Support NeoGAF

[Jak140]

So that wasn't illegal?


Than how is it fraud if the underlying activity is legal? I'm trying to understand that if you could repacking shit as gold and sell them as if they were gold, then how is fraud involved? I totally get why Part 1 seems like fraud, but how could enforcement had down anything if the activity was legal? Didn't the lying about people's income make Part 1 illegal?

Knowingly selling securities you know are bad as good is fraud which insititutions like Goldman engaged in. The act of repackaging them as AAA was legal so long as it was an error of judgment. Lying about people's incomes was illegal, but lending standards were also too lax apart from that.

Called out on what? Shouldn't you be thrilled that I'm discussing a substantive topic, or at least trying to, with you?

On your hypoocrisy? Don't be coy.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Knowingly selling securities you know are bad as good is fraud which insititutions like Goldman engaged in.

I take it that their was ample evidence to show it was knowingly and not just by one part, but by the whole, correct?

The act of repackaging them as AAA was legal so long as it was an error of judgment.

That seems more like a standard to protect against errors as you say, so it seems like that the laws were in place to prevent the issue, the enforcement was poor. How would new laws remedy this situation?

Lying about people's incomes was illegal, but lending standards were also too lax apart from that.

But then don't people complain, lower income families can't get loans? Should they honestly be told, you shouldn't be given loans because you are a risk, we're sorry, but that's the truth. I mean doesn't there have to be some give and take or do some families, just need to be prevented from getting loans?

On your hypoocrisy? Don't be coy.

When did they ever happen?

 

[Wazzim]

But then don't people complain, lower income families can't get loans? Should they honestly be told, you shouldn't be given loans because you are a risk, we're sorry, but that's the truth. I mean doesn't there have to be some give and take or do some families, just need to be prevented from getting loans?

Isn't that how it's SUPPOSED to go? It's like everybody is addicted to loans instead of spending what they earn, from the government to the lower income families.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Isn't that how it's SUPPOSED to go? It's like everybody is addicted to loans instead of spending what they earn, from the government to the lower income families.

If so then you have to accept some will not be able to improve their lives and that you cannot blame the institutions for refusing to approve the loan.

 

[empty vessel]

The act of repackaging them as AAA was legal so long as it was an error of judgment.

It was not an error of judgment. Those selling these repackaged securities were acting in collusion with credit ratings agencies to obtain the AAA ratings. Securities sellers knew they were not buying a rating assessment and ratings agencies knew they were not selling a rating assessment. They were, instead, colluding to buy and sell the AAA rating itself. Both parties in these transactions stood to profit from the arrangement as against everybody else.

 

[Jak140]

I take it that their was ample evidence to show it was knowingly and not just by one part, but by the whole, correct?

Everyone doesn't have to be complicit in order for it to be a crime, but we got what was essentially an admission that fraud was taking place from the horse's mouth.

But in December 2006, a series of top Goldman executives — including Viniar, mortgage chief Daniel Sparks and senior executive Thomas Montag — came to the conclusion that Goldman was overexposed to mortgages and should get out from under its huge bet as quickly as possible. Internal memos indicate that the executives soon became aware of the host of scams that would crater the global economy: home loans awarded with no documentation, loans with little or no equity in them. On December 14th, Viniar met with Sparks and other executives, and stressed the need to get "closer to home" — i.e., to reduce the bank's giant bet on mortgages.

Sparks followed up that meeting with a seven-point memo laying out how to unload the bank's mortgages. Entry No. 2 is particularly noteworthy. "Distribute as much as possible on bonds created from new loan securitizations," Sparks wrote, "and clean previous positions." In other words, the bank needed to find suckers to buy as much of its risky inventory as possible. Goldman was like a car dealership that realized it had a whole lot full of cars with faulty brakes. Instead of announcing a recall, it surged ahead with a two-fold plan to make a fortune: first, by dumping the dangerous products on other people, and second, by taking out life insurance against the fools who bought the deadly cars.

