Police Stop Occupy Construction in Capital

[alp227]

Source: NYT

Occupy D.C. protesters started building what looked like a small barn early Sunday in the middle of a park two blocks from the White House where they have been camping out, setting off a series of arrests and a standoff with the police that lasted into the evening.

Ann Wilcox, an observer from the National Lawyers Guild who was in touch with both sides, said that the police had made clear in advance that protesters inside and around the structure would be arrested, and that any delay was simply to safely remove a handful who had climbed on top of the half-built structure.

As the police worked — bringing in a cherry picker to get the protesters off the roof and an oversize air mattress to provide a soft landing — the protesters chanted their defiance: “We are stronger than your trucks and your horses and your riot gear and your orders.”

Despite some disputes and a few confrontations, the Occupy D.C. protesters have had a relatively smooth relationship with the police, without the clashes that have occurred in other cities when officers have moved in to carry out mass evictions. But the erection of the structure, and the police response to it, appeared likely to escalate tensions at the camp. Several protesters said the police had moved in a little after noon, using horses to force people back.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/us/occupy-dc-stopped-from-putting-up-a-building.html

[wordpix]

1. I support the occupiers but building structures in public parks, no

That's taking it a bit too far. We have enough structures in DC and let's keep the parks green.

[virgogal]

3. I agree.

[progressoid]

5. yup. n/t

[cstanleytech]

6. Agree nt

[No Elephants]

11. You support the occupiers as long as they are not staging an occupation ?

It's December. They are going to need warming stations.

Grass? They are trying to get your country and mine back from the 99% and you're worried about grass at the DC occupy site?

See, this is why we can't have nice governments.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. plus++++++

:thumbsup:

[wordpix]

119. I guess you would support the TParty putting up structures in all the nation's parks, then

If you let one group do it, ALL groups can do it, including T-partiers and Donald Trump-type developers. To let one group build structures on public parks without permits and not let other groups build is called discrimination.

You're opening up a can of worms if you let the occupiers build.

[quakerboy]

21. What counts as a structure?

I admit to a certain discomfort with wooden structures. But that argument has been applied to tents as well. And tarps. I tend to want to allow the occupiers the freedom of their convictions. Unless someone happens to have a structure to donate to them, one that will allow them to maintain the protest that is their right, they need to do something to stay warm.

I suppose it would make quite a statement if they stay out there without tents, without any level of safety and comfort. I suppose martyrdom would be one approach to gaining publicity. Is that your preference?

[defendandprotect]

25. Green grass is more important than an occupy movement -- of course -- !!! ROFL

[No Elephants]

63. And in December, too. "Hey, occupiers! Get off Freedom Square's frozen lawn!"

[wordpix]

121. hyoerbole, much? I know, I know, it's so hard to stick to the facts and reality instead of

exaggerations, hyperbole and fantasy

[wordpix]

120. who said that? I support the DC gov here---occupiers can occupy but not build structures

No one says grass is more important that the movement---stop jumping to conclusions based on no evidence or you'll keep looking bad.

[Marrah_G]

36. You support the occupiers but not the occupying part?

:crazy:

[Doctor_J]

39. If they never break the law then it's not civil disobedience

and will have no effect.

[Quartermass]

2. Protests are fine but this is not cool.

[No Elephants]

12. Actually, it is so much cooler than any protest since the bonus occupation of DC under Hoover.

[defendandprotect]

26. It's about time the FOCUS came back to our corrupt government in DC -- !!! Smoke 'em out -- !!

"Who are you all selling yourselves to today?" ---

[No Elephants]

65. Under Hoover, they burned down the occupiers. Scholars say that is the day Hoover lost the next

election.

And then, we had forty years of control of Congress by Democrats.


And then, the DLC, in its wisdom, decided that Democrats should try to be more like Republicans, to win the Presidency more often.


Now, voters just keep throwing out incumbents, regardless of Party.


How's that been workin' for us?

