GOP hypocrisy ?

[cstamford]

They guy with the bullhorn does kind of freak out at the end there... almost like he was loosing control... of a crowd that is working by consensus... Funny.

Those folks are learning some lessons no doubt. Lessons about how good intentions, idealism and practicality collide.

Idealism?? You've got to be kidding. I think this kid is pretty typical of the non-socialist, non-communist people in the crowd. What he's expressing is definitely NOT idealism.

In fact, if you can scare up a video of anyone taking part in the OWS protest who is spouting an idealism that isn't heavily infected by Marxist ideology, I'd love to see it.

At least they go off their asses and decided to do something.

What are they doing, Sig? I mean, besides trampling all over the rights of the business owners in the area? You think they're influencing a single congressman's vote? Are they going to run candidates for the Senate in 2012? Put Obama into a second term? Raise taxes? Abolish capitalism? What?

Sooner or later they will come to understand that you just can't do everything democratically, its inefficient and consensus is not something you can always achieve, nor should you.

You mean eventually they'll grow up? Maybe. Although I saw quite a few gray heads in the crowd; more than I expected.

[Spartacus]

As someone who earned his college education by serving in the Army, and having jobs while I went to school, and graduated with no student loan debt:

As someone whose daughter worked and studied hard at school, and earned academic scholarships and grants, and saved her own money to pay for her college education:

These "pay my tuition", "college should be free" brats just come across as being lazy, selfish, ignorant, spoiled brats -- the products of a nanny society; educated in a public school and university system dominated by hippie and Liberal ideas, and in many cases the actual hippies and liberals themselves, from the 60's.

Consider this:

Suppose we instituted a national program. In this program if you worked for two years doing something for the country like: be a teacher's aid in an under-performing school, did menial work in VA hospitals and in the homes of elderly and disabled veterans and their needy survivors; augmented the Border Patrol; did menial labor following natural disasters; helped care for elderly people so they could stay in their homes and out of nursing homes (relieving some financial strain on Medicare) -- or similar things, in exchange for a small stipend and the guarantee of tuition paid at any state college or university...

Suppose we had such a program. Does anyone think these same people won't be complaining that they have to actually work for this? My 16 yr old son is of the opinion that his generation being fed a diet of "self esteem" in the public schools their whole lives is largely to blame for the general lack of work ethic, and sense of entitlement in his own generation. I tend to think he's probably right.

I strongly suspect, that the college students who have actually worked to pay for their college costs, are not the ones attending these protests today. Undoubtedly, they're much more likely to be attending the classes they worked to pay for..

[eye4magic]

These "pay my tuition", "college should be free" brats just come across as being lazy, selfish, ignorant, spoiled brats -- the products of a nanny society; educated in a public school and university system dominated by hippie and Liberal ideas, and in many cases the actual hippies and liberals themselves, from the 60's.

In principle I agree. However, regarding education and college tuitions, were're getting very close to the point where a decent education at a decent college is almost becoming impossible for those without money but with the academics. Some thing has to give and loosen up. And in that the rise of college tuitions is all part of the inflation problem which is part of a bigger problem, it's unfortunate that young adults are caught in the cross hairs of irresponsible financial and social policies.

They'll get through it, though. I think most young adults today are quite willing to work and be responsible (not all but most). They just need the opportunity to work in the form of a job. And in that some of them are quite creative and have chosen to create their own opportunitities, most do depend on the free enterprise system working. And it does work very well when allowed to work naturally with checks and balances on the larger corps.

I was somewhat surprised earlier this year when a close friend of ours applied at a local Starbucks for one opening. They had received over 100 applications with several of the applicants having a bachelor's decree and some with Ph.Ds. So, yea, something has to give and small business with their innovation must get back in gear and start creating jobs.

[cstamford]

In principle I agree. However, regarding education and college tuitions, were're getting very close to the point where a decent education at a decent college is almost becoming impossible for those without money but with the academics. Some thing has to give and loosen up. And in that the rise of college tuitions is all part of the inflation problem which is part of a bigger problem, it's unfortunate that young adults are caught in the cross hairs of irresponsible financial and social policies.

