REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

L.A. Mayor wants Occupy to move camp. They say no

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Friday, December 2, 2011 05:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1019
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Occupy Los Angeles given City Hall Park eviction deadline

The mayor of Los Angeles has given Occupy Wall Street protesters in the city a deadline of midday on Monday to pack up their protest camp.

But he hopes to avoid confrontations between police and protesters that have marred evictions in other cities.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa issued the deadline of 12:01 on Monday (20:01 GMT), saying he hoped for a "spirit of co-operation" with those camped out.

A statement from the protesters quickly rejected the mayor's demand.

"As a collective, Occupy Los Angeles would like to express their rejection of the city of Los Angeles's alleged proposal that we leave City Hall," protester Jeremy Rothe-Kushel told the Associated Press.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15901402

The Occupy folks apparently have decided to remain until the city addresses these grievances.

Quote:

GRIEVANCES NOT ADDRESSED
1.
A moratorium on all foreclosures in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles to divest from all major banks, and money to be removed from politics.

2.
A citywide effort undertaken to solve the homelessness problem which has led to 18,000 homeless people sleeping on Skid Row every night. Rehabilitation and housing must be provided for all homeless people.

3.
South Central Farm to be returned to the same LA community from which it was taken, and all other vacant and distressed land be open for the community use, and money to the tune of 1 million dollars – taken from Skid Row and given to the multi million dollar NFL firm – to be returned to Skid Row.

4.
Los Angeles to be declared a sanctuary city for the undocumented, deportations to be discontinued and cooperation with immigration authorities be ended – including the turning in of arrestees’ names to immigration authorities.

5.
All forms of weaponry used by multiple law enforcement officials – including, but not limited, to rubber bullets, pepper spray, verbal abuse, arrest, foam batons, long-range acoustic devices and more – are not to be used on those exercising their First Amendment Rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. We do not accept interference with freedom of the press and the public to document police actions in public spaces. We will not tolerate brutality.

6.
We assert our right to an open plaza on the South Side of City Hall for people to peacefully assemble, voice grievances, speak freely, hold our General Assembly and come to the people’s consensus 24 hours a day if needed.

7.
The City of Los Angeles to pressure the State to start a convention, as provided for in the Constitution, to remove corporate personhood and money from politics at a national level.

8.
The City of Los Angeles to begin a dialogue at the State and Federal level on the issues of student debt and tuition hikes.

9.
No cutbacks in city services or attacks on the wages, work conditions and pensions of city employees.

10.
A world class transit system which addresses our debilitating traffic problem and restores the quality of life in Los Angeles.



Even the some of the comments on the Occupy Los Angeles site http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=nov2011response note that several of these demands are pretty much impossible.

I'm not seeing much point, unless the OLA folks just want more confrontation.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 26, 2011 3:19 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Geezer,

Um. Isn't this how negotiation is supposed to go? You start by demanding more than what you have any right of expecting and then some negotiation happens and you get some reasonable results? Just because Obama and the Senate Dems don't know how it's done, doesn't mean nobody does. As a statement of OLA's values and purpose, seems pretty on the mark for OWS in general. Seems to me it's a major league meme over on the right that OWS doesn't stand for anything coherent. This list seems pretty gorram coherent to me. Sure, some of it's peculiar to L.A. but isn't that what you'd expect from a grassroots movement?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 26, 2011 6:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm not seeing much point, unless the OLA folks just want more confrontation.

The points make sense to me. I don't agree with many of them, but I understand what they are asking for and why.

If there is no point in asking for redresses that one isn't likely to obtain from the govt, then democracy as we imagine it is already defunct.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:49 PM

HERO


11. The sky to turn purple every other Thursday.

12. Eliminate all money.

13. Tax the rich.

14. Teach a man to fish, then force that man to give his fish to the poor.

15. Close all banks.

16. Force the banks to lend money to everyone.

17. City to lead national effort for the application of bovine flight.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Geezer,

Um. Isn't this how negotiation is supposed to go? You start by demanding more than what you have any right of expecting and then some negotiation happens and you get some reasonable results?



