Support NeoGAF

[Mortrialus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded

Holy fucking shit.

 

[AniHawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded

Holy fucking shit.

that's pretty disgusting of those squatters to run back after police had made it clear they wanted that one guy lying in the middle of the street gone. next time they should use actual force to rid the streets of this vermin.

 

[luxarific]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded

Holy fucking shit.

For anyone who doesn't click through (and you really should), this clip shows a policeman throwing a flashbang grenade into a group of protesters who are attempting to help Scott Olsen*, who was hit in the head by a tear gas canister and who is now in the hospital with a fractured skull.

*who, coincidentally is a former Marine who served two tours in Iraq.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded

Holy fucking shit.

I'm usually a fan of police in general and try to give them the benefit of a doubt in fuzzy situations but come on, that was a straight up, undeniable dick move by the cop. Completely unecessary and spiteful.

 

[cooljeanius]

that's pretty disgusting of those squatters to run back after police had made it clear they wanted that one guy lying in the middle of the street gone. next time they should use actual force to rid the streets of this vermin.

AniHawk
Cranky. Very cranky.
Rather sarcastic to boot.
(Today, 08:33 PM)
Reply | Quote

 

[Suikoguy]

How nice that Foxnews is attempting to paint this movement as being orchestrated by evil group ACORN. and no, I won't link to them.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=player_embedded

Holy fucking shit.

Fucking hell, that's unforgivable right there. It was completely obvious that those people were moving in to help a wounded person.

"Ambulance? How about a flashbang instead, fuckers?"

 

[Mortrialus]

How nice that Foxnews is attempting to paint this movement as being orchestrated by evil group ACORN. and no, I won't link to them.

They've also been claiming that rapes have been occurring at Wall Street Protests by demonstrators. I have no clue about the validity of those claims, but they have been working overtime to demonize them every chance they get.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

How nice that Foxnews is attempting to paint this movement as being orchestrated by evil group ACORN. and no, I won't link to them.

Don't forget George Soros. He's pretty much the Darth Sidious of right wing paranoia.

 

[Atlagev]

I'm usually a fan of police in general and try to give them the benefit of a doubt in fuzzy situations but come on, that was a straight up, undeniable dick move by the cop. Completely unecessary and spiteful.

Me too. I'm very pro-police. And in the demonstrations I've attended, we've all been very respectful of the police. But that... I just don't know the policeman was thinking. I mean, in the end, police are human just like us, so he could have just not realized the situation completely and didn't think before acting.

I'll tell you what, though, I haven't been participating in the Occupy protests (even though I mostly agree with the cause), but that video makes me want to stand up and do so. It's unacceptable, and people should show their support.

 

[Hartt951]

I saw an article about the Iraq war vet getting injured on yahoo's home page. As terrible as it is, it seems like this event is going to bring a lot more attention to the cause. I hope Occupy Oakland comes back even stronger.

 

[ReBurn]

They've also been claiming that rapes have been occurring at Wall Street Protests by demonstrators. I have no clue about the validity of those claims, but they have been working overtime to demonize them every chance they get.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/accusations-of-teen-runaway-sexual-activity-at-occupy-dallas/

http://www.wtvm.com/story/15734592/activist-said-she-was-raped-at-occupy-event

Nothing conclusive, just investigating allegations so far.

 

[Dash27]

More and more Mayors are telling the protesters to go home now. Villaraigosa looks to be next following Atlanta and Oakland.

What exactly is the exit strategy here? Do the protesters think this will just go on indefinitely? And to what conclusion?

 

[Chichikov]

ESPN is not a government entity, and therefore can do whatever they want.

Yeah, that was a bit of a shit example; my hatred to Tom Brady got the best of me, fucking ugg boots wearing kiddie fidler.

So let me try to be a bit less cute and bit more to the point -
You and I don't have a right to be on TV, so how come a corporation, an artifical construct of our government has that right?
And moreover, there are many corporations that don't get to be on TV, I mean, the TV spectrum is a finite resource.
So those who happen to already have a channel get 1st amendment protection and those that haven't can go fuck themselves?
Do you see how silly that idea is?

And again, I'm personally not advocating any action here, and if I was the emperor of the US I would not shut down a single tv station.
I just don't accept that we the people have no right to do so if we want (and out of respect I don't go down the ad absurdum path, but I'm sure you can see where it will go).

What EV is suggesting is that there should be certain things corporations (tv stations) should not be able to say to push political agendas and if those regulations are violated, presumably they could be prosecuted.

