down the Brooklyn bridge…”
“ya, I heard about that, half the office is late…crazy, huh?”
“Crazy is right! I missed that conference call because of those stinking hippies!”
“Well I didn’t expect you to swim here, but….don’t you have a cell phone?”
Or something like that….
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!
Comments
Anyway, I live in NYC, stay off the BK Br roadway so I can get to work....
I like what these people stand for, am ashamed I am not there with them...
As far as Police brutality.....every job, every group, have bad apples....
You never hear about the good cops do, and there are thousands of great cops...
Realize cops put up with SOOOO MUCH Bullshit, it's inconceivable. Especially in this rotten town. Of course that doesn't excuse police brutality, but give the good ones a break...
And this is from a fireman
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013
Yeah, sure.
dont think he was joking, hell, harris interactive released a poll last year where the following % of republicans believe to be true:
57% think obama is muslim
45% still think he was not born here
24% think he MAY be the antichrist
now poll #'s can be skewed based on how question was posed, etc. but these sort of responses over the course of the last 3 years have been consistent in the far right's goal to deligitimize and demonize our president.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
Missing your point- maybe so- that's what I get for answering for somebody else!
Civil disobedience is about being heard. Most protests today go unnoticed unless they are very disruptive. 10 to 1 says any involvement I've had in trying to raise awareness about global warming for example (criminies- I'm gonna get accused once again of trying to derail a thread and divide the USA) will be noticed far less than the actions of the OWS'ers. That protesters have to go to those exteems to be heard at all is rather a shame I'd say- much more so than the inconvenience of some commuters (besides, why aren't they taking the train, I ask?).
the AntiChrist would appear with a new form of government
which isn't a bad idea
the other two points I can see the misinformed might think he is muslim
and not being born here...lots of controversy or at the least publicity with that...
sometimes that is all some need to think it true
lots of people are busy in their lives with politics being the last of their interests
and besides both sides are incredibly disappointing
What the hell is wrong with the other 76%?????? Haven't they been paying attention!!!!!
Thanks Brian.
So every time I have a complaint, I have the right to disrupt other people's lives? Sorry. Their issues are not more important than mine. Get a permit if you want to do it, so there is proper preparations. Which is what they are actually doing now. They deservered to be arrested and if they resisted, proper force should be used to remove them.
We do not hold the right to disrupt other people's lives.
Well, not really. But I appreciate the effort. I still think it's pretty lame.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm never for that type of action really. I'm trying to think about it and see it from their perspective but I still can't see it.
Um, yeah, I guess you do have that freedom. But certainly, a peaceful protest no where deserves being arrested. We have the right to be civilly disobedient, and if you don't like that right, tough! Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you what to do. I think that's fair enough.
A peaceful protest blocking a bridge/road doesn't deserve to be arrested?
Pretty sure if I were to lay down in the middle of the road...if I didn't get run over before they showed up...the cops would arrest me.
and understanding to a cause and most importantly keeps peace and keeps people safe.
You guys are really something else. "Get a permit" "Obey the law" "don't block a bridge"...
Enforcing rules that you individually see fit doesn't really apply when it comes to a movement to change the way our government works. It's called civil disobedience and I and you and WE all have that right to be disobedient... whether you like it or not!!
It's called CIVIL disobedience. Which means you do it in a civil way according to the mores (sorry, I don't know how to do an accent, but I mean more-ays) of the society within which you live. So, camp out in a park. March down the sidewalks with police PROTECTION (yes, get them to work with you, not against you. Public opinion will never be on your side if you f with the police). But, don't block other CIVILIANS' rights. That's selfish and myopic (in the sense that you will never get those people to see what you are trying to say).
I would. I don't like disrupting people's lives. I just think it's inconsiderate and selfish. Set up a podium at the Lincoln Memorial (legally), get permits to march to Wall Street, but don't block the Brooklyn Bridge. You do deserve a skull cracking (so to speak) if you do that. There are ways to do things and be heard. This isn't Rosa Parks sitting on a bus and folks stupidly saying - you shouldn't sit in that seat. It's folks trying to get to THEIR JOBS!!!!! which these people obviously don't have. So, should those folks' livelihoods be at stake because of a few immature college kids that want their loans paid off?
And, I especially love how the Unions have now hijacked this thing and turned it into something completely different. I guess those college loans aren't getting paid off anymore...
from the american heritage dictionary.
civil disobedience
NOUN:
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Very well. You are correct. Now get off my bridge before the people that we hired to protect my rights take care of you breaking the laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_R ... nsequences
The riot in central London, with the countrywide opposition to the Community Charge (especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland) contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year, defending the tax when opinion polls were showing 2% support for it. The next Prime Minister, John Major, announced it would be abolished.
Approx 25,000 people attended this demonstration and the resulting riots helped overthrow a Prime Minister and abolish the tax system.
On February 15th, 2003 between one and two million people attended a demonstration in London, England against the upcoming invasion of Iraq. This demonstration was entirely peaceful and the result was that the Government ignored it and invaded Iraq one month later.
Go figure!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/ ... 6273.shtml
NYPD employs corralling to control crowds
(CBS News) In New York City, the police department is trying to make sure the Wall Street protests don't get out of hand, as they have from time to time in Europe. The NYPD is using a controversial technique and CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports on how that works.
Last Saturday afternoon, Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge where police warned them not to go any further.
"If you refuse to leave, you'll be placed under arrest, and charged with disorderly conduct," a police official told the crowd through a bullhorn.