That's how negotiation goes, but I haven't been seeing the Occupy folks amending any demands - except to add more. When mayors, city governments, etc. give in by allowing extended illegal camping, OWS takeover of public spaces, and so forth, the Occupy folks seem to just declare victory and come up with something else they want. If you can give me examples of Occupy LA, or pretty much any Occupy group, negotiating by softening a demand, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.


Quote:

As a statement of OLA's values and purpose, seems pretty on the mark for OWS in general. Seems to me it's a major league meme over on the right that OWS doesn't stand for anything coherent. This list seems pretty gorram coherent to me. Sure, some of it's peculiar to L.A. but isn't that what you'd expect from a grassroots movement?


Nothing too wrong with the list as a goal, but camping out in a park and scuffling with the cops isn't going to make it happen. I'm seeing polls that show the message is getting lost in the actions. For example: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-fav
or-fading.html



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:43 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
That's how negotiation goes, but I haven't been seeing the Occupy folks amending any demands - except to add more. When mayors, city governments, etc. give in by allowing extended illegal camping, OWS takeover of public spaces, and so forth, the Occupy folks seem to just declare victory and come up with something else they want. If you can give me examples of Occupy LA, or pretty much any Occupy group, negotiating by softening a demand, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

Hey Geezer,

Um. Why is one side of a negotiation going to unilaterally amend their demands when not one of their demands has even been met? When there is no indication that there's any intention from the other side of meeting their demands. None. On the contrary, they've just sent the cops in to bust a few token heads.

Is that what you're telling me: that threats and violence are an appropriate way to negotiate?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:48 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:02 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."



Hello,

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the issue is not Congress or Federal Law. This is a local battle, and local laws are the ones being used to savage the protesters.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:08 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the issue is not Congress or Federal Law. This is a local battle, and local laws are the ones being used to savage the protesters.


That would imply that the Constitution has no bearing on this matter, and that would sadden me deeply.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Is that what you're telling me: that threats and violence are an appropriate way to negotiate?


What's good for the goose...

Back when I had the epiphany which set me on the course I've run mosta my life I realized that for some, especially the bastards of this world, threat and violence is the ONLY "communication" they're at all capable of understanding - and well, that's a language I do speak.

Fluently.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."



Okay, so if my religion requires the sacrifice of Occupy LA participants, you'd be all right with that, since free exercise of my religion is guaranteed in the Constitution?

Well, no. Because it would violate other laws, just like camping where it is prohibited while petitioning for redress of grievances is still camping illegally.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um. Why is one side of a negotiation going to unilaterally amend their demands when not one of their demands has even been met?



Because in several cities, governments have softened their standard positions and practices for the Occupy folks - allowing camping where it is prohibited, waiving permit requirements for marches and demonstrations, removing police from encampments and allowing Occupy folks to self-police, etc. All the Occupy folks seem to do is add to a growing list of demands.

Quote:

Is that what you're telling me: that threats and violence are an appropriate way to negotiate?


No. But neither is refusal to compromise on anything when the other side has made moves to accomodate your movement.

Many of the grievances the Occupy folks list just cannot legally be acomplished by government fiat. They need to be legislated, and the folks who aren't making all the headlines need their voices heard as well. Many of them will also cost a bunch of money, which has to come from somewhere. This also requires a legal legislative process, rather than just decrees.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:09 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Many of the grievances the Occupy folks list just cannot legally be acomplished by government fiat. They need to be legislated, and the folks who aren't making all the headlines need their voices heard as well. Many of them will also cost a bunch of money, which has to come from somewhere. This also requires a legal legislative process, rather than just decrees.

None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Geezer,

Um. Isn't this how negotiation is supposed to go? You start by demanding more than what you have any right of expecting and then some negotiation happens and you get some reasonable results?



That's how negotiation goes, but I haven't been seeing the Occupy folks amending any demands - except to add more. When mayors, city governments, etc. give in by allowing extended illegal camping, OWS takeover of public spaces, and so forth, the Occupy folks seem to just declare victory and come up with something else they want. If you can give me examples of Occupy LA, or pretty much any Occupy group, negotiating by softening a demand, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.