I don't think that's what he's suggesting, but as I'm a crappy mind-reader, I would speak for myself -

I don't think that the government should be in the business of dictating what's go on tv, but do believe that the government have every right to regulate corporate behavior, and that corporations do not and should not have constitutional rights that supersede the will of the people.

 

[teh_pwn]

More and more Mayors are telling the protesters to go home now. Villaraigosa looks to be next following Atlanta and Oakland.

What exactly is the exit strategy here? Do the protesters think this will just go on indefinitely? And to what conclusion?

These kinds of protests have the goal of bringing attention and convincing the public to support their ideals in changing policy. Using force against them is playing into the tactic. It brings more attention, increases support.

 

[NullPointer]

For anyone who doesn't click through (and you really should), this clip shows a policeman throwing a flashbang grenade into a group of protesters who are attempting to help Scott Olsen*, who was hit in the head by a tear gas canister and who is now in the hospital with a fractured skull.

*who, coincidentally is a former Marine who served two tours in Iraq.

My God.

Abuse of power total. That is indefensible.

 

[marrec]

My God.

Abuse of power total. That is indefensible.

Isn't that specific action a war crime? They were obviously trying to help that dude.

 

[jamesinclair]

More and more Mayors are telling the protesters to go home now. Villaraigosa looks to be next following Atlanta and Oakland.

What exactly is the exit strategy here? Do the protesters think this will just go on indefinitely? And to what conclusion?

I dont see where in the constitution that it says the right to assemble and petition government is limited to a month and from the hours of 6am-10pm?

 

[Battersea Power Station]

More and more Mayors are telling the protesters to go home now.

I don't understand this attitude.

They're your constituents. If you didn't get into government (is there government anymore or just politics?) to make your constituents happy, give up your seat. There's no honor in public service anymore; no humility.

 

[Bloodbeard]

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19199894

OAKLAND -- A 24-year old Marine Corps corporal and Iraqi war veteran remained in critical condition at Highland Hospital on Wednesday night after friends said he was hit in the head with a police projectile in Tuesday's Occupy Oakland confrontation.
Scott Thomas Olsen, 24, of Onalaska, Wisc., was admitted to Highland after he was hit on the head above his right eye during clashes with police, said hospital spokesman Curt Olsen, who is not related to the veteran.
Olsen appears to be the first serious injury nationwide of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread to virtually every major American city -- and several smaller ones -- as millions of people continue to express their rage and disappointment
with the country's banking, regulatory and health care systems.
"It's absolutely unconscionable that our citizens are going overseas to protect other citizens just to come back and have our own police hurt them," said Joshua Shepherd, a six-year Navy veteran and friend of Scott Olsen's, who attended a vigil late Wednesday afternoon for the injured man.
Fellow protesters brought him in after he failed to respond to basic questions. Doctors at the hospital said that Olsen had brain swelling and placed him under immediate supervision.
"He survived two tours in Iraq," said Adele Carpenter, a friend of Olsen's and a member of the Civilian Soldier Alliance.

"This struggle has high stakes, I really respect the fact that Scott was standing up for what he believes in. He's really passionate about social justice causes."
Acting Chief Howard Jordan said the incident is under investigation by Internal Affairs, Office of Investigator General, Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the federal monitor that oversees Oakland police as a part of the settlement police corruption lawsuit. Oakland police will also review its training, policies and procedures.
Jordan called the incident "unfortunate," adding that he wished it did not happen.
"The goal is not to cause injury," he said.
He said Oakland police used bean bags and gas but do not use or have rubber bullets or wooden dowels. It is possible that other agencies did, he said. More than a dozen from across Northern California assisted Oakland police under what is called a mutual aid agreement. They are, however, required to comply with Oakland policies.

The Oakland Police Department has requested use of force reports from the outside agencies.
Olsen, a systems analyst at a San Francisco IT firm called OPSWAT, had camped out for several nights at San Francisco's occupation before moving to Oakland a few days ago.
Olsen was one of several hundred angry protesters who swarmed through Oakland's downtown well into the morning hours on Wednesday, repeatedly clashing with riot police. In some cases, protesters threw bottles and tipped over garbage containers. Oakland police said two of its officers were injured when a protester doused them with cans of blue and pink paint.