Unfortunate, yes, but also ironic, since it can be reasonably argued a great deal of the anti-capitalist, big government program mentality that is crushing the economy right now finds it roots in the ivy-covered halls of our great universities and colleges. As I recall from memory, there was a study done to find the ratio between conservative and liberal professors at the college level, and the ratio ran about 1:10 respectively. Having nearly destroyed the capitalism that has funded college tuition for 200 years, our stalwart champions of Marxism in academia are now teaching our youth they have a right to a college degree, and the government (as if "the government" were somehow not them!) should pay for it.

They'll get through it, though. I think most young adults today are quite willing to work and be responsible (not all but most). They just need the opportunity to work in the form of a job. And in that some of them are quite creative and have chosen to create their own opportunitities, most do depend on the free enterprise system working. And it does work very well when allowed to work naturally with checks and balances on the larger corps.

The problem is "most" isn't enough. We already see that a 3:1 ratio of those paying into social security is not sustainable, and social security was never designed, nor could it ever provide fully for anyone too old to work. How many would it take working to fully support those who don't if we throw in healthcare? We rapidly get to the point where too much is being taken from those who work for them to have any real incentive to keep working at that pace, and too much is being given to those who don't work to ever incentivize them to start supporting themselves and everyone else who, like they used to be, isn't working.

What we're seeing is a demand for a return to the welfare state before the Clinton era reforms. And not just a return to it, but an increase; a sort of reparations for having curtailed it in the first place; a demand that we bring it up to the level it would have evolved to gradually had it not been reformed and reduced.

I was somewhat surprised earlier this year when a close friend of ours applied at a local Starbucks for one opening. They had received over 100 applications with several of the applicants having a bachelor's decree and some with Ph.Ds. So, yea, something has to give and small business with their innovation must get back in gear and start creating jobs.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. It tends to distort more than illustrate.


I see no reason why college grads should be singled out for extra consideration in the current recession. And I certainly see no reason why we should be considering making it easier to go to college. If the above isn't incentive enough with all the student loan programs there are, historically guaranteed lower unemployment rates, higher lifetime incomes, societal perks, then I don't think society will gain from having individuals in this category who've had their entrance to it handed to them on a sivler platter.

A college degree was never just supposed to be about knowing more stuff. It has traditionally served as a gateway; a proving ground for character, with the understanding that those who came out of this gateway were not only educated above the norm, but better prepared for life; to be leaders in society. We can't get leaders if they're never tested by hardships in achieving their educational goals, to include figuring out how to pay for it.

If it isn't difficult financially to get a college degree, if undergraduates are insulated from the financial realities of life in some sort of economic coccoon, society only gets half of what it needs from its college grads. It would be better to have half as many graduates who have had to fight and scrap for their degrees (classes during the day, and jobs at night, or vise versa), who have been challenged to near their limits on every level, and won the prize, so that society gets twice as many real leaders in industry and government, people who with the great responsibilities they will eventually shoulder, will also remember the struggles (in short, who are grown-ups), than to hand out college educations like free pizzas, and get three times as many college grads, but two-thirds of them smarter, but still spoiled children.

This would just be yet another in an infinite line of governmental intrusions into society costing the taxpayer more than the result is worth; all sold under the false banner of sympathy for our fellow man.

That said, I'm sorry your friend can't find a job at the moment. I know how it feels.

[eye4magic]

Unfortunate, yes, but also ironic, since it can be reasonably argued a great deal of the anti-capitalist, big government program mentality that is crushing the economy right now finds it roots in the ivy-covered halls of our great universities and colleges. As recall from memory, there was a study done to find the ratio between conservative and liberal professors at the college level, and the ratio ran about 1:10 respectively. Having nearly destroyed the capitalism that has funded college tuition for 200 years, our stalwart champions of Marxism in academia are now teaching our youth they have a right to a college degree, and the government (as if "the government" were somehow not them!) should pay for it.

Right, and here's the result of one study in video format.

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students

It all began with The New Deal when the fundamental philosophy of the role of government changed.

The problem is "most" isn't enough. We already see that a 3:1 ratio of those paying into social security is not sustainable,

I don't think most young adults and those in their 30's believe SS will be there when they're older.

and social security was never designed, nor could it ever provide fully for anyone too old to work. How many would it take working to fully support those who don't if we throw in healthcare? We rapidly get to the point where too much is being taken from those who work for them to have any real incentive to keep working at that pace, and too much is being given to those who don't work to ever incentivize them to start supporting themselves and everyone else who, like they used to be, isn't working.