[Marrah_G]

37. What sort of protests are okay with you?

[pipoman]

4. I support the OWS cause

and am sure it is very uncomfortable camping out in DC in December. Too bad Occupy DC didn't happen in September, there would likely been a better turnout and no need to erect buildings..

[cstanleytech]

7. Personally I believe it is time for OWS to move on

from protesting to taking action by getting candidates elected that will do things that will help the american people and get the people currently in office who seem to want to help themselves and corporations more than they do the american people out of office.

[No Elephants]

That may be your agenda. They seem to know how to pursue their agenda

astoundingly well.

[cstanleytech]

20. If hanging out in parks chanting catchy slogans is the sum total of their agenda then

I am not sure what that will accomplish.

[No Elephants]

24. Actually they changed the entire national conversation in a few weeks from

debt ceiling to the 99%, an astounding accomplishment for a movement that was not astroturf and that the media and politicians tried their best at first to pretend did not exist.

Sorry you did not notice that profound change in such a short time. Fortunately, most TV commentators and politicians did, even if they admitted it only belatedly and grudgingly.

And that was only the beginning.

They are sending a message by the way that they are behaving. Cooperation, caring about each other, a more egalatarian society with fewer differences between and among classes. You cannot tell which of them has a trust fund, or a job or is umemployed.

So many things, if you are observant and/or reading up on it with an open mind.

[defendandprotect]

28. Your criticism is shallow -- and they have already created positive change ....

in moving the government's thinking to the LEFT -- which is where we need to go --

quickly!!

[Doctor_J]

41. The government's moving to the left?

Can you point me to some examples?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5080431

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x641466

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5079918

[defendandprotect]

43. Delay of Keystone would be one --

Think failure of the Super Congress to come to agreement on cuts to Medicare

and Social Security -- at the moment -- is another.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the government is ignoring the will of the people --

and that this is a liberal nation looking to move government to the LEFT.


AND LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT ... OBAMA IS TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT FOR OWS --

OWS IS ANTI-WALL ST -- OBAMA IS WALL STREET!!

[randome]

44. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with building a barn in a park.

That does not move forward any message.

[defendandprotect]

51. Obama being Wall Street and too far to the right has nothing to do with HOMELESSNESS???

ROFL

If you want to talk about right to free assembly -- let's do it --

If you want to talk about theater pointing to America's tremendous problems

with poverty and homelessness, let's do that --

If you want to talk about Wall Street's greed and exploitation of nature/labor

and Obama's support for Wall Street and vice versa -- let's do that --

Maybe you want to talk about Bush/Obama bail outs for capitalism/elites --

while trampling single payer and MEDICARE FOR ALL -- Let's do that --

[randome]

60. There are plenty of homeless centers people can work at.

They don't need to erect new ones in public parks. I think it's clear the barn was for the benefit of OWS members. I sympathize with them wanting to stay warm during the winter but I don't see what staying in a park will accomplish regarding our crappy economy.

[defendandprotect]

62. Yes -- the HOMELESS are certainly pampered -- !! ROFL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2429260&mesg_id=2429260


Evidently you don't understand very much about OWS or homelessness!

[randome]

64. Evidently not.

So explain how building a barn in a public park will change our crappy economy. Which I thought was the entire purpose of OWS in the first place.

Seriously, can you answer this one question?

[defendandprotect]

71. You think this is merely about changing the "crappy economy" ... ???

Again -- you entirely misunderstand --

ending corporatism/fascism -- oligarchy -- is more likely the main purpose --

and that effects your life -- every moment of your life!


But, interesting to see how little interest you have in any indepth discussion --

i.e., like what you might have learned from the LINK on homelessness I gave you.


Still think there are sufficient shelters -- or that they would be a safe place to be?

[randome]

76. I don't need to be convinced there is injustice in the world.

And I don't need a link to know that homeless shelters can be crappy places to have to turn to. But, again, building a barn in a public park?

If homeless people are now part of the OWS effort -and every supporter has a different statement on what those efforts are- then how is this bringing attention to that? How will it change the homeless situation? The barn was primarily for OWS members.