By that standard, it's pretty clear that nobody on the right has any interest in negotiating to bring down the deficit or pay down our debt.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 10:58 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Many of the grievances the Occupy folks list just cannot legally be acomplished by government fiat. They need to be legislated, and the folks who aren't making all the headlines need their voices heard as well. Many of them will also cost a bunch of money, which has to come from somewhere. This also requires a legal legislative process, rather than just decrees.



Again, maybe you should have this same conversation with your GOP presidential candidates, only switch the word "Occupy" to "Republican". After all, they've variously claimed that they will, on Day One, give us $2/gallon gas, deport 12 million illegals, make our borders 100% secure, do away with "ObamaCare", and get rid of - by executive fiat, no less - no fewer than three cabinet-level departments within the government.

So how come nobody ever points out to them that they can't do it by the mere sweep of their hand?

Hell, if we were to follow the GOP example, just the act of the OWS people saying such things should result in corporate America lining up to give them billions of dollars!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.



As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


It's a protest. That is how they work. If people moved when asked, then it wouldn't be a protest, would it? It would be a bunch of shoppers.

They won't get their demands met and that isn't the point, its about raising a profile on a whole bunch of issues that have a lot of people really pissed off.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.



As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Do you consider it democracy if a couple of billionaires can dictate how the nation changes its laws or handles its (not "it is", but "its") finances?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 3:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.



As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Do you consider it democracy if a couple of billionaires can dictate how the nation changes its laws or handles its (not "it is", but "its") finances?



Uh, Mike, I kind'a answered that right here.

"... do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park?"

Maybe you were too busy making spelling corrections to actually comprehend the sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's a protest. That is how they work. If people moved when asked, then it wouldn't be a protest, would it? It would be a bunch of shoppers.

They won't get their demands met and that isn't the point, its about raising a profile on a whole bunch of issues that have a lot of people really pissed off.



What's the point of making demands which have no shot of ever getting met ? Why not try for reasonable solutions, with out infringing on the rights of others to make your point? You have the freedom of speech, but not the freedom to demand that everyone listen and give credence to your views.

Bunch of unsophisticated whiners is what the OWS gang comes off as to the rest of the nation.




"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Okay, so if my religion requires the sacrifice of Occupy LA participants, you'd be all right with that, since free exercise of my religion is guaranteed in the Constitution?

Well, no. Because it would violate other laws, just like camping where it is prohibited while petitioning for redress of grievances is still camping illegally.



Reductio ad absurdum.

Like it or not, ya'll do realize that the Constitution as a federal statute is MEANT to overturn local law? That's why when the validity of a local law is thrown into court, it's a question of whether it's "constitutional" or not. Applying local laws in a way that they weren't intended by the spirit of the law to violate constitutional protections is a gross misuse of that law.

I may not like federal high-handedness and I think states are better able to govern themselves than people up to 3,000 miles away in a (badly governed) congressional district, and it has gone wrong before (Prohibition anyone?) but this is the BILL OF RIGHTS we're talking about. They're 224 years old and haven't been repealed for some damn good reasons.

So yeah, I'd agree this IS a free-speech and right to assembly issue. Like all incidences of such, it can be and is ugly. If people are challenged and arrested for their beliefs, they get to defend themselves in the court of law, including OWS and, yes, practicers of human sacrifice. The difference is, any violence associated with OWS is incidental to their message, whereas the violence from a human sacrificer is the central part of it. The analogy breaks down.

There's also the consideration that the main issue and criminal basis with OWS is between citizens and government officials and enforcement, whereas a religion of ritual human sacrifice would be pitting citizen against citizen - the Bill of Rights dictates that the speech and assembly of citizens are protected from THE GOVERNMENT when the speech and assembly is directed against THE GOVERNMENT. It does NOT say that citizens are protected from criminal charges for what they've done to other citizens, which we are seeing here (both OWS and participants in ritual sacrifice would be arrested and prosecuted). Of course, the charges are relative - other citizens are more likely to be tolerant of people camping in a park than they are of human sacrifice, which then creates unspoken and unlegislated social standards for acceptable behaviour, which are themselves as legitimate as anything written on paper. A sympathetic court (depending on region) might be willing to throw out charges against OWS based on constitutionality or reduce the sentence to a slap on the wrist, but no court in America is likely to be sympathetic to someone practicing human sacrifice.