Protesters continued to march anyway with officers in front--in what looked like a police escort. CBS News producer Paula Reid was covering the story.
"And then there was a barricade about a third of the way across -- police vehicles," she said. "And then at the back of the protest, they unraveled an orange gate, and put that across the back of the protest."
Seven hundred protesters were penned in and then arrested.
"Did you feel in any way that the police department acted in a way that was dishonest?" asked Axelrod.
"No, I wouldn't call it dishonest," said Reid. "But I would say it's contradictory. You say, 'Don't walk on this bridge because it's illegal, you'll be arrested.' But then you walk with them, you lead them."
The technique is called corralling. Protesters are isolated by police and left to either stand for hours or be arrested. It's not new -- Washington, D.C. police used it in the spring of 2000 when protests got out of hand.
Former New York City Police chief William Bratton of Kroll and Associates said the idea is to diffuse tension.
"As far as the idea of corralling and arresting that group," he said, "after a notification was made and after they remained on the roadway, I see nothing wrong with it.
"We have come a long way from the days when hoses and dogs were routinely used to control crowds, and the use of batons was routine."
The courts will sort out whether what happened last Saturday on the Brooklyn Bridge violated constitutional protection to assemble. One lawsuit has already been filed.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Obvously, true. But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful. That seemed to work. So, we can both conjure up examples. The difference is this thing all started b/c a few snotty college kids didn't want to pay their bills. It has turned into something completely different now, and I'm sure nobody even knows the names of those kids anymore.
Well, I thank you for your input. I do find it interesting.
I personally don't think someone has the right to be disobedient when it is effecting the rights of others, but so be it. But, I do wonder if you have to create minor, short-term inconveniences in order to make a larger point. I do think though that it would probably cause me to be against their cause if it effected me, but who knows. I mean, if they don't care about you and only care about themselves, why should anyone else be any different?
Let's take out the producer's opinion. This makes perfect sense - they told them not to march, but they wanted to keep it safe and peaceful as possible. Them walking in front had nothing to do with leading a parade and everything to do with making sure they didn't get run over and they didn't do damage to cars. To say they thought they were leading is disengenious and you know it. Sounds like the police have learned from past incidets and did a perfect job. Bravo to the NYPD!!!! Job well done.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I get that they were in front. There's no disputing that. But LEADING versus being in front is 2 totally different things. If the police said to me - if you come in this building, I will arrest you and then they started to walk into the building I WOULD NOT FOLLOW THEM!!!! How hard is that to understand?
So, if I followed them in, I could tell the judge they were leading my march?
There was a lot more to the civil rights struggle than Rosa Parks. There was huge rioting in many American cities throughout the 1960's.
The fact is, peaceful demonstrations tend to achieve nothing. The only time the powers-that-be pay attention is when things get heated.
I know. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. That was a clear case of injustice (civil rights). I do agree it took that movement to shake everyone up, but it wasn't really a debate. Folks knew it (at least in the North) more broadly, they just weren't moved to action.
This is not the same thing. People took risky loans that they knew they couldn't afford and now want mommy and daddy to come to their rescue. Attempting to rescue a business with thousands of employees is not the same as bailing out an individual.
I have friend who unfortunately lost his job not too long ago. He doesn't grouse about Wall Street. But, by the same token he has told me that it doesn't make sense to take a temporary job for only marginally more than unemployment. I can't really disagree with him. So, to bring this all back to reality - that is why Obama's idea to extend unemployment yet again is the worst possible idea. You know the fishing parable I assume.
"But, Rosa Parks was entirely peaceful. That seemed to work. So, we can both conjure up examples."...that was not tongue-in-cheek. You defended your statement and when called out on your mistake, you backpedalled. Conjure up some more examples, please? Lets see how many you've got...
Have you paid attention to ANY protest movement in the last 10 years? The police work 100% in support of the government and the corporations who are being protested. This has pretty much always been the case, but has accelerated exponentially since the 04 election conventions.
If you get permits, you are sent to a 'protest zone'; essentially fenced in, in an area where you are least disruptive to what the powers that be determine to be important – ie: the institutions being protested. The protest permits make it nearly impossible to have an effective, large demonstration because of restrictions on when and where you can march. No marching on the streets – sidewalks or parks only. It’s nearly impossible to get a road closed for a demonstration these days. If keeping the protests ‘out of sight-out of mind’ doesn’t accomplish the police goal of stopping them from growing (again – a goal completely at odds with the movement, and in full support of the ‘other side’), they use undercover agents to gain an excuse to shut it down. Look up “Toronto G20 exposed” on youtube to see how corralling and the use of provocateurs works.
The police don’t play by the rules. The government doesn’t play by the rules. Why should the people? When ‘they’ decide to break a rule, there is no consequence to them, and far-reaching repercussions for the public. Then they change the rules so that the next time, they don't even need to break a rule. When the people don’t play by the rules, they get assaulted, pepper sprayed, arrested, and illegally detained. But you’re ok with that as long as you’re not late for work???
All this bitching about inconvenience….and I bet the conversation at work, for 99% of these people, went something like this:
“sorry I’m late boss, a protest shut down the Brooklyn bridge…”
“ya, I heard about that, half the office is late…crazy, huh?”
“Crazy is right! I missed that conference call because of those stinking hippies!”
“Well I didn’t expect you to swim here, but….don’t you have a cell phone?”
Or something like that….
you people make it sound like being late for work is such an affront to society, while people are having their rights violated on your dime.
Ridiculous!