[defendandprotect]

83. Seems that you do, actually -- !!

You don't understand how homeless "are now part of the OWS effort" -- ?

How do you think people become HOMELESS except via a corrupt economic system?

And, no -- it's not a "crappy economy" --

It's a depression -- a financial coup -- inflicted upon the nation by elites.

See: Catherine Austin Fitts on that -- among many others.

[No Elephants]

75. OMG The Occupy Movement started in September and It's the beginning of December and the economy .

hasn't changed yet!

Stop sending them our tax money! Oh, wait.

I really get a howl out of someone who does nothing to support the movement, belittles it, then damns it for not working miracles.


Seriously, get a grip.

You've done nothing to help OWS. On the other hand, you've sent a lot of tax money (I assume) to D.C. and they are the ones who've put us in this mess.

How about saving the carping for the people whom you actually paid to do things like fix the economy for you while you sit in your safe. warm home without wind and rain in your face?


As for OWS, join in and work with them.

Or donate as much as you can as often as you can.

Or ignore it.

But please don't use up oxygen by saying it hasn't fixed your life for you in two or three months.

[randome]

79. Never said my life needed to be 'fixed'.

Are you suggesting a taxpayer's revolt now? That's new.

I'm not damning anyone. I'm asking the question -again- how does building a barn in a public park change the system?

It seems to me that OWS' efforts would be more effective if they were directed against a more culpable enemy than local police and park officials.

[No Elephants]

81. Again, I recommend you google and educate yourself. Or not.

BTW, I did not say a thing about a taxpayers' revolt.

I merely suggested that, if you have complaints about how someone is approaching the "crappy economy," please feel free to complain about people you;ve actually paid (I assume) to fix the economy, especially since they are the ones who broke it to begin with.


I hope that's clear.

[randome]

84. And I will ask the question one more time.

How does building any kind of a structure in a public park change our currently crappy system?

[No Elephants]

86. I have answered it. Either educate yourself or not. Sorry if you do not recongize that as an answer.

But it is the only one you're going to get from me.

[defendandprotect]

85. What you're asking is, why are homeless relevant to the protesters ... !!

You're game playing --


It seems to me that OWS' efforts would be more effective if they were directed against a more culpable enemy than local police and park officials.


OWS's efforts are not "directed at local police and park officials" --

which is an amazingly upside down way of looking at police brutality which has been on

display from the very beginning!


Those who we've watched beating the hell out of NON-VIOLENT protesters are guilty of police

brutality -- and reminiscent of a Gestapo.


Clearly you are not posting on this thread in any effort to understand OWS --

[randome]

92. Agreed.

That was perhaps an unfortunate implication I made. But it still doesn't change the fact that OWS' efforts do not appear to be directed at the people responsible for our current crappy system.

It's a very indirect -and therefore not very honest- war that is being waged, when the enemy is never directly confronted.

I sympathize with those who have been mistreated -and, yes, brutalized- by police over-reactions. But, again, was this what OWS was formed to prove? That local police sometimes behave like thugs?

OK. Fine. I think that point has been made.

What comes next? Helping the homeless? OK. That's fine, too. But is this going to make the politicians and CEOs change their ways? I don't see it.

[defendandprotect]

97. Wasn't it you who thought OWS' efforts were being directed at the police ... ???

How far could you miss in seeing a target?

Rather it is the police and their brutality who are targeting OWS -- !!

With strong suspicions of Feds being involved via Homeland Security --

Wall Street is capitalism -- is it not?

And, how do you once again miss that there is an Occupy DC movement?


Meanwhile, you continue with these strong misperceptions ....

I sympathize with those who have been mistreated -and, yes, brutalized- by police over-reactions. But, again, was this what OWS was formed to prove? That local police sometimes behave like thugs?

OK. Fine. I think that point has been made.


You question whether OWS was "formed to prove police brutality?

Right -- maybe they were all looking to get beaten up and were just pretending that they

think the government is ignoring the will of the people? ROFL


Again -- why don't you tell us specifically what you think a movement should do to create a

government which works for the general welfare?

Something which would provide the IMMEDIATE results you're looking for --

[randome]

99. Many more massive protests on Washington.

It isn't theft when the legislators basically unlock the doors and say, 'Here. Take what you want.'

They are the ones responsible for the inequality and the crappy conditions we have now.

That's where the war should be taken.

[defendandprotect]

106. Only if you don't think bribery is theft -- ??? Again, there is an OCCUPY DC -- !!

In fact, if you look at the numbers of millionaires and multi-millionaires in

Congress they are basically Wall Street -- !!

How much does Pelosi have tied up in MIC?

Or Feinstein's husband?

Been a long time since I've see any of those figures -- shameful!

[No Elephants]

70. First, I don't think there are plenty of homeless center. Sure are not enough in

Boston, and it's dang cold here in winters.

Yes, the structure was for the occupiers, who have been joined by the homeless.


If you don't see what the occupation has done since September, maybe you should google. Or look at things with an open mind.

NO ONE was talking about the 99% in August, only about the deficit and where they were going to cut "entitlements.". And now, everyone is talking about the 99% and recognizing how Wall Street is the biggest recipient of welfare in the U.S.

I don't watch MSNBC a lot, but Sharpton has been talking about this, and Maddow.

But, if you only see a tent in a park, that's really too bad.

[randome]

73. I never said OWS had no impact.

I said erecting a barn and living in public parks and staging hunger strikes did not seem to me to be a very effective way of going about changing the system.

Sure, the conversation has shifted a little. But without concrete action against the very forces arrayed against the 99%, that conversation will drift away.

The enemy is in Washington. Why is OWS looking for other targets?

[defendandprotect]

77. Neither did you say that it did -- !!

The enemy is in Washington?

Did you read the article that Wall Street has contributed more to Obama than

all other Republicans combined???

Obama is Wall Street --


Capitalism is the enemy -- corporate/fascism is the enemy --

and those politicians who sell themselves to them are the enemy -- !!

[No Elephants]

80. The conversation has shifted a little? LOL.

I now what you said. And if you don't see a connection between occupying a space and shifting a national conversation in all of two months, when media and politicians were doing their best well, what can I possibly say to change your mindset?

There has been a lot said and written on how remarkable the accomplishments to date of the OWS movement has been.

I believe I suggested googling in my prior post. I reccmmend it again.

[defendandprotect]

74. K/R -- "But, if you only see a tent in a park, that's really too bad" -- LOVE IT!!

Thank you -- !!!


And don't know if you saw this from the Home page . . . . ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2429260&mesg_id=2429260

[Doctor_J]

35. Don't forget getting pepper sprayed

you're spot on

[cstanleytech]

55. Well the only thing that achieved was making them well seasoned though ill pass on the long pig as

I prefer a nice beef steak with mushrooms and onions.

[defendandprotect]

88. And that, of course, shows respect for OWS and the protesters -- !! ROFL

[lbrtbell]

23. They've changed nothing

I support OWS, but to imply that they've actually changed our system at all is incorrect. :(

[defendandprotect]

29. Delayed the Keystone Pipeline -- for one --

[No Elephants]

87. You support OWS? Really? Do tell. How?

[defendandprotect]

27. You mean more candidates like Obama? ROFL

Ah, remember the days when we thought that was going to make a difference!!

[Zhade]

42. Then you don't understand OWS very well.

The system is corrupt and broken. Traditional GOTV tactics are meaningless in that context.

[cstanleytech]

54. You are right, I dont understand how sitting on their ass and chanting achieves anything.

Now if their goal is to really fix the system because they believe its broken then they need to get off their butts and get to work to take the control out of those who are in office who have broken the system.