No argument there. Americans now have to be brave enough to choose how we want to live. It's a simple question, hopefully we won't dodge it, otherwise it will be decided for us. It's an important election, that's coming up.

I see no reason why college grads should be singled out for extra consideration in the current recession.

I didn't say they should be singled out.

[cstamford]

Right, and here's the result of one study in video format.

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students

It all began with The New Deal when the fundamental philosophy of the role of government changed.

I agree.

I don't think most young adults and those in their 30's believe SS will be there when they're older.

But assuming you're correct in this, all it is is testimony to the demagoguery and fear mongering of the Left. There is no reason in the world why SS can't be reformed so that it is indefinitely sustainable...assuming it's a good idea to indefinitely sustain it, that is. I'm not sure it is such a good idea. It was begun as part of the New Deal, right? What did the Depression have to do with retirees that the present SS system doesn't now? The Depression wiped out people's retirement savings. The Government established SS. The Government wiped out people's SS savings. I fail to see the big difference except that in the first case people were free, and in the second they are not.

No argument there. Americans now have to be brave enough to choose how we want to live. It's a simple question, hopefully we won't dodge it, otherwise it will be decided for us. It's an important election, that's coming up.

Americans were once brave enough to take on the world's super power, rather than have that government rule over them. They were willing to fight and die, to lose all, for the chance to be free as individuals to be rich or poor depending entirely on their own ambition, skill, and luck, and to make up for bad luck or a poor skill set with Christian charity where needed.

Today all Americans need to do is pry their lips from the government tit, and put on their big boy pants. We need to learn that freedom doesn't come with a personal guarantee of success, and personal guarantees of success don't come with freedoms intact. If what you want in life is a guaranteed result, you have to trade your personal freedom to get it. And if what you want in life is to be individually free, you have to trade away any guaranteed personal success to get it.

In short, to be free you have to be willing not only to risk failure, but to actually fail. We have to be a country of people who desire personal freedom more than personal success. This is why every truly free society will always have within it the poor, and why (more correctly, one of the reasons why) charity is so important to any free society.

I didn't say they should be singled out.

I thought your anecdote was intended to demonstrate how awful college grads have it in the present recession. If that wasn't the case, then my error.

[eye4magic]

But assuming you're correct in this, all it is is testimony to the demagoguery and fear mongering of the Left. There is no reason in the world why SS can't be reformed so that it is indefinitely sustainable...assuming it's a good idea to indefinitely sustain it, that is.

I'm not claiming that this is not possible. However, what I do feel somewhat strongly about is people, ideally educated, in their 20s/30's should definitely be part of the process in deciding if this is what they want and even if it's viable given today's dynamics. Educated people in their 30's today do not think like people in their 50's or 70's. It's a different generation and in many ways they probably have new and better ideas on how to tackle and even view old problems.

We need to learn that freedom doesn't come with a personal guarantee of success, and personal guarantees of success don't come with freedoms intact.

Right, but success or freedom have no platform whatsoever without 'opportunity'. America IS the land of opportunity and hopefully it will stay that way. It's the fundamental engine that drives the probable to become the possible. Without opportunity freedom and success is just a wonderful idea waiting to be born and objectified. So, when opportunity is attacked and removed from so many in the land of opportunity, it does affect the whole (everyone) in one way or another.

Now, the beauty of America is that we still have the freedom to create our own opportunity when community/society chooses not to provide it via unsound policies. However, that's a harder path and not many people are inclined to create their own opportunity within our legal system. But some, a few people do, like the Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world.

But I agree with your in principle: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

I thought your anecdote was intended to demonstrate how awful college grads have it in the present recession. If that wasn't the case, then my error.

Not so much awful, but that opportunity is being removed from many people's life's story board (even older people). And, yes, some will move on and create a new story board and some will merge into the status quo.

[cstamford]

I'm not claiming that this is not possible. However, what I do feel somewhat strongly about is people, ideally educated, in their 20s/30's should definitely be part of the process in deciding if this is what they want and even if it's viable given today's dynamics. Educated people in their 30's today do not think like people in their 50's or 70's. It's a different generation and in many ways they probably have new and better ideas on how to tackle and even view old problems.

