Occupy Wall Street

actually, eddie dear, you do not know what my viewpoint is. neither for that matter does pan. what you do know is that i do not consider either of you capable of coherently outlining a political worldview and defending it. because neither of you have done it. pan at least tries, but i think he gt upset for some reason and that takes over and when that does things go in circles. but hey, everyone has their foibles. mine is that i try to compress sometimes quite complex things into little sentences and they can get hopelessly abstract. and the lack of caps doesn't help. what i think about politics is that it's a matter of argumentation more than belief. i have assumptions that i work from as well, but at least i can say what they are and defend them. you cannot. to a significant extent, that follows from the shabbiness of thinking particular to libertarian ideology, which you simply replicate without having any discernible distance. what i think about the world inhabited by the paulbots is that its lunacy. what i think about your particular version of it is that it's made of shoddy argument, a refusal to address reality and a penchant for one-dimensional red-baiting. and it's tiresome beyond measure. and, apparently, you like to indulge that pathetic quirk of populist conservatives in general--when you can't hang in an argument, you try to present yourself as a victim. that's my viewpoint on the sad, one-dimensional little world of the paulbot. and i can argue it in detail because, unlike you, i've actually bothered to look into political viewpoints that i oppose and work out, sometimes in detail, why i think they're problematic. but you do not offer any of the rest of us parallel respect. but you're a victim. boo hoo.

 

Which is why I don't read 90% of what you post.

 

Based on your responses, it doesn't appear as if you understand the 10% you do read.

Let me ask you a straight up simple question, eddie.

What is Ron Paul's plan for getting his policies passed through Congress, in the event he's elected President? Unless he's planning on crowning himself King, I see this as a major obstacle for him.

 

Looks like the officers involved in pepper spraying the UC Davis protesters are out on admin leave. There's also a growing call for the Chancellor, Linda Katehi, to step down. My guess is even though she gave the order the officers carrying them out will be looking for work long before her.

--- merged: Nov 20, 2011 7:17 PM ---

I know you're not asking me but allow me to give you my take on this-

"We'll just do it."

Do you have any more questions regarding implementing his policies? If so simply insert the above statement. If you feel like mixing it up some throw in a few "the people want this" or "the market will correct itself" statements.

 

Maybe his plan is to privatize the Senate and HoR.

Oh wait, that's already been done.

 

In other words, your votes for Ron Paul haven't amounted to anything. It's easy to sit back and embrace an ideology that's never been tested by reality and vote for candidates who will never win. You're effectively doing absolutely nothing to bring about any change. For you to criticize OWS because they aren't doing anything productive (which isn't actually true) shows a complete lack of awareness.

You know who people are more interested in than Ron Paul? Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry. Michelle Bachmann. Depending on what day of the week it is. If more people are interested in Ron Paul, it's probably because he isn't Mitt Romney. If anyone is interested in Ron Paul because they think he'll limit the amount of power rich people have over the democratic process then they aren't paying attention to the type of hands-off, market-based approach Paul favors.

And if the Republican nominee is anyone but Romney (and probably even if it is Romney), Obama will make the better president despite the many ways he's been a complete disappointment.

This college educated, student loan repaying, solidly middle class OWS supporter would take a center-right Obama over any of the hard right GOP candidates any day of the week.

 

I agree the field the GOP has put forth is really disappointing. I've been unhappy with Obama's actions and at times his inaction but I'll take him over anyone of the current GOP candidates.

 

Clinton made more of an effort then Obama. From my point of view Obama has given a foot and a half for every foot demanded. I can only hope none of the current GOP candidates win and in his second term Obama grows a pair balls.

 

All he can do is what any President can do; propose legislation that you believe in and let the other two branches or government do their jobs.

 

this is a very useful overview of the developments in police approach to political demonstrations since the 1960s:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...epper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/

here's a link to the paper by patrick gillham that the above relies on. you can access it for free.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00394.x/pdf

 

With respect to police tactics, it's interesting to me that some of the folks you might expect to come out strongly against the casual brutality displayed by police forces across the country are indifferent because they don't sympathize with OWS' goals. If these are the type of people who've appointed themselves guardians against government tyranny, I'll pass on their particular brand of liberty. Anyone who claims to oppose government tyranny who doesn't also strongly condemn the heavy handed responses of various police forces and municipalities is all talk.