The day he received the Sparks memo, Viniar seconded the plan in a gleeful cheerleading e-mail. "Let's be aggressive distributing things," he wrote, "because there will be very good opportunities as the markets [go] into what is likely to be even greater distress, and we want to be in a position to take advantage of them." Translation: Let's find as many suckers as we can as fast as we can, because we'll only make more money as more and more shit hits the fan.

By February 2007, two months after the Sparks memo, Goldman had gone from betting $6 billion on mortgages to betting $10 billion against them — a shift of $16 billion. Even CEO Lloyd "I'm doing God's work" Blankfein wondered aloud about the bank's progress in "cleaning" its crap. "Could/should we have cleaned up these books before," Blankfein wrote in one e-mail, "and are we doing enough right now to sell off cats and dogs in other books throughout the division?"

How did Goldman sell off its "cats and dogs"? Easy: It assembled new batches of risky mortgage bonds and dumped them on their clients, who took Goldman's word that they were buying a product the bank believed in. The names of the deals Goldman used to "clean" its books — chief among them Hudson and Timberwolf — are now notorious on Wall Street. Each of the deals appears to represent a different and innovative brand of shamelessness and deceit.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true

That seems more like a standard to protect against errors as you say, so it seems like that the laws were in place to prevent the issue, the enforcement was poor. How would new laws remedy this situation?

Rating agencies should have proper regulatory oversight that would catch these kind of obscene errors before they get to the point of causing the greatest financial meltdown since the great depression. There were many people who knew this was a bad practice, but just didn't want to stop the gravy train from flowing. The problem is that without careful regulatory oversight, it's impossible to know who actually was ignorant and who was just feigning it.

But then don't people complain, lower income families can't get loans? Should they honestly be told, you shouldn't be given loans because you are a risk, we're sorry, but that's the truth. I mean doesn't there have to be some give and take or do some families, just need to be prevented from getting loans?

Yes? Obviously if someone won't be able to pay a loan back they shouldn't be given one. But let's not pretend that the outrageous rates that they were charged for some of these loans didn't play a part as well.

When did they ever happen?

To repeat, when you claimed you want open discourse after saying stereotyping is bad for honest discussion despite having stereotyped OWS less than 50 posts prior.

 

[Jak140]

It was not an error of judgment. Those selling these repackaged securities were acting in collusion with credit ratings agencies to obtain the AAA ratings. Securities sellers knew they were not buying a rating assessment and ratings agencies knew they were not selling a rating assessment. They were, instead, colluding to buy and sell the AAA rating itself. Both parties in these transactions stood to profit from the arrangement as against everybody else.

I agree, but like I say above, the problem now is proving they knew, due to the lack of oversight at the time and the lack of enforcement now (due to many regulators being complict and the lack of laws to prevent their incestuous relationship with the institutions they monitor).

 

[Kisaya]

So it's trending right now that CUNY Baurch students are protesting and police have batons out. Any more information about this?

 

[makingmusic476]

So it's trending right now that CUNY Baurch students are protesting and police have batons out. Any more information about this?

Tim from the Other 99 was out there trying to get information on what went down. Word is over a dozen people got arrested, but there's been no confirmation yet. They managed to get into the building, but police were insistent that no one go upstairs. Henry, the guy with the press pass he's always hanging out with, went to go to the bathroom and got chased down by a cop who thought he was heading upstairs.

It's the last clip they recorded, so it should automatically play since they're not currently streaming:

http://www.ustream.tv/theother99

 

[Kisaya]

Arrests in Tuition Protest at Baruch College

A daylong rally by City University of New York students against a proposed tuition increase turned turbulent Monday when marchers pushed through police barricades at Baruch College and some people — perhaps a dozen — were arrested. Videos posted to Facebook (see below) and photos showed a chaotic scene and its aftermath.

Carlos Pazmino, 21, a City College student who helped organize the protest, said that after students began opening doors to the auditorium where the meeting was taking place, CUNY police officers surrounded the entrances and pushed back, using their batons. When students formed a line to push past, he said, the officers began hitting the students with the batons.

“I saw two people knocked down by cops,” Mr. Pazmino said. “They were arrested, and one guy’s head was bleeding.”

During the fighting, students on higher floors dropped books on the police.

The police did not immediately have specifics on the number of arrests.

