Wow, I mean if this is wholly accurate I don't have much hope for the future of this country. :smh
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
Wow, I mean if this is wholly accurate I don't have much hope for the future of this country. :smh
cooljeanius
Member
The more brutality occurs, the more it distracts from the main message of the movement.
That is quite the disturbing read, thanks for sharing. I always thought that kind of shit was in league with black helicopters and Tsukolos where secret orders were sent down to local police forces to crackdown, but the way it is connected in the article I can see this being reality. Sad times indeed.
So now America wants to do to it's own what it's done to others (Guantanamo Bay for example) for years? Either way. Absolutely disgusting. If this passes....seriously, revolution couldn't come fast enough.
Wow. Way to prove his point. Can't believe how jaded it is. Reads like a full on propaganda campaign. Basically, stop fucking reading TIME magazine. And to think, my dad has a sub with this shitty mag.
More Fun to Compute said:
Amazing read. Truly highlights the importance of this movement. It's gone above and beyond it's original intention in addressing some of the very problems with the current system.
Apparently the LAPD are evicting OccupyLA protesters right now. They waited until midnight to do it. You can watch a live stream from KTLA here
Edit: So they didn't evict them after all. LAPD actually did a pretty great job. The commander said that they just wanted to clear everyone off of the streets with as little hassle as possible. Whether or not the situation will stay calm remains to be seen though.
Edit: So they didn't evict them after all. LAPD actually did a pretty great job. The commander said that they just wanted to clear everyone off of the streets with as little hassle as possible. Whether or not the situation will stay calm remains to be seen though.
Was out at OLA tonight. Very big turnout at the GA and afterwards in prep for the raid, which never came. Minimal police presence really, just a few intersections blocked, but no police in riot gear that I could see. They've said they are only willing to arrest people out in the streets and if you're in the park then you're fine. We'll see how long that stance lasts. I feel they might be pulling a Portland and waiting until dawn, but then they risk fucking traffic up in the morning so it might not happen like that.
el retorno
Member
in regards to time you are aware that the content inside is the same. The other countries get our trash articles and we get the news. More than just news buffs read time. if they need to put a stupid article on the cover to sell more so they can continue writing the good articles its fine by me. nothing is being censured. I read us time and i remember most of those "real stories"
Same. Frankly, most other people in the world couldn't give half a shit about American domestic woes (i.e. the silent majority, what makes a good US school, teaching the bible in US schools) while most Americans do care about education and its subject matter as well as how Americans are involving themselves in American issues. I wouldn't read too much into it.
perfectchaos007
Member
that actually sounds reasonable...
perfectchaos007
Member
yeah uc davis police did not think things through. sure blocking a sidewalk may be a minor nuisance, but to solve the problem using pepper spray will not get the police force any supporters.
teruterubozu
Member
L.A. cops know all about police brutality accusations, probably more than any other city, thus they will play it very carefully.
I'd love to hear Obama's response. She makes a pretty big call accusing him of being involved in the escalation.
True, there's a lot of history here and I'm sure that's playing into it.
Honestly, I think the lack of confrontation has made our occupation a bit soft because we haven't had the kinds of escalations others have.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I thought that, too.
For a while I thought it was just a typical anti-right wing rant until I saw the above where she pretty much calls out the White House.
I kinda hope less brutality happens because, you know, I'm a human being.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Good to see the Guardian giving equal access to the loons on CiF. Seriously the paranoid delusion going on there. Then again people here where looking for legal analysis from Reedit earlier, so I can't say I'm too surprised.
I'm afraid of what happens if this movement gets ignored. It will come back harder and more violent the next time- I'd rather see some small stuff happen now, then something huge later.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
If it continues to get violent it will be crushed both by government officials and private citizens trying to protect themselves.
It will be intensely violent, but it will most likely be short.
teruterubozu
Member
She makes a wild unsubstantiated "chain of command" connection between cops on the street, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security without anything to back it up. Why would Obama address that?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Because she knows the truth! Seriously this is some god tier conspiracy nonsense.
That was the link, seems pretty straightforward to me. Is it true? I dont know.