Exactly why I leave open the option of curtailing SS altogether. Along with Medicare, Medicaid, social services of all kinds, transportation, and on and on. There isn't a single one of these things Americans can't do for themselves within the private sector, and do them for about half what it costs when government does them.

Right, but success or freedom have no platform whatsoever without 'opportunity'.

I have no idea what you're referring to as the "platform" for success and freedom, or how this platform is inherently dependent upon "opportunity". As I understand freedom, the only platform upon which it rests is human nature, which inherently comes with free will. Success has no "platform" of which I'm aware, and neither does "opportunity".

Because free will is an essential part of human nature, being free to exercise it is part of being human. Success and opportunity for success are not essential parts of what it means to be human.

America IS the land of opportunity and hopefully it will stay that way. It's the fundamental engine that drives the probable to become the possible. Without opportunity freedom and success is just a wonderful idea waiting to be born and objectified. So, when opportunity is attacked and removed from so many in the land of opportunity, it does affect the whole (everyone) in one way or another.

Granted less opportunity affects all in their ability and hopes for success, but as I see it, to the extent human beings have anything to do with opportunity and success, it is the exercise of their collective free wills that ground both. The only time opportunity provides freedom for human beings is when Nature, not human beings provide the opportunities. Example: I'm a human being with free will. That means I can choose to dig for gold or sit on my butt. My opportunity for success as a gold miner depends a great deal on whether Nature has provided any gold in my locale. But to the extent my opportunity for success as a gold miner depends on me, it depends on me being free to exercise my free will to choose what I will do and what I won't do.

Nature limits opportunity for success and failure, and to the extent is does, the exercise of free will. That fact aside, all opportunity for success and failure depend entirely on the exercise of the human attribute of free will, of being free to choose what one will do, and free to experience the consequences of one's own actions.

Now, the beauty of America is that we still have the freedom to create our own opportunity when community/society chooses not to provide it via unsound policies. However, that's a harder path and not many people are inclined to create their own opportunity within our legal system. But some, a few people do, like the Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world.

Being human is a hard path. We let children think otherwise so they won't become discouraged when they are still so impressionable. But when they grow up, they are supposed to put away childish things and start to make their way in the world as it is. We seem to be raising more and more kids who never grow up.

But I agree with your in principle: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

Well, since that's not my principle at all, you're not agreeing with me. My principle is that freedom is an essential part of human nature; that to be less free is to be less human. Success, failure, opportunity, all these things are contingent upon freedom, rather than freedom being contingent upon them.

That clarification aside, I agree that in a world where, after Nature's caprices, the biggest limitation on your freedom is mine, there is an inherent tension in that situation between you and I that without Charity to govern it, will always result in the weaker between us being less free, and thus to the extent that being free means being human, less human than the stronger.

Wasn't it the Stones who sang, "I'll never be your beast of burden"? Of course there they had in mind a one-sided love affair, but the dynamic is the same in pretty much all human interaction ungoverned by unconditional love.

Not so much awful, but that opportunity is being removed from many people's life's story board (even older people).

Again, I don't know what that means. How can we possibly say things like this? Neither of us knows the future, or whether a lost job today, followed by two years of unemployment isn't the best thing that could possibly have happened in a person's life. Maybe that person would be dead, and their family destitute 20 years from now had there been no recession and they'd kept their job.

I'm retired now, but if I were to lose my retirement funds and had to go back to work, I certainly wouldn't have lost my "opportunities" in life. In fact, for all either of us can say, I may have gained some if that were to happen.

Is it a bad thing when people lose material things? When they become upset and stressed and fearful of the future? Sure it is, but does that necessarily mean that they've lost any opportunities? No. When you're dead you've lost your opportunities in this world.

Look, the point about "opportunities" we have to remember at all times is this: no one who isn't omniscient (and some philosophers argue not even Omniscience!) is in any epistemological position to know the number of "opportunities" one has. Opportunity is a concept intrinsically tied to the future, and human beings, despite their occasional lapses into a silly arrogance that leads them to temporarily think otherwise, simply lack any epistemological capacity to know the future.