Contradictory? Sure. Fair? Ideally. Someone who's dead has been a lot more wronged than someone who's lawn has been messed up. So technically protesters are protected under the constitution from police brutality (government acting to inflict wrongs on citizens), but protesters are responsible for their own actions, and charges may or may not be held up in the court of law. That's how it's supposed to work. But so far, it hasn't, and I'm under no illusion that will change anytime soon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 5:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

I'm under no illusion that will change anytime soon.
Nor am I, Byte.

You can argue until the cows come home, but the right will always find reasons (legal or otherwise) to hate what OWS is doing. It's messy. It's not played by the rules. It's not following authority...see a pattern here? Oh HOW I wish we had right-wingers here (you know, the thoughtful kind who can be debated), but we don't, and Geezer, Raptor, Wulf, etc., will always take one side and argue until the cows come home. The arguments pro OWS' rights are eloquent and on point, thank you. I also see the discomfort OWS brings to those who want things to run smoothly (if criminally in their own way). Until now, those who could buy power and laws decided what we could and couldn't do. That's being challenged. Whether it succeeds or fails, that's the main message. Power of the people over power of money.

I'll let all your excellent debate points stand for me too. Time will tell. I'd happily (oh SO happily) debate someone who wasn't stuck in a mentality which makes it impossible to ever given an inch, but I don't see wasting my time with those on the right here...until and unless a reasonable one pops up. Until then, I won't waste my time, except as an exercise in recreation, trying here.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:06 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.



As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Do you consider it democracy if a couple of billionaires can dictate how the nation changes its laws or handles its (not "it is", but "its") finances?



Uh, Mike, I kind'a answered that right here.

"... do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park?"

Maybe you were too busy making spelling corrections to actually comprehend the sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Well, you said you have a problem with it at the CITY level, but you've never seemed to have any problem with it at all at the NATIONAL level. I've never heard you utter a disparaging word against the Koch brothers and their financial backing of the tea-baggers, for instance.

As with most things, though, I suppose it's totally different when it's being done by people you approve of...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:07 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Byte, you rock. Ditto to everything you said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:23 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I have a Browncoat friend who is on the police force in LA, behind the desk, but still. I read and review his story on fanfic. I'm going to see what's happening down there from his perspective and give an update thusly. Just as something different.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:35 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Byte, you rock. Ditto to everything you said.

Byte does rock. Even when I vehemently disagree with her, she rocks.

I think Geezer and Rap are missing the point of illegal camping as a strategy for negotiation. They chose to disobey a local law on purpose, to spotlight the Constitutional override of such local laws.

The strategy is called "Civil Disobedience." You might have heard of it. Thoreau? Gandhi? Martin Luther King Jr.?

The "disobedience" part wouldn't be very meaningful of the camping were legal, right? Get it?

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 8:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


The camping bothers me because it wrecks up parks and honestly it turns the general population off, we don't like having our parks trashed. We'd be more into supporting Occupy, since they do have lots of good points, if they disobeyed in some other fashioned that wasn't going to need to be paid for by our taxes afterwords.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, you said you have a problem with it at the CITY level, but you've never seemed to have any problem with it at all at the NATIONAL level.



Well, yeah, since we're talking about - or at least I'm talking about - what's occurring in a particular CITY.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think Geezer and Rap are missing the point of illegal camping as a strategy for negotiation. They chose to disobey a local law on purpose, to spotlight the Constitutional override of such local laws.

The strategy is called "Civil Disobedience." You might have heard of it. Thoreau? Gandhi? Martin Luther King Jr.?

The "disobedience" part wouldn't be very meaningful of the camping were legal, right? Get it?