Does she say "The president ordered a coordinated crackdown via the DHS"? No, she does not say that.
She does however say that if homeland security did coordinate that crackdown, it's his responsibility and his situation to adress.
teruterubozu
Member
Oh please, she says "civil war" - her words not mine. And if you don't know if it's true, then no, it's not straightforward. See, I agree with a lot of the OWS movement in theory, but this kind of crap really defeats the movement.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, as Manos is stating. Believe it or not, that's what DHS is all about. Homeland freaking Security. And considering how the right wing crazies consider OWS to be seditious pre-rioters, of course there's going to be a federal aspect to this. Conference calls are the easiest thing in the world. Plus Obama doesn't have to sign off on anything for them to do their jobs. If we've learned anything, it's that the machines of state will operate with or without constant input or interference from executives. He doesn't have to step on the gas, but he would have to step on the brake, and so far, why should he? Unless you think he's some kind of progressive liberal or something...
Do people actually think the revolution will be televised? Keep waiting for CNN to give you the heads up...
Do people actually think the revolution will be televised? Keep waiting for CNN to give you the heads up...
So what are the parts in the chain of command of the DHS that is untrue? Seems like a good place for you to start if you want to discredit her. I don't know if its true because i dont know how the DHS operates, i'm just assuming that she does know.
Does the DHS freelance? Can the DHS on their own initiative say "lets go after these scruffy hippies"? Is Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee influenced by the wishes of his fellow congressmen? Does the DHS ultimately answer to the potus?
If your answers to these questions are different from Naomi Wolfs i guess now is a good time to post them rather than the "meh, unsubstantiated". Because as of right now, the only thing unsubstantiated is your objections.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...-on-american-soil-and-hold-them-indefinitely/
This can't be real. Any other source reporting on this?
This can't be real. Any other source reporting on this?
There's gonna be another protest today at Baruch College in NYC is response to tuition hikes.
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...y-at-baruch-before-vote-on-cuny-tuition-hikes
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stor...y-at-baruch-before-vote-on-cuny-tuition-hikes
Good on them.
I can't believe I'm about to propose this since U.S. tuition prices are absurdly high, but universities should be able to raise their tuition prices.
BUT, tuition for EVERYONE would be locked in place to the same amount you paid freshman year/your first year. The only people affected by the raise in tuition would be people enrolling, so they know exactly how much they have to pay for without worrying its going to shoot up.
If my school were to raise tuition I would protest the shit out of it.
teruterubozu
Member
You're right. As she states, Obama is consciously starting a civil war against his own people. Man, I hate being wrong.
I gotta take these articles at face value:Wolf said:
I've "connected the dots" and now I believe.
Note that Terubozu has now utilized Point #1 of winning internet disputes, exaggerate someone's point beyond it's apparent and logical limits. No one said Obama was declaring Civil War, etc...but you knew that.
anyway, the bill that supposedly declares the continent as fair game is here, but I don't see anything related to that. They did actually input a small paragraph saying that the new expanded rules allowing for military detention don't generally apply to United States citizens. Dunno if that's something that can be hacked off or rescinded by special circumstances though. But have a look.
anyway, the bill that supposedly declares the continent as fair game is here, but I don't see anything related to that. They did actually input a small paragraph saying that the new expanded rules allowing for military detention don't generally apply to United States citizens. Dunno if that's something that can be hacked off or rescinded by special circumstances though. But have a look.
teruterubozu
Member
I'm not out to "win" anything and I'm not exaggerating. She makes it quite clear in her article that the government is involved in promoting the first stages of a "civil war". I'm just reading the article. Hey, I may have bad reading comprehension so if anyone can enlighten me on her final point, I'll be more than glad to hear it.
Wolf said:
"Collusion of the American President" - isn't that Obama?
Note that akira28 has now utilized Point #23 of winning internet disputes, don't read the article and mock the reader.
You're right. As she states, Obama is consciously starting a civil war against his own people. Man, I hate being wrong.
I've "connected the dots" and now I believe.
Well at least i know that i dont need to take anything you post seriously anymore... and you were whining about Nami Wolfs style of argument? Cheezus.