The protest had begun with a handful of organizers from Students United for a Free CUNY, marching through the school cafeteria at City College at lunchtime. The group is demanding the repeal of the tuition increase approved last summer by the city and state of $300 a year for each of the next five years.

Later in the afternoon, the protest moved to Madison Square Park, where CUNY students from other colleges had agreed to meet. The growing crowd then marched on to Baruch College, where CUNY trustees were to hold a public hearing at 5 p.m.

At Baruch, the campus police restricted access to the hearing to those who had registered, and set up barricades around the building, the William and Anita Newman Vertical Campus Conference Center, at 55 Lexington Avenue.

But a crowd of several hundred marchers pushed through the barricades and entered the lobby, where they were met by police officers with batons and handcuffs.

With the room at capacity and several hundred people surrounding the building, the police told those in the lobby that they would be arrested for trespassing.

At that point, the students in the lobby sat down, and some were pushed to a wall by the police,. Nearly a dozen people were arrested as officers cleared the room. Several hundred people massed outside, with some beating on the windows and shouting “Shame on you.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/arrests-in-tuition-protest-at-baruch-college/?src=tp
Vids and pics at the source

 

[empty vessel]

I agree, but like I say above, the problem now is proving they knew, due to the lack of oversight at the time and the lack of enforcement now (due to many regulators being complict and the lack of laws to prevent their incestuous relationship with the institutions they monitor).

I think the problem now is not this. It would be possible to build cases even today against most financial executives. The problem is that nobody in power is interested in doing anything about it, because the powerful in the US now make up a separate class that is exempt from the rule of law and entirely immune from any accountability. Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head in this regard.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175...ald,_how_the_rich_subverted_the_legal_system/

 

[ReBurn]

I think the problem now is not this. It would be possible to build cases even today against most financial executives. The problem is that nobody in power is interested in doing anything about it, because the powerful in the US now make up a separate class that is exempt from the rule of law and entirely immune from any accountability. Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head in this regard.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175...ald,_how_the_rich_subverted_the_legal_system/

Just bought his book. Thanks for the link.

 

[Gallbaro]

It was not an error of judgment. Those selling these repackaged securities were acting in collusion with credit ratings agencies to obtain the AAA ratings. Securities sellers knew they were not buying a rating assessment and ratings agencies knew they were not selling a rating assessment. They were, instead, colluding to buy and sell the AAA rating itself. Both parties in these transactions stood to profit from the arrangement as against everybody else.

Government regulations essentially forcing debt issuers to use one of three companies are a wonderful thing aren't they.

 

[Alucrid]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/arrests-in-tuition-protest-at-baruch-college/?src=tp
Vids and pics at the source

Well, that's what happens when you push past a police blockade and drop books on the cops when the scuffles begin.

 

[el retorno]

Goddamn it I was forced to defend OWS today on facebook..... hahaha. I´m not a big fan at all but my friend was going all Cain saying that there are enough jobs out there and that they can all just work. They shouldn´t be complaning, the wealth gap doesn´t hurt the country, etc.

 

[Jak140]

I think the problem now is not this. It would be possible to build cases even today against most financial executives. The problem is that nobody in power is interested in doing anything about it, because the powerful in the US now make up a separate class that is exempt from the rule of law and entirely immune from any accountability. Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head in this regard.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175...ald,_how_the_rich_subverted_the_legal_system/

I agree that the laws we have now are not properly enforced, particularly against those with money and influence. When I brought up cronyism between the institutions and the regulators I was alluding to this. I actually have Glenn's new book, just need to spend more time reading it instead of reading GAF . But I do think the fact that many regulations were loosened due to the corrupting influence of those in power and the role that deregulation played in the fermentation of the fiscal crisis should not be overlooked.

 

[empty vessel]

Goddamn it I was forced to defend OWS today on facebook..... hahaha. I´m not a big fan at all but my friend was going all Cain saying that there are enough jobs out there and that they can all just work. They shouldn´t be complaning, the wealth gap doesn´t hurt the country, etc.

Ha. Welcome to the club!