I understand the concept of civil disobedience. If it's used to highlight issues and educate, I have no problem with it. As far as I'm concerned, OLA can stay at City Hall as long as they like, and use civil disobedience to protest, understanding that civil disobedience involves violating the law and risking arrest.

My problem arises when Occupy, or any group, presents a list of demands and says, in effect, you must submit to these demands or we're going to cause trouble. This is nothing more than extortion, just like the local gang threatening to cause problems for a shop if they don't get protection money. If I were the city government, I'd ignore their demands and suggest that they try advancing them through democratic means.

If Occupy LA has the support they claim, they should be able to use the democratic process in California to reach their goals. Get enough signatures on a petition to get a referendum on the ballot, and let the 99% decide. Otherwise, they're just another vocal minority trying to get what they want by threat.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


And yes, Byte, I DID forget to tell you how fantastic that post was; eloquent and right on point. I should have; it's always a joy when someone dissects and issue so clearly and makes excellent, valid debate points so well.

Riona; how exactly do you think OWS should demonstrate civil disobedience that wouldn't inconvenience someone or cost taxpayers? Doing it politely has been proven NOT to work; our politicans are bought and paid for, however well-meaning they may have been originally; the Tea Party showed clearly how a polite uprising can be manipulated, taken over, and end up doing more harm than good. Civil disobedience will ALWAYS be messy, that's the point, and will inconvenience some, that's how you bring things to the attention of the publc.

When government doesn't work, it's one of the few ways to deal with it which doesn't involve violence. And the messing up of a few parks, in comparison to what's happening in our country and to our people, means nothing to me anymore, sorry. Things have just gotten so bad that pristine parks only the comfortable can use, up against the suffering of MILLIONS, is a small thing. JMHO



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Since no one else has done so, allow me to point out just how ludicrous is the notion of demanding the government protect you....
From the government.

Erk?! Seriously, HOW does that make any logical SENSE ?

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
My problem arises when Occupy, or any group, presents a list of demands and says, in effect, you must submit to these demands or we're going to cause trouble. This is nothing more than extortion, just like the local gang threatening to cause problems for a shop if they don't get protection money.


Oh yeah ?

Substitute the word LAW for "demands" and TAXES for "protection money" and VIOLA...
You have GOVERNMENT.

I fail to see the difference between any one gang of thugs or another, other than crackbrained theories of percieved legitimacy foisted upon us by those currently at the top of the heap in order to stay there.



For mine own, I am no longer sure that use of force isn't gonna be necessary, and one reason I am stayin out of it is cause most folk really, REALLY don't wanna go as far as I feel it oughta be taken.

But I will say this much - begging for a few extra crumbs instead of demanding a fair cut, pleading for a little slack in the leash instead of demanding to be cut free, that ain't ENOUGH for me.

And it ain't ever gonna be.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sadly, Frem, more and more I'm coming to agree. When people are so complacent (apologies Riona, but I feel it's true) that messing up a park is more discomfitting than what we endure daily, I dunno...

(All I got when clicking on your video was an exclamation point. Great cartoon...er, statement!)

(Ooops, I got it now..."Uncle Sam is a really bad judge of character"...that's my belief--for the most part)



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
When government doesn't work, it's one of the few ways to deal with it which doesn't involve violence.



Once again, if the Occupy folks have the support they claim, why not use the petetion/referendum/vote process to implement the changes they want?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:28 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It seems obvious to me that there is a general lack of faith in such mechanisms amongst the protesters.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:35 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Once again, if the Occupy folks have the support they claim, why not use the petetion/referendum/vote process to implement the changes they want?



Perhaps it is because they see that system as broken. Or they think that their protest will bring problems to light and help drum up support and get those issues on the ballot and passed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It seems obvious to me that there is a general lack of faith in such mechanisms amongst the protesters.
and
Quote:

Perhaps it is because they see that system as broken. Or they think that their protest will bring problems to light and help drum up support and get those issues on the ballot and passed.
Yup, yup and yup. 'Nuff said.