She obviously thinks that a coordinated DHS crackdown on OWS is a big deal.
She presents her case as to why she thinks so.
You have yet to post a single line describing why you don't think a DHS organized crackdown on OWS is a big deal.
She's not my favored Naomi, btw. No, not Naomi Judd either, nice guess though.
She says what she says. I'm more concerned with what you said. Just so we're clear, Obama isn't declaring Civil War, and that's not what she said. She is using some pretty strong hyperbole, unless you believe that the construction of a bill is a "battle".
I read the article, and how do I mock you now? Pointing out your exaggeration? She can shine light on Mr. President. He's supports OWS verbally, but who knows what goes on within the machinery of state. She implies collusion, but that can mean lots of things. To allow something to happen rather than stopping it, is what I infer, but you imply active declaration of war, and that's pushing it too far. Exactly what she balked at doing.
She says what she says. I'm more concerned with what you said. Just so we're clear, Obama isn't declaring Civil War, and that's not what she said. She is using some pretty strong hyperbole, unless you believe that the construction of a bill is a "battle".
I read the article, and how do I mock you now? Pointing out your exaggeration? She can shine light on Mr. President. He's supports OWS verbally, but who knows what goes on within the machinery of state. She implies collusion, but that can mean lots of things. To allow something to happen rather than stopping it, is what I infer, but you imply active declaration of war, and that's pushing it too far. Exactly what she balked at doing.
teruterubozu
Member
I just googled "DHS OWS" and the first page is filled with stuff questioning Wolf's article. And that's just my first query. I ain't even gonna bother copying and pasting.
Ok, so we agree it's strong hyperbole then? I don't know how else to say that it's crazy without getting lambasted here.
Ok, so we agree it's strong hyperbole then? I don't know how else to say that it's crazy without getting lambasted here.
teruterubozu
Member
Yeah, I'm trying not to be Manos, but holy shit is it hard sometimes.
Riposte
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TT81o4hL4c
(And yet people shit themselves of "Person of the Year".)
thecouncil
Banned
haha... i really dont get how anyone can find these people anything less than fantastically annoying and self-aggrandizing.
http://youtu.be/NybUXNEMXXw
i watch videos like this in wonderment. like im watching a train wreck or something.
http://youtu.be/NybUXNEMXXw
i watch videos like this in wonderment. like im watching a train wreck or something.
you are failing pretty hard if that's your goal.
teruterubozu
Member
well you could have spent the time explaining why you disagree with her and why a DHS-coordinated crackdown on OWS is not a big deal, but did you? No, you left with "obama wants a civil war gotcha" and then claimed you're not like Manos?
Meh, not impressed.
teruterubozu
Member
LOL Yeah well this thread is dead. No need to keep it going. Sorry for the unimpressive copout. Put me on ignore if it so satisfies you. Me no care.
Rocket Scientist
Member
It's dead because there is nothing significant going on... Once there are developments in the real world there will be discussions in the thread.
teruterubozu
Member
It's dead because Manos is taking a break.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Taking a break from shitting up a thread.
empty vessel
Member
Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?pagewanted=all
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
Taking a broad swipe at the Securities and Exchange Commissions practice of allowing companies to settle cases without admitting that they had done anything wrong, a federal judge on Monday rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the agency.
The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, said that he could not determine whether the agencys settlement with Citigroup was fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest, as required by law, because the agency had claimed, but had not proved, that Citigroup committed fraud.
As it has in recent cases involving Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS and others, the agency proposed to settle the case by levying a fine on Citigroup and allowing it to neither admit nor deny the agencys findings. Such settlements require approval by a federal judge.
While other judges are not obligated to follow Judge Rakoffs opinion, the 15-page ruling could severely undermine the agencys enforcement efforts if it eventually blocks the agency from settling cases in which the defendant does not admit the charges.
The agency contends that it must settle most of the cases it brings because it does not have the money or the staff to battle deep-pocketed Wall Street firms in court. Wall Street firms will rarely admit wrongdoing, the agency says, because that can be used against them in investor lawsuits.