[Scarlett44]

The OWS crowd are all un-American.Many of them are just lawless scum.

Really?

How about Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen who was participating in Occupy Oakland when he was injured by police..??
He was a marine who did 2 tours of duty in Iraq.....How is he un-American??

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights...police-attacks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ott-Olsen.html

[Spartacus]

Really?

How about Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen who was participating in Occupy Oakland when he was injured by police..??
He was a marine who did 2 tours of duty in Iraq.....How is he un-American??

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights...police-attacks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ott-Olsen.html

Given :

How in Chicago and other cities it has been documented protesters determine in advance whom in their numbers get arrested I wouldn't put it past them to intentionally injur a particularly sympathetic member under a pre planned pretext. These events are all largely staged as political theatre.

The Oakland protesters were given a lawful order to disperse after they had been in the park hours after closing time and given numerous warnings.

It is un-American to willfully ignore a lawful police order...especially when the issue is purely politics...Americans have the right to protest and demonstrate peacefully...not set up tent cities and "occupy".

[Scarlett44]

Given :
How in Chicago and other cities it has been documented protesters determine in advance whom in their numbers get arrested I wouldn't put it past them to intentionally injur a particularly sympathetic member under a pre planned pretext. These events are all largely staged as political theatre.

Please provide support for this.

[Spartacus]

Please provide support for this.

No Problem.

Note how the bleeting like Animal Farm sheep seems to be a signature thing – it’s not limited to the communists in Atlanta.









Throwing bottles, rocks and paint cans at police officers is not peaceable demonstrating. Wearing masks to cover your identity during a protest does not give it the appearance of being peaceful or lawful. In fact wearing masks during a demonstration is against the law in many places -- for obvious reasons.

Vets are very accustomed to tear gas. To this day, I can breathe it, eat in a cloud of it etc...it's used all the time in training. Many get used to it. It won't kill you. What are the chances the radicals put vets up by the gas? Or what are the chances some young guys filled with machismo and possibly some other substances tried to take on the police in a fight?

The video right below this shows Scott Olsen getting injured. Notice how you hear the lawful order to disperse. Warnings are given. It is after midnight. It is an unlawful assembly. Notice at around 0:20. See how rioters are throwing objects at police including some CS canisters. Throwing an object at a police officer is assault. Olsen went down amongst a group of young men who are brazenly throwing objects at police, after having been ordered to dsiperse, after having been warned.






12 minutes of rough edit coverage above. I used to be a qualified instructor in civil disturbance training. I have trained hundreds of police officers as well as soldiers. The officers in the rough video are showing a lot of discipline and professionalism. They are in fact using tactics that are frankly, rather soft. There is no foot stomping or hitting of batons on shields. The officers in the second line are not armed with shotguns, or other less lethal and lethal devices. No firetrucks are being used to knock down the front lines of the rioters with their water canon. Arrestees are being treated very softly.

The idiot behind the camera in the video below -- makes the police look great. He admits they are camped out where they're not supposed to be. He says the police are giving them orders and warnings....Between the almost 20 minutes of video above and below, it is obvious the "protesters" are spoiling for a fight. They are not peacefully demonstrating. They wanted a confrontation with the police and have attempted to make the most of it by positing hundreds of videos online. The vast majority edited down to one or two minutes and showing only the most dramatic of scenes. Yes, flash bangs look and sound scary. They're supposed to. Take it from someone who had one go off at his feet once -- they don't kill you.





Scarlett - your reaction is exactly what the professional rabble rousers want. Always remember that everything the OWS folks do is planned and much of it is staged. Just because someone was once a Marine and has served his country -- does not give him free reign to do whatever he wants.

After reviewing a lot of the Oakland footage -- if anyone got hit with a CS can, it is highly probable -- LIKELY -- they were breaking the law, had been given a number of warnings, and wanted to be where they were doing what they were doing. The anarchists wanted the police to use force. They were ready to film it. The cops did not give them what they had hoped for. They were, at least in the videos I watched, very professional, disciplined and exemplary in their actions .



This last video clearly shows what this mob is all about -- taking over the streets and challenging the police to a fight. It is not First Amendment behavior. It is a mob action.