I agree that the laws we have now are not properly enforced, particularly against those with money and influence. When I brought up cronyism between the institutions and the regulators I was alluding to this. I actually have Glenn's new book, just need to spend more time reading it instead of reading GAF . But I do think the fact that many regulations were loosened due to the corrupting influence of those in power and the role that deregulation played in the fermentation of the fiscal crisis should not be overlooked.

I agree with you also that deregulation was harmful, but I actually think most of the harm came from the atmosphere deregulation engendered even more than the deregulation itself. I think that deregulation was another form of the expression of economic power that we have seen across the society as a whole. It's funny, when you really break society down, all you are left with is the exertion of power in its various forms. I think this is why political and economic equality is so important. It keeps the system in check and the society more functional as a whole.

(When I talk about "economic equality," I do not mean strict economic equality as in everybody earning exactly the same. I just mean some semblance of fairness in the way society's collective wealth and production gets distributed.)

 

[Eteric Rice]

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

Pretty good read. At least all conservatives haven't lost their minds, and realize something is wrong with the republican party.

 

[travisbickle]

Pepper spray: It's a food product, essentially!


Fox news anchor's thoughts on police force during the peaceful protests.

My favourite line is Bill O'Reilly's "that's what the cops say, so you've got to give them the presumption in this incident."


Looks like "It's a ..., essentially" is becoming a meme.

Megyn Kelly on nightsticks: "It's an olive branch, essentially!"

 

[empty vessel]

Economists in support of OWS:

http://econ4.org/statement-on-ows

 

[XMonkey]

Link's broken, ev (autocorrect I assume)

http://econ4.org/statement-on-ows is the right one.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Although I support the movement, some of the protesters are flatout dumb and irritating.

I know someone who got yelled at by several protesters as he was working to work wearing a suit. They said because he was wearing a suit he probably worked for a bank or some financial institution.

Not only is that assumption completely retarded, but not everyone who wears a suit and works at a bank is some horrible person. In fact, the vast vast majority of people are just there to do their jobs. They have kids and a wife to worry about.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Although I support the movement, some of the protesters are flatout dumb and irritating.

I know someone who got yelled at by several protesters as he was working to work wearing a suit. They said because he was wearing a suit he probably worked for a bank or some financial institution.

Not only is that assumption completely retarded, but not everyone who wears a suit and works at a bank is some horrible person. In fact, the vast vast majority of people are just there to do their jobs. They have kids and a wife to worry about.

you're right, that's idiotic, disrespectful and overall not the aim of the movement.

but don't let "just doing their jobs" act as any sort of justification for those actually involved in the paperwork of the thing; i'm pretty sure there is legal precedent (help me out EV) that it's kind of like "i was just following orders", as in, if you are even vaguely aware of rotten or malicious practices related to your job the onus is on you to not work there anymore or you are a collaborator, however unwilling. It extends to being a customer too; if you are even vaguely aware of Madoff being a bit fischy, but you can't quite keep your finger on it, the onus is again on you not to collaborate.

 

[makingmusic476]

Although I support the movement, some of the protesters are flatout dumb and irritating.

I know someone who got yelled at by several protesters as he was working to work wearing a suit. They said because he was wearing a suit he probably worked for a bank or some financial institution.

Not only is that assumption completely retarded, but not everyone who wears a suit and works at a bank is some horrible person. In fact, the vast vast majority of people are just there to do their jobs. They have kids and a wife to worry about.

I agree with you, but this is something that probably can't be avoided.

Really, this is an issue with any protest. A majority of people aren't that bright, and while they may realize that there are problems worthy of discussion, they may not fully understand the causes of these problems, let alone be able to verbalize these issues in any coherent way. Then you'll have some people within that group that'll act like those you mentioned.

But you need a majority to get anything done. The 5% (rough estimate totally made up on the spot) of the population that really understand these issues aren't enough to do anything about them, especially when part of that figure are the cause of the problems.

 

[Joe]

Musicians in support of ows

http://www.occupymusicians.com/

 

[Joe]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...about-treatment-during-protests/?ref=nyregion

News Organizations Complain About Treatment During Protests

A cross-section of 13 news organizations in New York City lodged complaints on Monday about the New York Police Department’s treatment of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street movement. Separately, 10 press clubs, unions and other groups that represent journalists called for an investigation and said they had formed a coalition to monitor police behavior going forward.