The agency in particular, Judge Rakoff argued, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges. But it is difficult to tell what the agency is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline. Even a $285 million settlement, he said, is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup, and often viewed by Wall Street firms as a cost of doing business.
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Citigroup stuffed a $1 billion mortgage fund that it sold to investors in 2007 with securities that it believed would fail so that it could bet against its customers and profit when values declined. The fraud, the agency said, was in Citigroups falsely telling investors that an independent party was choosing the portfolios investments. Citigroup made $160 million from the deal and investors lost $700 million. ...
Citigroup said it also disagreed with Judge Rakoffs decision, adding that it would fight the charges if the case indeed went to trial.
We believe the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution to the S.E.C.s allegation of negligence, which relates to a five-year-old transaction, Edward Skyler, a Citigroup spokesman, said in a statement. We also believe the settlement fully complies with long-established legal standards. In the event the case is tried, we would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges.
In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup a recidivist, or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future.
Citigroup and other repeat offenders can agree to those terms, the judge said, because they know that the commission has not monitored compliance, failing to bring contempt charges for repeat violations in at least 10 years.
A recent analysis by The New York Times of the agencys fraud settlements with Wall Street firms found 51 instances, involving 19 companies, in which the agency claimed that a company had broken fraud laws that they previously had agreed never to breach. Securities law experts said that the ruling presents the agency with a tough dilemma. In future cases, it will have to consider the risk that another judge may be reluctant to approve a settlement given the Rakoff ruling. ...
The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, said that he could not determine whether the agencys settlement with Citigroup was fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest, as required by law, because the agency had claimed, but had not proved, that Citigroup committed fraud.
As it has in recent cases involving Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS and others, the agency proposed to settle the case by levying a fine on Citigroup and allowing it to neither admit nor deny the agencys findings. Such settlements require approval by a federal judge.
While other judges are not obligated to follow Judge Rakoffs opinion, the 15-page ruling could severely undermine the agencys enforcement efforts if it eventually blocks the agency from settling cases in which the defendant does not admit the charges.
The agency contends that it must settle most of the cases it brings because it does not have the money or the staff to battle deep-pocketed Wall Street firms in court. Wall Street firms will rarely admit wrongdoing, the agency says, because that can be used against them in investor lawsuits.
The agency in particular, Judge Rakoff argued, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges. But it is difficult to tell what the agency is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline. Even a $285 million settlement, he said, is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup, and often viewed by Wall Street firms as a cost of doing business.
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Citigroup stuffed a $1 billion mortgage fund that it sold to investors in 2007 with securities that it believed would fail so that it could bet against its customers and profit when values declined. The fraud, the agency said, was in Citigroups falsely telling investors that an independent party was choosing the portfolios investments. Citigroup made $160 million from the deal and investors lost $700 million. ...
Citigroup said it also disagreed with Judge Rakoffs decision, adding that it would fight the charges if the case indeed went to trial.
We believe the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution to the S.E.C.s allegation of negligence, which relates to a five-year-old transaction, Edward Skyler, a Citigroup spokesman, said in a statement. We also believe the settlement fully complies with long-established legal standards. In the event the case is tried, we would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges.
In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup a recidivist, or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future.
Citigroup and other repeat offenders can agree to those terms, the judge said, because they know that the commission has not monitored compliance, failing to bring contempt charges for repeat violations in at least 10 years.
A recent analysis by The New York Times of the agencys fraud settlements with Wall Street firms found 51 instances, involving 19 companies, in which the agency claimed that a company had broken fraud laws that they previously had agreed never to breach. Securities law experts said that the ruling presents the agency with a tough dilemma. In future cases, it will have to consider the risk that another judge may be reluctant to approve a settlement given the Rakoff ruling. ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?pagewanted=all
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Occupy LA, isn't that the 110/101 during rush hour?
I like this. It irritates me that corporate entities are able to break major crimes, yet can come to these no-fault admission settlements. IMO, it's akin to allowing an individual skip jail time so long as they are rich enough to pay a huge fine.
As the article points out, by not having to admit fault, it not only shields them from investor suits, but essentially makes breaking the law a purely economic analysis for a corporation, which is ethically wrong, IMO.
- Status