 

In speaking with some friends and some officers at different sites I think a lot of people would be surprised at how conflicted many feel.

 

i think it's interesting to understand the strategy that's being used and its implications both for the right to protest and the officers involved. my suspicion is that there is considerable conflict, like you say tully, within many police because they're people too who are affected by the problems that motivate the occupation. and then there's the centrality of non-violence to the occupation on the one hand, professional requirements on the other and, cutting across that, the complexities introduced by the video and other images and the speed with which they circulate in a relatively unmediated manner. this on top of the conflict that shapes this whole interaction between police and protest, which the gillham piece linked above (the second one) is quite good in outlining in the opening paragraphs. the strategy of "strategic incapacitation"---which is of a piece with the militarization of this interactions---doesn't help in that it sets up a military-style confrontation between police, who are dressed to impress often, an protestors. things could get interesting if the ows folk start reaching out to police unions because that would be an avenue for expressions of the identity of concerns. i have read here and there indications that this is happening. what i dont know is the legal restrictions that might be placed on police unions in terms of participating in actions that they would otherwise have to police (ghosts of taft-hartley, which banned lots of actions outright among unions involved with sectors designated important for national security...)

btw gillham also includes a short history of this whole permitting business, when it was instituted (70s) and what it was supposed to do (encourage, if not force, a negociation over ground rules prior to the actual protest) which presupposes a top-down structure to protests that simply does not obtain for ows.

 

Or not do their job, as the case may be. We currently have a President in office who has shown an overabundance of willingness to work with the Congress - the HR with their Rep majority and the Senate with their obstructionist Rep minority, have shown none. Much of what has been achieved has been through painful concession on the part of the Democrats and Obama - policies Obama proposed and "believed in", so watered down in the end, they looked like Republican proposals.

Ron Paul will have to show the same willingness with not just one party, but both. Ron Paul, as a candidate is virtually unelectable and is unlikely to see any of his drastic proposals translated into reality, if he were to be elected. Your vote is yours, Eddie - I only hope that you are smart enough to realize that what Paul promises and what you, his supporters, will actually get out of the deal is a President who can't get any cooperation for his drastic agenda. Ron Paul knows that.
--- merged: Nov 20, 2011 10:22 PM ---
Back on topic

So how does this work? Are US Fed JD, FBI, and Homeland Security Depts lone actors when they advise mayors and governors that the best way to deal with OWS protesters is with an overwhelming display of force?

 

Out of the mouths of hypocrites.

 

Sooooo, what are you saying, Obama and Mrs. Clinton are at fault for some ignorant gung ho police officers? I would think the blame is on the LOCAL governments.

Huge differences between Egypt, Libya and so on as compared to here. The Middle eastern countries had truly tyrannical leadership that had STATE police/military in every city to beat down the protesters, we don't, nor should we.

Tell me what YOU propose Obama's administration does for those on the LOCAL levels WITHOUT using a national police force? Tell me what YOU would do as president.

It's easy to bitch and complain so long as you don't have to have answers that ALL people can live with and aren't in the position to come up with them.

 

The very LEAST he could do is speak out against it. The silence is deafening.

Edit: It appears he might be answering questions about it on CNN as I post this.

Edit: Might have missed it, but an interesting development from the Super Committee on the deficit - NO deal. Republicans on the committee refused any discussion that involved increasing revenues via rolling back Bush tax cuts.

 

Let me know, please.

He's a politician that wants to be reelected. I am not saying he is right but in all honesty, truth be told he'll go the way the wind blows. I do think he should speak out. But look at the past when he did get involved and did not know the situation with that cop and whomever in what, Massachusetts, I believe. (sorry the memory is foggy there, but I do remember he spoke out against the cop and did not have all the facts and it ended up blowing up in his face.)

 

You seem to have double posted most of your statement, was this purposeful or a simply oversight? If it's not what you intended I can help you fix it if you don't have the option to edit it. If it is what you meant to post it's not a problem, just a little confusing.

As far as-

Isn't that often the case? I see problems all the time yet have no actual idea what would solve them. But recognizing there is a problem is an important step in my opinion.