[Sigfried]

Spart, I think to some extent you are missing the forest for the trees. The protesters are out there, partly complaining about the law and they are willingly violating said same law they thing is unjust. They do indeed seek confrontation, daring the authorities to enforce the laws that they feel are unjust and are there to protect the rich and oppress the poor.

For them, the fact they are breaking the law is partly the point of the protest. They want to show the brutality that the law enables, the force of the state used to protect the corporate interests. So when they are complaining, its not that they feel the cops are breaking the law, its that they feel the laws themselves are unjust.

I'm not saying I am in solidarity with them, but the way you constructed your post seemed like you were trying to show hypocracy on their part, but it felt to me like it kind of missed the basic assumption of what civil disobedience is about.

Anyhow, I know there are those who say they are totally peaceful and abiding by the law etc... but I think those folks too kind of miss the point to some extent.

This stuff is a symptom of a society that has deep stratification in wealth and power. The deeper we go in that direction, the more of this will manifest. I'm not out there since I'm one of the haves rather than the have nots, but I recognize that if I were in that position, and I have been close to it in the past, I might also be tempted to rise up and advocate for change in that way to demonstrate to those on the sidelines that there is a serious problem afoot that goes beyond just having a higher than usual unemployment rate.

[Spartacus]

Spart, I think to some extent you are missing the forest for the trees. The protesters are out there, partly complaining about the law and they are willingly violating said same law they thing is unjust. They do indeed seek confrontation, daring the authorities to enforce the laws that they feel are unjust and are there to protect the rich and oppress the poor.

For them, the fact they are breaking the law is partly the point of the protest. They want to show the brutality that the law enables, the force of the state used to protect the corporate interests. So when they are complaining, its not that they feel the cops are breaking the law, its that they feel the laws themselves are unjust.

I'm not saying I am in solidarity with them, but the way you constructed your post seemed like you were trying to show hypocracy on their part, but it felt to me like it kind of missed the basic assumption of what civil disobedience is about.

Anyhow, I know there are those who say they are totally peaceful and abiding by the law etc... but I think those folks too kind of miss the point to some extent.

This stuff is a symptom of a society that has deep stratification in wealth and power. The deeper we go in that direction, the more of this will manifest. I'm not out there since I'm one of the haves rather than the have nots, but I recognize that if I were in that position, and I have been close to it in the past, I might also be tempted to rise up and advocate for change in that way to demonstrate to those on the sidelines that there is a serious problem afoot that goes beyond just having a higher than usual unemployment rate.

This ain't sitting at the counter at Woolworth's.

What they are doing is no different than having a motorcycle gang roll into town and "taking over".

The cops are justified and in my formerly professional opinion, acting well within the law and doing a fine job . What law are the anarchists protesting against -- laws against mob action, disorderly conduct?

Why are there such actions? Because professional bottle throwers and "community organizers" are organizing people and inciting mob actions. They are doing this because they want videos like we see above. Protesting peacefully, obeying laws and organizing politically -- like the Tea Party has done -- doesn't get them enough press coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...IZMM_blog.html

The Richmond Tea Party is lashing out at Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones for what it sees as the city’s preferential treatment of the Occupy Richmond protesters encamped at Kanawha Plaza.

The tea party group is sending Jones an invoice for the charges incurred for the Tax Day rallies it has held at the plaza the past three years, arguing that the Occupy Wall Street offshoot group squatting there has been using the park illegally and free of charge since Oct. 15.

“The tea party keeps being compared to the occupiers. Well, in the way we’re treated, there’s no comparison. It’s like a slap in the face,” said Richmond Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens.

Owens said her group has shelled out about $10,000 for the three rallies held there, including a rental fee for use of the park, various permits and other expenses. She added that the rallies were scheduled with the city months in advance and that the group held fundraisers to cover the required costs, which included police presence and portable toilets.

The Tea Party obeys the law. Hires and pays for extra police. Rents portable toilets. Cleans up after itself.

The Occupy Crowd are not serious about affecting any real change. They want attention. They break the law.

[cstamford]

This ain't sitting at the counter at Woolworth's.

What they are doing is no different than having a motorcycle gang roll into town and "taking over".

The cops are justified and in my formerly professional opinion, acting well within the law and doing a fine job . What law are the anarchists protesting against -- laws against mob action, disorderly conduct?