It requested an immediate meeting with the city’s police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, and his chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne.

The letter was written by George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel for The New York Times Company, and signed by representatives for The Associated Press, The New York Post, The Daily News, Thomson Reuters, Dow Jones & Company, and three local television stations, WABC, WCBS and WNBC. It was also signed by representatives for the National Press Photographers Association, New York Press Photographers Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the New York Press Club.

 

[slit]

Musicians in support of ows

http://www.occupymusicians.com/

Penny Thomas, elementary music teacher, is on that list!

Well game over, the Bourgeoisie might as well surrender peacefully.

 

[Joe]

Its not supposed to be a pissing contest and even if it was, jello biafra and talib kweli's name more than make up for anyone else.

 

[demon]

Although I support the movement, some of the protesters are flatout dumb and irritating.

I know someone who got yelled at by several protesters as he was working to work wearing a suit. They said because he was wearing a suit he probably worked for a bank or some financial institution.

Not only is that assumption completely retarded, but not everyone who wears a suit and works at a bank is some horrible person. In fact, the vast vast majority of people are just there to do their jobs. They have kids and a wife to worry about.

This is true. I work at a bank in a call center and as a personal banker. There were protesters outside another bank down the street, and walking past them I heard them commenting on the tellers inside taking breaks. "Ohhh so mister bank teller thinks he deserves a BREAK does he?", and bullshit like that. Clearly not the smartest people. But like makingmusic said there are dull knives in every drawer.

 

[el retorno]

Although I support the movement, some of the protesters are flatout dumb and irritating.

I know someone who got yelled at by several protesters as he was working to work wearing a suit. They said because he was wearing a suit he probably worked for a bank or some financial institution.

Not only is that assumption completely retarded, but not everyone who wears a suit and works at a bank is some horrible person. In fact, the vast vast majority of people are just there to do their jobs. They have kids and a wife to worry about.

This is where I fall. I don´t really like the movement per se, I don´t like their style, many of their demands, anti-police retoric, etc. But I do understand and share in their anger. I just wish someone better represented my ideas. (This isn´t to say some of their ideas I don´t support its that I consider myself a moderate, I don´t think debt forgivness, free education, etc are the right solutions but I´m in favor of worker trainer programs, and rollback of the bush taxcuts, etc.)

I don´t really support the movement but I feel they have every right to be out there (not really liking the squating and stuff but they should be able to march) express their belief and that a battle of ideas will help us in the end.

Ha. Welcome to the club!

Goddamn it! haha

 

[etiolate]

There are two things I've learned about protests from going to a liberal college:

1. No protest these days is about one simple thing. Asking "what are you protesting about? What is your cause?" is not going to get you one simple answer. There are many causes people have and while one cause may initiate the planning of a protest, many other causes will tag along with it. This increases the visibility of the protest but often makes the event of the protest itself seem less focused.

2. There is an entire protest culture that attracts the same sorts of troublemakers that a keg party may attract. For some, a protest is a social event. Even for the more behaved yet less active members of a cause, a protest is something one does for fun. It's a gathering of friends coated in key imagery and expectations based on the pop-history of America. Namely the 60s.


So you will get idiots who will yell at bank tellers as if they're the Monty Moneybags of vile capitalism, but these two elements that look bad image wise also have helped in a way. What I find interesting about the OWS movement is its sustained force and its widespread connection. The word "solidarity" has been used a lot in the past few years when it comes to causes. In the way its used, its a taking up of another's cause as your own, but right now it is something happening on a global scale. The OWS is a relative to the tuition hike protests and the arab spring. Everything is in solidarity. At first, this solidarity was like a nice word without a point, but now it seems like a tactic instead, working from the way causes congeal at a picket line and keeping them in continuous motion until you have this occupy movement that ranges from California to New York to Russia to Iran. And each place has its own causes, but the protest face continues on and gets bigger.

 

[travisbickle]

If so then you have to accept some will not be able to improve their lives and that you cannot blame the institutions for refusing to approve the loan.

There are other ways to improve people's lives then:

Putting them into massive debt.
Getting children to clean schools.
Appeasing the rich with tax cuts.

The preposterous idea that allowing poorer families own their homes has some how empowered them, when the market is a pile of shit and all it's done has indebted millions for the rest of their lives.

I know there are people that don't want to tread away from the status quo, but some will literally watch the world burn if currently they have a bucket of water.

 

[Alucrid]

There are other ways to improve people's lives then:

Putting them into massive debt.
Getting children to clean schools.
Appeasing the rich with tax cuts.

The preposterous idea that allowing poorer families own their homes has some how empowered them, when the market is a pile of shit and all it's done has indebted millions for the rest of their lives.

I know there are people that don't want to tread away from the status quo, but some will literally watch the world burn if currently they have a bucket of water.

Watch the world burn is so trite. People should stop using that phrase.

 

[makingmusic476]

This is where I fall. I don´t really like the movement per se, I don´t like their style, many of their demands, anti-police retoric, etc. But I do understand and share in their anger. I just wish someone better represented my ideas. (This isn´t to say some of their ideas I don´t support its that I consider myself a moderate, I don´t think debt forgivness, free education, etc are the right solutions but I´m in favor of worker trainer programs, and rollback of the bush taxcuts, etc.)

I don´t really support the movement but I feel they have every right to be out there (not really liking the squating and stuff but they should be able to march) express their belief and that a battle of ideas will help us in the end.



Goddamn it! haha

But the entire movement doesn't support any of these ideas. Some people want public education and debt forgiveness, some people just want significant education reforms. Some people want tighter banking regulations and changes in tax code, others want to see bankers involved in the 2008 collapse brought to justice.

There's really only a consensus on the general direction things should be headed. If you agree with that consensus, there's no reason to not consider yourself supportive of the movement. Plus, the movement needs more reasonable people to speak out in favor of it.

Edit:

Also, what etiolate said.

 

[travisbickle]

Watch the world burn is so trite. People should stop using that phrase.

People should start thinking about the future of their country, I don't really give a shit which pop culture references are being used. Also, I tried to put emphasis on the bucket of water, ie. they are currently stable but the instability of the rest of society isn't going to stop them getting hurt in the future.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Watch the world burn is so trite. People should stop using that phrase.

But what will trite people do?

 

[Alucrid]

People should start thinking about the future of their country, I don't really give a shit which pop culture references are being used. Also, I tried to put emphasis on the bucket of water, ie. they are currently stable but the instability of the rest of society isn't going to stop them getting hurt in the future.

Huh? I thought you meant that even though they can solve the problem they lack the caring or compassion to do so. Not sure how a bucket of water represents stability. Also I find it foolish to rely on one person to put out a fire, especially when its the entire world. One man can't do that alone. Rather we as a people need yo form a bucket chain to swiftly ensure that any fire is put out or merely provide adequate conditions so that fires aren't an issue in the first place.

 

[travisbickle]

Huh? I thought you meant that even though they can solve the problem they lack the caring or compassion to do so. Not sure how a bucket of water represents stability. Also I find it foolish to rely on one person to put out a fire, especially when its the entire world. One man can't do that alone. Rather we as a people need yo form a bucket chain to swiftly ensure that any fire is put out or merely provide adequate conditions so that fires aren't an issue in the first place.

You're exactly right. The bucket of water represents: a job, a mortgage, a small amount of savings. Millions of people have lost their buckets, but you still have yours and you know others have theirs too, so is there enough buckets to stop the fire from spreading? Probably, so don't change anything.

 

[Zabka]

For those who remember there was a story last week about a pregnant girl who was pepper sprayed in Seattle. She was 3 months pregnant and claims to have miscarried over the weekend, although she hasn't provided medical records to prove it yet.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ith-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries

I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'" At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut," she says.

Here's a video of her after the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1ItGFF9sQ&feature=channel_video_title

 

[.GqueB.]

This thread is so boring now. Same conversation happening over and over again. "I dont support the whole thing but like the idea blaaaah blaaaah blaaaaah".