And they DID clear the camp, but this made me shake my head:
Quote:

About 200 people were arrested in the operation, utilizing some 1,400 officers, said Police Chief Charlie Beck.
How assinine can you get, and how much does that show about both misuse of taxpayer funds and what overkill the police are up to when it comes to us.

Found this interesting, too:
Quote:

The City Council has "expressly affirmed" that the demonstrators are within their First Amendment rights, their complaint said, and Villaraigosa, in ordering them to leave, overstepped his authority.

The case remained pending Wednesday.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:23 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


That does sound like overkill Niki.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:43 PM

WISHIMAY

"Well, so long Earth...Thanks for the air... and what-not" -Philip J. Fry


Whoa. Y'all shoulda been watchin' Harry's law this evening....

The overkill was because of the rioting in England, afterwards they learned to cover their bases and then some because police presense was notably absent when the riots started, and now all incidents are responded to with full force. I have to give the cops credit, at least one of them can read news

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:05 PM

WISHIMAY

"Well, so long Earth...Thanks for the air... and what-not" -Philip J. Fry


Did ANYBODY see Harry's Law?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 11:28 AM

WISHIMAY

"Well, so long Earth...Thanks for the air... and what-not" -Philip J. Fry


Gonna bump until someone says they saw it...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:47 PM

WISHIMAY

"Well, so long Earth...Thanks for the air... and what-not" -Philip J. Fry


Does this magic carpet ride take quarters??

Damn...It takes five dollar bills now


Bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-bump

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Sorry, Wish, but I gave up on that show. I liked it last season when she was the scrappy underdog without any real staff or decent office, and everybody thought she'd lost it and was going down.

But now they took all of that and trashed it, turning her into a big firm (she hated the one she was at, which is why she flipped out and quit, according to the original premise of the show), ditching most of the decent characters from the neighborhood, and sidling her with a full staff of shiny, pretty people. In other words, it's just another "The Practice" or "Boston Legal" now, and I couldn't get through more than the first couple eps this season before I gave up and deleted it from my DVR schedule.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:44 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


So my LA policeman friend said they cleared the camp yesterday, a little trouble but not much, according to him it went fairly smooth. Of course that is one side of the story, but its a side that we don't see often, which I can understand, but just thought I'd ask him.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 6:01 PM

WISHIMAY

"Well, so long Earth...Thanks for the air... and what-not" -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sorry, Wish, but I gave up on that show. I liked it last season when she was the scrappy underdog without any real staff or decent office, and everybody thought she'd lost it and was going down.


Absolutely agree, but last night's eppisode was interesting. Especially to OWS peeps. I would think clips of it would be everwhere today..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2011 5:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes, Riona, there weren't the usual barbarian tactics in clearing the LA camp. LA handled the whole thing much better than most places, and they're damned proud of it. They did try to work with the camp, gave them extensions, and finally cleared it out relatively peacefully. It's amusing, given the LA police department used to be one of the worst in the country; they worked hard to clean it up and apparently have done a pretty good job.

Wish that were true elsewhere.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine
Thu, October 23, 2014 05:56 - 557 posts
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Thu, October 23, 2014 05:28 - 515 posts
Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?
Thu, October 23, 2014 03:26 - 110 posts
Russia Says National Governments Should Control Internet
Thu, October 23, 2014 01:46 - 12 posts
You can't take the sky from me
Wed, October 22, 2014 23:17 - 38 posts
2nd healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola
Wed, October 22, 2014 23:09 - 40 posts
Michael Sam gets drafted.
Wed, October 22, 2014 22:18 - 43 posts
More great moments from that religion of PEACE !
Wed, October 22, 2014 22:15 - 105 posts
ICYMI - Alabama House Speaker arrested on 23 felony counts.
Wed, October 22, 2014 15:25 - 12 posts
The Science of Global Warming
Wed, October 22, 2014 11:53 - 18 posts
Annie, get yer overcoat
Wed, October 22, 2014 10:13 - 1 posts
How Nations Fail (USA, Take a Hint}
Wed, October 22, 2014 03:54 - 18 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS