USATodaY:

IBTimes:

gawker: 1 pooper must mean everyones doin it, at least according to that article the 5 people they mention are supposedly a representation of the people there. </sarcasm>

yahoo: reports on the crimes being committed by people OUTSIDE THE OCCUPY AREAS on people IN them, and on top of that, the police not giving a shit about it either.

the blaze: fairly unbiased, but i went and attempted to read the first comment and immediately rolled my eyes and closed the page. The article goes on saying this is just a very small fraction of people (who really are just there to cause chaos and not there for #OCCUPY). Of course, i may go to watch the sex at night, as long as the girls are hot enough............. maybe....

NYTimes: Repeat of a previous article.

Most of the articles try making the reader believe that these "miscreants" (as one article called them) are a high representation of the people at these movements around the world. Which is nowhere close to the real truth. Why would the media, who get funding from these million/billion aires even think of making the Occupy movements look good? Only one comes anywhere close to unbiased, but it's being posted to a strongly right/left audience who's mind's won't be changed.

Can you sit here and tell me there are anywhere close to a significant number of articles in the media portraying the occupy movements in a good light?

Please, find me these articles.

_________________

Well, at the very least it is easy to prove that the media accounts of what occurred in Oakland are incorrect/outright lies due to the plethora of videos available online.

_________________
Miles to go before I sleep

‎"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."
-Khalil Gibran

I am not interested in speaking on behalf of the Occupy people, nor in defending the actions of a tiny minority of bad actors. I personally believe that unless they develop some kind of structure and agenda the Occupy movement is destined to fizzle away into less than a footnote of history.

I am also tired of debates about personality and character and am not going to be drawn into defending the actions of outliers in the Occupy movement. I don't believe that a kid and his dog playing tug-of-war with an American flag is any more representative of the Occupy movement than the violent actions of the Oakland police is indicative of the behavior of the majority of America's law enforcement officers. This is about ideas, not people.

I have found that folks generally resort to character assassination in order to shut down discussion, not further it.

I do support these protesters pointing out that our financial leaders, both in the public and private sectors, screwed up in a major way - having trashed the world economy, thrown millions of people out of work, wiped out trillions of dollars in home equity, and yet have never had to answer for their inept, and possibly criminal, actions.

We expect more accountiblity from a welfare recipient than we do from Wall Street financiers.

How is that anybody's idea of the way capitalism is supposed to work?

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

SATW,
So your defense of these incidents is "These are fringe people in the group or people not really associated with the group and shouldn't be counted as representing them"

Well that goes back to the "If you don't want to be judged by the assholes among you, kick them out" sentiment I've been advocating, but inclusiveness IS important you know.



That's not the way this game works...you get to find those. Get to it.

And really, if you think yahoo and gawker etc. are getting paychecks from big nasty corporations to cover this story in a certain light I'd have to tell you you're starting to sound a bit paranoid and unhinged.
Lots of this stuff has been covered on HuffPo and KOS etc. Yes, from a different angle but the incidents are reported in the left media too.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Let's get down to brass tacks then shall we?
If it's the relaxation of financial regulations which allowed circumstances to come about that greatly benefit the wealthy and bankers get bailed out by legislators...why the HELL are people protesting Wall street?

Why there?
They followed the rules.

Don't like the rules, go protest the rule makers, not the players.

These people should be occupying congress...they should be occupying the white house.
But that won't happen because it's their people in charge right now.

It's a sham.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I have a friend who was tear gassed in Oakland and helped by the Anarchist Black Cross (a group I didn't even know existed until the incident). He tells me while it was the police who started the agressiveness, there were some protesters throwing bottles at police.

Throw bottles at riot police, expect some tear gas.

End of story.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

My defense is that you'll only see the media side of it, and in your case, believe everything you're hearing/reading.


My point is these articles don't exist because the big corporations that fund these media sources don't want it. If you want any credibility in proving my statement wrong, you'll have to go find these articles that do.

All that argue that Occupy<place> is worthless and pointless, only do so because they can use media reports that show bad sides to this movement to argue their points.

_________________

The police started the aggressiveness and you're blaming the people throwing bottles?

_________________

When this whole thing started 2 months ago or whenever, did you really think we'd still be talking about it this much later? I sure as hell didn't. It seems to me like it's still growing, too. Methinks that anyone who wants to keep dismissing this movement (or whatever it is), will be doing so at his or her own peril.

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

Oh my fucking god. Of course the police started the "aggressiveness". Because when asking fails to work, and then telling them fails to work, you know what the next level of escalation is? Putting your hands on someone and MAKING them move.

_________________

You're protesting the Gov't/Wall Street, then the police already know that asking and TELLING aren't going to work. But being agressive to people who are (supposed to be being) peaceful is the right thing to do?

_________________

Aggressiveness as defined by physically attempting to move people...not in violation of the law or decency.

The police were giving lawful orders.
Do you disagree with this?

The protesters were there, and their numbers had grown on that specific night in defiance of those lawful orders.
The firsthand account I've heard from a close friend, while deriding the actions of the police, cites a specific reason for the use of force by police.

If you pick a fight and you get a fight, you're not allowed to whine about losing.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

To more directly answer your question, yes.

Cops generally don't suffer such things and if you're not smart enough to know that prepare to get pepper sprayed.
But these people, like my friend, are smart enough to know that.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

How is this not the same argument any authoritarian regime could use to justify state sanctioned violence against its citizens? In fact, isn't Bashar al-Assad of Syria making the very same case for killing 3,000 of his own people?

"We've got guns and riot gear, so if you don't want your ass kicked, just go home and watch 'Dancing with the Stars.'"

There is such a thing as proportional response. In a democratic society, the proper reaction to unarmed people squatting in a park to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights is not tear gas and rubber bullets, as even the city of Oakland now acknowledges.

To argue otherwise is a very strange position for a small government libertarian to take.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

I can see your argument, and on a national level, that argument makes sense. Here, we're not even talking about a state level, but city-level responses to people disobeying the LAW.

We, as a society, elected the people who made the laws and defined escalation of force. If you want that to change, you do it through voting.

Yes, I think the police were right. If you were EVER on the other side (either military or police) you would see that. Some people are stuck, unable to see the forest through the trees, believing that everyone is "wronging" them some how. Sometimes, you have to look in the mirror and realize that, well, you're fucked up, chuck, and you need to fix yourself.

You want change? Start aggressively campaigning for the people you believe best fit your beliefs. Engage non-believers in long, drawn out conversations, explaining to them the benefits or why you believe the things you do.

I've made at least 3 people start thinking seriously about Ron Paul - these are people that I know voted for Obama last time.

_________________

I voted for someone who promised a "yes we can" and "change" podium. They've became a "We can hope" and "let give in" action set. Yet I still have a huge HATRED for what wall street has done and the Gov't bailing out the banks and not the American people.
I don't want to have to wait every two years to make what i believe are drastically huge changes in the way things are being done, and thats why people are occupying wall street and other places around the nation/world.
Thats why the "you do it through voting" is a completely stupid argument.



So a lot of my friends are rapidly sending out applications to every place they can think of, with fairly good credentials (most have a B.S. right now) and you're willing to tell them to fix themselves that it's their fault nobody is hiring? Fuck that shit. These protesters are not saying EVERYONE is wronging them, they are blaming wall street and the bank bailouts. A lot of them have tried their best to give themselves a chance, the people who think everyone is a lazy ass are retardedly mistaken.


Once again, we have, and that doesn't mean we can't want things done differently in the middle of a presidential term. Waiting every 4 fucking years is insane.

_________________

The thing is, while wall street and bank bailouts probably do/did hurt them, I wonder how many people who are part of this #occupy movement voted for Obama, and will do it again?



Ok - what do you expect these people to do? Nothing is going to change. No laws are going to be passed, because they're not organized.

Voting for a democrat because "you're a liberal, and that's just who you are" is equally as insane, to me.

We also elect congressmen for 6 years - the same people who put us in this situation, we give longer tenure to.

_________________

I was waiting for someone to try to draw that comparison.
Using tear gas to disperse a crowd is so subtly different from killing 26 people in one day I can see how some people may confuse the two.

Using tear gas to disperse an unlawful gathering is a proportional response.
This isn't about big or small government, in this case it's about following the law.

If folks want to engage in civil disobedience, prepare to be arrested for the laws you break. That's not a political position, it's a practical one.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

7. (if yes) Did you vote for President Obama?
74% Yes

10.Do you plan on voting to reelect President Obama in the upcoming 2012
Presidential Election?
48% Yes

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

#notsurprised

_________________