Protesters lambasted the police response as "heavy handed" and criticized the use of projectiles such as the one that struck Olsen.
"He was shot by the people who were supposed to protect him," said Keith Shannon, 24, Olsen's Daly City roommate and former Marine Corps colleague. "It shows what lengths the government will go to to suppress opposing points of view."
Olsen served two tours of duty in Iraq, once to the Iraqi-Syrian border city of Al Qaim from August 2006 to May 2007, and once to Haditha, in 2008. Both cities were hotbeds of al-Qaida and insurgent activity.

In 2010, the Marines issued Olsen an "administrative discharge." Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marines spokesman based in Quantico, Va., declined to discuss Olsen's discharge, but said his departure could have been for anything from a medical condition to a punitive measure.
Another young man, a 30-year-old Irish national named Seamus, lay writhing on the ground sobbing Wednesday afternoon clutching a grapefruit-sized bruise above his left hip. He said he and Olsen had been together when Olsen was shot. Seamus said his bruise was the result of a police projectile. Other protesters gathered around Seamus and showed off small rubber buckshot pellets they said police had fired at them.

Olsen's parents planned to fly to Oakland on Thursday to see their son. Highland Hospital administrators said Olsen remained in critical condition, with no change in his status since his admission Tuesday night. But friends and acquaintances said hospital officials told them Olsen had suffered a skull fracture and was at risk of brain damage.

 

[sangreal]

I dont see where in the constitution that it says the right to assemble and petition government is limited to a month and from the hours of 6am-10pm?

Well, the SCOTUS has upheld reasonable time and place restrictions but I'm willing to concede they may be wrong on that. My question would be whether a right to assemble includes a right to set up camp, party and sleep?

 

[Chichikov]

Well, the SCOTUS has upheld reasonable time and place restrictions but I'm willing to concede they may be wrong on that. My question would be whether a right to assemble includes a right to set up camp, party and sleep?

You know what?
Fuck lawyers.
They're the only people who would read the first amendment and somehow see the right for unlimited corporate donation there yet no protection to, you know, a peaceful assembly.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think that's what he's suggesting, but as I'm a crappy mind-reader, I would speak for myself -

I don't think that the government should be in the business of dictating what's go on tv, but do believe that the government have every right to regulate corporate behavior, and that corporations do not and should not have constitutional rights that supersede the will of the people.

You're pretty good at reading minds, you should take up as a night job.

This is basically right. The question of whether the government (i.e., the public) can dictate what goes on tv is a different question from whether the government (the public) can regulate corporate behavior. There is no physical law that requires that corporations control all television access and content. So the questions have no relation to each other. The bottom line is that it is never the case that a government (the public) cannot do anything it wants to any corporation at any time. Including kill it dead by voting to revoke its corporate charter. The government (through the power given it by the public) creates corporations through its own acts, and it has the power to destroy them through its own acts. It necessarily follows that it has all powers in between. There have been Supreme Court decisions that have turned this upside down, and held that the government (the public) lacks the power to regulate government-created corporations in certain ways. Those decisions are clearly wrong, and fundamentally incompatible with the concept of popular sovereignty, which is the belief that all power originates in the people.

All that said, we should keep in mind that the public does own the broadcast spectrum, so the idea that it can control its content should not be all that controversial.

You know what?
Fuck lawyers.
They're the only people who would read the first amendment and somehow see the right for unlimited corporate donation there yet no protection to, you know, peaceful assembly.

Hey, you read my mind again.

 

[sangreal]

I don't understand this attitude.

They're your constituents. If you didn't get into government (is there government anymore or just politics?) to make your constituents happy, give up your seat. There's no honor in public service anymore; no humility.

They are some constituents (assuming they are all even from the cities in question). So are the surrounding businesses, residents and other people that would like to use the occupied areas.

In NYC, OWS is literally protesting against a major part of the NYC economy

 

[Ether_Snake]

I hope the guy will be fine

Well, the SCOTUS has upheld reasonable time and place restrictions but I'm willing to concede they may be wrong on that. My question would be whether a right to assemble includes a right to set up camp, party and sleep?

Picture this: it's 1929, people are camping outside protesting over lack of jobs. The police fires gas canisters at them to disperse them.

Somehow, I think it would not have been remembered as just another protest break up. This shit would be have been straight out of a dystopian future novel.

But because we are in 2011, it's nothing.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

They are some constituents (assuming they are all even from the cities in question). So are the surrounding businesses, residents and other people that would like to use the occupied areas.

In NYC, OWS is literally protesting against a major part of the NYC economy

Right... so now all those businesses and residents are unhappy as well. So you better get to fixing it quick. Telling people to go home is not the answer, as it will cause even more uproar and problems for the people you represent.

If you're in government, and you're faced with a sizeable protest, I only see two paths:

1) Listen to those demands and give in to some and convince the protesters that others can't be done.

2) Fight the protests with rules and police, the logical extension of which finishes in martial law and you becoming a despot.

 

[jamesinclair]

Well, the SCOTUS has upheld reasonable time and place restrictions but I'm willing to concede they may be wrong on that. My question would be whether a right to assemble includes a right to set up camp, party and sleep?

I even agree to some REASONABLE restrictions.

Holding a protest on the runway of LAX? I can see why that could be moved elsewhere.

BUT having "free speech kiosks" at airports...? Thas BS.


And in this case, WTF is more public than a public park? I mean, the protestors already started by picking a place that wouldnt inconvenient people. They didnt set up tents in the middle of a busy avenue. They didnt set up tens in a busy BART station. They chose the most public but least essential of places.

You dont like the protest? Dont walk through the damn park.

Using teargas and helicopters because the park is "closed" after 11pm is 100% bs.

It really is straight out of the despot playbook. Bahrain, Yemen, Syria...same shit over there. Everything is ok, the police are responding because protesting is illegal. Follow the law protesters! Stop protesting!


Edit: Just saw the post above this and agree 100%

You REALLY want a protest to end? Fine, address their demands and they'll leave.

 

[sangreal]

How is a mayor supposed to address the "demands" of the protesters?

 

[Myansie]

Acting Chief Howard Jordan said the incident is under investigation by Internal Affairs, Office of Investigator General, Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the federal monitor that oversees Oakland police as a part of the settlement police corruption lawsuit. Oakland police will also review its training, policies and procedures.
Jordan called the incident "unfortunate," adding that he wished it did not happen.
"The goal is not to cause injury," he said.
He said Oakland police used bean bags and gas but do not use or have rubber bullets or wooden dowels. It is possible that other agencies did, he said. More than a dozen from across Northern California assisted Oakland police under what is called a mutual aid agreement. They are, however, required to comply with Oakland policies.

From this it sounds like any punitive action is going to be directed towards the riot police on the scene. Which will actually play to OWS. Somebody ordered riot police and their weapons to be used on the scene. You can't blame the riot police for doing what they're supposed do, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If one of the police on the ground are charged all of a sudden every single officer in America will realise that if something goes wrong on the ground, they are responsible. When the reality is the person making the orders is just as responsible, in this case they are more responsible. It's common knowledge tear gas and bean bags are dangerous and they've given them to people disguised in body armour. It doesn't take a sociologist or psychologist to know what that does.

It's the tipping point Chris Hedges was talking about, the police realising they are on the same side as the protesters.

 

[empty vessel]

More than a dozen [police agencies] from across Northern California assisted Oakland police under what is called a mutual aid agreement.

Jesus, how pathetic. Mutual aid! SOS! SOS! American citizens are approaching! Repeat, American citizens are approaching!

I guess these agencies jump at any chance they have to use some of that military hardware our legislatures and city councils needlessly give them.

 

[kame-sennin]

I understand the hesitancy, but I think that's borne of a concerted effort and struggle spanning decades to get people to view corporations as "collections of people." But they are not that. The corporation is a separate legal entity that is an extension of government power and that empowers the people in it. Because they are wielding power granted by the public through the corporate form, imposing restraints on its exercise is our prerogative. Corporations exist solely to serve the people--that's why we authorize our government to create them. If they are engaging in behavior that is detrimental to society--whatever that behavior is--it is our collective responsibility to fix it.

Shutting down Fox News* does not, for example, deprive Bill O'Reilly of his right to free speech. He remains as free as the rest of us to speak his mind as a citizen without interference. All we have done is take away his corporate platform, to which he has no entitlement and which is our prerogative as its creator and the ultimate source of its power.

* I am not proposing shutting down Fox News, I am just using it as an extreme example to show that it is not possible to violate a citizen's right to free speech by acting against a corporation.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't tread carefully. Even matters of grace should be dealt with in a fair way and as respectfully as possible to the individuals involved. But the public is the ultimate arbiter of what best serves society's interests, and the corporate form--which obtains its life and power from an act of our government--can never trump that.

Thanks for going in depth on this.

From this it sounds like any punitive action is going to be directed towards the riot police on the scene. Which will actually play to OWS. Somebody ordered riot police and their weapons to be used on the scene. You can't blame the riot police for doing what they're supposed do, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If one of the police on the ground are charged all of a sudden every single officer in America will realise that if something goes wrong on the ground, they are responsible. When the reality is the person making the orders is just as responsible, in this case they are more responsible. It's common knowledge tear gas and bean bags are dangerous and they've given them to people disguised in body armour. It doesn't take a sociologist or psychologist to know what that does.

It's the tipping point Chris Hedges was talking about, the police realising they are on the same side as the protesters.

"But what are these protests going to accomplish?"

 

[Captain Sparrow]

This is all a complete and udder joke. I can't even point a finger at anyone who is most the blame here. I don't know if this movement is displaying skewed balance of wealth, or the lack of education and civilized behavior. These idiot hippies aren't doing a damn to convince anyone anything, who has an ounce of common sense. Here's to further irngoring personal responsibility. Because that 100,000k student loan for your English degree was forced unto you by CEOs, right?

If we want to change anything, stop voting republicans. No I don't mean to say that all democrats are innocent, because there's lots of dirty money out there, and that's tempting to anyone (don't lie). The very ideals of the Republican party is to protect the interests of the wealthiest. Sometimes people forget that we do need to protect our economy, and not all legislation of this matter is bad. All in all though, the GOP does not care about the rest of society as much as protecting the elite. SO STOP ELECTING THEM, IDIOTS.

And for as much as that cop was a jackass for throwing that canister, I'll be that guy who says I don't feel bad in the slightest for the guy who got hurt. No one has the god-given right to attend a violent uprising. We see all the time where these things go. You want to live safely? Get out of the protest. Because when the shoe is on the other foot, and a protest turns into a riot, causing innocent bystanders to get hurt, where is the finger pointed? If anything, that injury should encourage people to think twice.

 

[Jaladinozozo]

This is all a complete and udder joke. I can't even point a finger at anyone who is most the blame here. I don't know if this movement is displaying skewed balance of wealth, or the lack of education and civilized behavior. These idiot hippies aren't doing a damn to convince anyone anything, who has an ounce of common sense. Here's to further irngoring personal responsibility. Because that 100,000k student loan for your English degree was forced unto you by CEOs, right?

If we want to change anything, stop voting republicans. No I don't mean to say that all democrats are innocent, because there's lots of dirty money out there, and that's tempting to anyone (don't lie). The very ideals of the Republican party is to protect the interests of the wealthiest. Sometimes people forget that we do need to protect our economy, and not all legislation of this matter is bad. All in all though, the GOP does not care about the rest of society as much as protecting the elite. SO STOP ELECTING THEM, IDIOTS.

And for as much as that cop was a jackass for throwing that canister, I'll be that guy who says I don't feel bad for the guy who got hurt. No one has the god-given right to attend a violent uprising. We see all the time where these things go. You want to live safely? Get out of the protest.

ahhh to be simple minded....its a gift

 

[thezerofire]

I am FUCKING ASHAMED of my state right now. Aiming for a dude's head with a beanbag gun? Already unacceptable. Throwing a fucking concussion grenade into a group of people helping him? Monsters. And not a single fucking one tried to help. Scumbags every one.

 

[NullPointer]

No one has the god-given right to attend a violent uprising.

We wouldn't have a country if this were true. We have a God given right to oppose tyranny and redress grievances, at the polling booth and in free assembly.

Not that I'm advocating violent uprising, but when its illegal for people to assemble in a public park shit is already out of hand.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

ahhh to be simple minded....its a gift

Go ask 5 separate protesters what they are protesting. Then you will see who is really simple-minded, and why nothing is this country will ever get fixed.

We are way more fluent with who to draft in our fantasy football, than what really goes on at Washington. We know nothing better than to point fingers at those who are successful.

 

[thezerofire]

Go ask 5 separate protesters what they are protesting. Then you will see who is really simple-minded, and why nothing is this country will ever get fixed.

We are way more fluent with who to draft in our fantasy football, than what really goes on at Washington. We know nothing better than to point fingers at those who are successful.

So because there isn't just one grievance they're simple minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be more than one thing wrong at a time?

 

[NullPointer]

Go ask 5 separate protesters what they are protesting. Then you will see who is really simple-minded, and why nothing is this country will ever get fixed.

Why don't you ask them yourself? You might learn something.