Are there any new developments? I tried googling but all of the articles are about old news.

 

[ronito]

For those who remember there was a story last week about a pregnant girl who was pepper sprayed in Seattle. She was 3 months pregnant and claims to have miscarried over the weekend, although she hasn't provided medical records to prove it yet.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ith-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries


Here's a video of her after the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1ItGFF9sQ&feature=channel_video_title

IF that's true that's a gargantuan law suit right there.

 

[Zabka]

This thread is so boring now. Same conversation happening over and over again. "I dont support the whole thing but like the idea blaaaah blaaaah blaaaaah".

Are there any new developments? I tried googling but all of the articles are about old news.

This stopped being a thread for actual OWS news a long time ago.

 

[.GqueB.]

This stopped being a thread for actual OWS news a long time ago.

Unfortunate. Id rather talk about things that they are doing. Apparently about 50 of them are marching to Washington? Why such a small number?

 

[travisbickle]

This thread is so boring now. Same conversation happening over and over again. "I dont support the whole thing but like the idea blaaaah blaaaah blaaaaah".

Are there any new developments? I tried googling but all of the articles are about old news.

Google+ has been a pretty good place to keep up-to-date. If you use the topic search thing (I don't know what they call it?).

There's conspiracy theories that Twitter, because of a conflicted interest, have been stopping ows stuff from trending? Twitter has a lot of rich stock owners.

 

[.GqueB.]

Google+ has been a pretty good place to keep up-to-date. If you use the topic search thing (I don't know what they call it?).

There's conspiracy theories that Twitter, because of a conflicted interest, have been stopping ows stuff from trending? Twitter has a lot of rich stock owners.

Reeealllyyy? Thatd be interesting. I guess I have to start using Google+ then. But seriously how likely is that twitter theory? Thatd be a strange development especially given what the occupy movement is about. More or less proves their point.

 

[travisbickle]

Reeealllyyy? Thatd be interesting. I guess I have to start using Google+ then. But seriously how likely is that twitter theory? Thatd be a strange development especially given what the occupy movement is about. More or less proves their point.

Something about JPMorgan having $400million dollars invested in Twitter.


Google+ has been my place to go when I want to read something about ows, because you have some interesting perspectives even people similar to Manos but actually willing to write a lot about why.

 

[Onemic]

I guess thee's no such thing as freedom of speech after all. at least here in Toronto. Happy though that the protesters aren't taking this bullshit lying down.

Occupy Toronto protesters braved another chilly night in their encampment Tuesday in direct defiance of a court ruling ordering their eviction from St. James Park.

Speculation has mounted over when police may move in on the camp after a Superior Court judge ruled the city was within its rights to issue trespass notices to the Occupy group, which has been camped out in St. James Park for five weeks.

But as dawn broke over the city Tuesday morning many protesters remained in place, committed to hold their ground in the face of a looming police raid. The group’s large food tent had been disassembled, but one group member said occupiers were simply waiting on a new donated tent to replace it; it was not a sign the camp itself was folding.

Protesters remain on alert about the potentially imminent arrival of police, who were on hand to monitor the situation Monday night but took no action to enforce a city bylaw banning the tent city and prohibiting overnight gatherings inside St. James Park

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/occupy-toronto-quiet-night-after-mounting-speculation-over-police-action/

 

[eznark]

I guess thee's no such thing as freedom of speech after all.

lol

 

[ToxicAdam]

I guess thee's no such thing as freedom of speech after all. at least here in Toronto. Happy though that the protesters aren't taking this bullshit lying down.
]

Aren't they literally lying down much of the time?



I don't really understand the point of occupying spaces. You just become part of the landscape at some point and you and your message become invisible. Seems like they would get more bang for their buck if they did short events that grabbed headlines for the day.

 

[Fenderputty]

Aren't they literally lying down much of the time?



I don't really understand the point of occupying spaces. You just become part of the landscape at some point and you and your message become invisible. Seems like they would get more bang for their buck if they did short events that grabbed headlines for the day.

I think they would draw more people too. I'm much more likely to take a day off, or head down to an organized event than I am to occupy.