Why are there such actions? Because professional bottle throwers and "community organizers" are organizing people and inciting mob actions. They are doing this because they want videos like we see above. Protesting peacefully, obeying laws and organizing politically -- like the Tea Party has done -- doesn't get them enough press coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...IZMM_blog.html

The Richmond Tea Party is lashing out at Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones for what it sees as the city’s preferential treatment of the Occupy Richmond protesters encamped at Kanawha Plaza.

The tea party group is sending Jones an invoice for the charges incurred for the Tax Day rallies it has held at the plaza the past three years, arguing that the Occupy Wall Street offshoot group squatting there has been using the park illegally and free of charge since Oct. 15.

“The tea party keeps being compared to the occupiers. Well, in the way we’re treated, there’s no comparison. It’s like a slap in the face,” said Richmond Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens.

Owens said her group has shelled out about $10,000 for the three rallies held there, including a rental fee for use of the park, various permits and other expenses. She added that the rallies were scheduled with the city months in advance and that the group held fundraisers to cover the required costs, which included police presence and portable toilets.

The Tea Party obeys the law. Hires and pays for extra police. Rents portable toilets. Cleans up after itself.

The Occupy Crowd are not serious about affecting any real change. They want attention. They break the law.

Great rebuttal to a very weak argument. If it could be improved upon at all, I would suggest having hit the philosophical difference between them even harder than you did. After all, protesting for a better opportunity to earn stuff you want by the sweat of your own brow, and protesting to be given stuff you need, while you bang on your drum all day, are two radically different political aims.

[Sigfried]

Again, y'all seem to confuse me with someone who is sympathetic to the OWS folks. I'm not, but I do think I have a better understanding of them on some level and I'm just trying to point those bits out.

I get that the tea party folks work far more within the system, and honestly they far more support the system. OWS is not for orderly conduct and abeyance of civil order or paying appropriate fees and such. They are for more government cheese and less corporate power.

I already went on record saying here that the comparison between OWS and Tea party is only in that they are political movements for change. The character and methodologies are clearly very different.

[Spartacus]

Again, y'all seem to confuse me with someone who is sympathetic to the OWS folks. I'm not, but I do think I have a better understanding of them on some level and I'm just trying to point those bits out.

I get that the tea party folks work far more within the system, and honestly they far more support the system. OWS is not for orderly conduct and abeyance of civil order or paying appropriate fees and such. They are for more government cheese and less corporate power.

I already went on record saying here that the comparison between OWS and Tea party is only in that they are political movements for change. The character and methodologies are clearly very different.

OWS is a nascent movement initiated by the community organizer in chief, lead by his allies in the socialist / communist parties manipulating disaffected useful idiots. The purpose is to distract the electorate from the abysmal performance of the president and to avoid the president accepting real responsibility for hurting the u.s. economy.

[Scarlett44]

Always remember that everything the OWS folks do is planned and much of it is staged.

Support please....

Just because someone was once a Marine and has served his country -- does not give him free reign to do whatever he wants.

True enough--but here is another video that shows Scott Olsen moments before he was hit....Olsen appears on the right at about 3:30 in the video below.
It appears to me as if he just standing there.

Occupy Oakland Tuesday October 25 from Raleigh Latham on Vimeo.

Also, you still have not supported the following:

How in Chicago and other cities it has been documented protesters determine in advance whom in their numbers get arrested I wouldn't put it past them to intentionally injur a particularly sympathetic member under a pre planned pretext. These events are all largely staged as political theatre.

If it has truly been "documented" (my emphasis above), you should be able to support this..... Please support or retract.

[Sigfried]

OWS is a nascent movement initiated by the community organizer in chief, lead by his allies in the socialist / communist parties manipulating disaffected useful idiots.

I'd challenge you to prove that but I don't really care. Obama neither organized it nor promotes it nor is he ideologically aligned with the movement. It was in fact started by a magazine called Adbusters. http://www.adbusters.org/

The purpose is to distract the electorate from the abysmal performance of the president and to avoid the president accepting real responsibility for hurting the u.s. economy.

The purpose was to change american politics by advocating for a reduction of corporate influence in law and society.

[Spartacus]

Scarlett...look at my videos. Chicago teachers on video deciding who gets arrested.