 

[remnant]

I understand the hesitancy, but I think that's borne of a concerted effort and struggle spanning decades to get people to view corporations as "collections of people." But they are not that. The corporation is a separate legal entity that is an extension of government power and that empowers the people in it. Because they are wielding power granted by the public through the corporate form, imposing restraints on its exercise is our prerogative. Corporations exist solely to serve the people--that's why we authorize our government to create them. If they are engaging in behavior that is detrimental to society--whatever that behavior is--it is our collective responsibility to fix it.

Corporations are not public institutions. They are private institutions, and the government does not have the ability to eliminate and recreate the contract.

 

[Something Wicked]

ahhh to be simple minded....its a gift

Says the guy, whom apparently doesn't understand the concept of "contractions."

 

[Deku]

Corporations are not public institutions. They are private institutions, and the government does not have the ability to eliminate and recreate the contract.

Not really sure what he was getting at other than a rationalization for a Chavez type lefty despot to close down media he doesn't like by vilifying it as an evil corporation with no rights, while professing to be not in favour of abridging any individual's right to speech.

It's a double game and a position riddled with so many contradictions that perhaps it can only be birthed in a very particular kind of mind.

 

[Chuck (Old)]

This is all a complete and udder joke.

 

[empty vessel]

Corporations are not public institutions. They are private institutions, and the government does not have the ability to eliminate and recreate the contract.

No, corporations are created by the government. They are extensions of government power. This isn't me talking, it's US legal history. That state governments allow citizens to profit from them doesn't transform their nature. The corporate form exists to achieve public ends. If it doesn't achieve public ends, we can get rid of it. Note that I am not advocating anything. I am merely describing reality under a society based on popular sovereignty.

Not really sure what he was getting at other than a rationalization for a Chavez type lefty despot to close down media he doesn't like by vilifying it as an evil corporation with no rights, while professing to be not in favour of abridging any individual's right to speech.

It's a double game and a position riddled with so many contradictions that perhaps it can only be birthed in a very particular kind of mind.

Blah, blah, blah CHAVEZ! Nice argument. Get back to me when you've studied some American legal history and have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

We are the 99%.. that have no clear-cut goal a month later. We expect change, but you guys figure out the details.

 

[Deku]

Blah, blah, blah CHAVEZ! Nice argument. Get back to me when you've studied some American legal history and have a clue what you're talking about.

OK. Where do I start?

And honest question. How does it compute that you can say that it's ok to shut down a media outlet that you don't like/agree with/looked at you funny etc. but you're really not against speech. That's just mindblowing in the amount of contradictions that is found inside of that post you made earlier.

I'm just trying to make sense of it.

 

[Myansie]

We are the 99%.. that have no clear-cut goal a month later. We expect change, but you guys figure out the details.

That's the idea. Start reading and tell us what you really think.

My suggestion is to start with Matt Taibbi from RollingStone.

 

[maharg]

OK. Where do I start?

And honest question. How does it compute that you can say that it's ok to shut down a media outlet that you don't like/agree with/looked at you funny etc. but you're really not against speech. That's just mindblowing in the amount of contradictions that is found inside of that post you made earlier.

I'm just trying to make sense of it.

You're conflating two arguments here.

His contention is that corporations are a legal entity created by government fiat, and that this gives the government (and the people) the right to regulate them in general. I think this is a pretty unarguable point. Corporations are granted privileges in exchange for their contribution to society, and society has a right to alter or adjust those privileges.

Corporate personhood is a relatively newer concept than that of either the legal existence of corporations or freedom of speech/assembly/press. Whether it includes carte blanche freedom of speech is, I think, a valid matter of contention. Where the line ends between an individual as a member of a corporation and the corporation's speech is something that I'm not sure has been entirely resolved as a legal question. But IANAL, I just like this stuff.

If you want to argue with him, I think arguing on the front of freedom of the press is probably much more productive. Fox news claims to be press, so that's their premise for being able to say whatever the hell they want.

 

[cooljeanius]

I'm surprised the movement isn't claiming the recent indictment of a Goldman executive as a victory: http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...a-indicted-in-probe-of-rajaratnam-trades.html
No one in the movement is even talking about it...

 

[Axion22]

These are two excellent pieces from my local CBS affiliate.

Businesswoman goes off on Occupy San Diego protesters

Dog encouraged to destroy flag at Occupy San Diego

 

[Buddha Beam]

These are two excellent pieces from my local CBS affiliate.

Businesswoman goes off on Occupy San Diego protesters

God, the comments section. So much stupid.