Occupy Wall Street

[Tinker]

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

No you fall for token gestures as the people you think you are fighting are taking sustenance from your every action.

[Ammianus]

[Tinker]

I wasn't on the ground today or yesterday. I just don't buy the Post's version. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, no doubt there was some frustration expressed by the food staff, but I bet the Post completely twisted it. I seriously doubt anyone is pulling at 18 hour shift at the Food area, and if they are, that's their own egomaniacal belief that no one will step up if they step down.

[AzariLoveIran]

[Demon of Undoing]

So, because the politicians are afraid of ( legally carried) guns, the people can't be trusted enough to be heard.

Do you see what I ( and millions of other gun nuts) mean?

[Tinker]

[AzariLoveIran]

[Demon of Undoing]

Above and beyond the individual instances and circumstances, it should be plainly obvious that just about anybody can precipitate serious violence. It is fertile ground for a false flag. Incitement, while not necessarily logical or productive, is readily available.

It has been my contention all along that the human element will turn a comparatively straightforward set of issues into a massive conflagration. The weakest link is the emotions and personalities of the American people, which I believe to be so invested in the collective pathos that even seeing solution is impossible.

[Tinker]

[Demon of Undoing]

[Tinker]

[AzariLoveIran]

[Demon of Undoing]

Here's the problem in Oakland .

[Alph]

You heard it here first. Nonlethal crowd control techniques are an excessive reaction from police officers having rocks thrown at them.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I started throwing rocks at a group of police officers I would expect to be tackled, handcuffed, and imprisoned for several years for the assault. If someone was throwing rocks at a group I was in and a police officer saw it I would expect the rock thrower to be tackled, handcuffed, and imprisoned for several years for the assault. That is considerably more violent than tear gas and flash-bang grenades. Do you think that the woman in the above news clip would expect anything less if someone starting throwing rocks at her? Or would she find that 'unjustified?' I imagine that she would find tear gas and grenades that make loud noises to be perfectly justified, even restrained, in that situation.

But maybe I'm wrong. I propose that to find out what the protestors' true beliefs on the subject are, we should prevent the police from employing tear gas against the OWS and, instead, just make them throw rocks in response to rock throwing. Surely that can't be an excessive response, since throwing rocks is apparently a valid response to... err... the local law authority telling the protestors to obey the law and disperse until the next morning instead of camping illegally overnight?

[Tinker]

[Alph]

[Tinker]

[Alph]

[Tinker]

[Alph]

[Tinker]

[Demon of Undoing]

One of the main points of this protest and all associated is that the powers that be right now are tainted at best, unjust at worst. This is the " inherent antisocial" aspect I was talking about and that was dismissed. It simply follows from the base arguments made that somewhere, someone has not just a right but a responsibility to act out in what has to be an illegal faction. It's baked in, in my opinion, and to the extent that the protestors follow the rules, they will be marginalized and dismissed.

I am afraid America, when it comes to making radical change, is going to be an " all or nothing" affair. You can't protest Nazis. You fight them. And if the opposition is Nazi as a matter of opinion, then the lights are going out for somebody. I don't see a nice way to do this.

[Alph]