[defendandprotect]

56. You're right ... sitting on drugstore stools and trying to use "white only" rest rooms ...

was a waste of time --


ROFL

[No Elephants]

111. A poster says traditional GOTV is meaningless and your response is OWS should use traditional GOTV?

[cstanleytech]

122. Its not traditional government its the people currently controlling it that is the problem and until

they are replaced we wont be able to make any changes to improve it or atleast that is my opinion and I assume we are still allowed to have an opinion of our own here or have the rules been changed such that we are required to conform to a specific party line opinion here on the DU?

[No Elephants]

13. Occupy DC began October 6, 2011. It is not a one month deal. None of the occupations are.

They will last until the fascists force them to stop.

The turnout at the beginning was fine, with many well known lefties, like Hedges, but Occupy Wall Street kind of pre-empted it, plus the media was not covering it.

You are right to note that they need shelter now.

Edited to add link http://october2011.org/

[Zorra]

8. It was supposedly going to be a shelter for homeless folks. nt nt

[bottomofthehill]

9. This structure was not safe

Homeless or not, it would not be a safe place to be. The thought was noble, the intentions good, but it was a bad idea.

[Arctic Dave]

10. That is a standard pole barn structure.

It is no less safe then the structure you're in now.

[bottomofthehill]

14. i dont think so,...

I have a foundation, i dont need an open flame for heat, i have running water if there is fire, that is not safe

[No Elephants]

16. Why is running water indoors a safety issue? It did not exist in many homes

less than 100 years ago.


Many homes today, even on windy ole Cape Cod, where everyone coveted wind farms, and hurricanes hit like nobody's business, don't have foundations, even as we type.

So, those issues are makeweight, when it comes to a very basic shelter.

Teepees had open flames for heat. It may not be the safest, but what do you suggest for an occupying group outdoors in winter? It is not as though the cities are being humane about accomodating them, or most of the left is doing a lost for them, besides "helpful" criticism.

[Arctic Dave]

18. Yes it is.

Your foundation doesn't mean anything, the dirt under it is what supports it. Open flame for heat? Are they heating with a barrel or or they using a flame that was confined in a stove, that too is completely safe.

[Occulus]

109. "i have running water if there is fire"

I hope the running water in your home helps you when your home is in flames.

[No Elephants]

15. Did you inspect the structure? Was it less safe than being exposed to all elements

with nothing at all between people and wind, rain or snow?

[joeglow3]

34. Did the city inspector inspect it?

My building was.

[No Elephants]

89. What happened with your and your building had nothing to do with my question.,

My question was addressed to a poster who had unequivocally stated that a structure was unsafe.

Congrats on your inspection though.

[defendandprotect]

30. Great idea -- !! Nice that someone is thinking of our homeless -- government sure isn't -- !!

Someday I'd like to hear Obama talk about the homeless and impoverished in

America -- would be a nice change!!

[No Elephants]

17. As usual, DU is right there with "I support the occupation, but they should stop."

And "I support the occupation (whatever the hell that means, if you not there and not donating), but they are doing this wrong."

May I suggest, "I support the occupation, so I am going to join one for an hour, a day, a weekend."

Or, "I support the occupation, so I just made a donation."

Or even, "I support the occupation, so I am going to post only positive things, and, if I can't manage even that, at least I won't post anything negative."


Otherwise, people may be ever so slightly tempted not take you at your word.

[Zorra]

19. Thanks, No Elephants.

I've been wanting to say something similar for days, but my words would not have been nearly as civil as how you expressed it.

[No Elephants]

104. You are welcome, Zorra. (Civil? I told a friend I'd finally lost it! LOL)

I enjoy your posts so much as well.

[unionworks]

22. Damn that was good!

I have spent time at my local occupy, and have supported with pizza and doughnuts. :-)

[No Elephants]

105. Great. I hope it comes back to you in some way. Then again, it probably has.

Blessings.

[defendandprotect]

31. +1000% --- k/r for your post -- !!

[justiceischeap]

32. I had a discussion with a friend last night about this

This friend says, "I support OWS but if they can't get a permit, they shouldn't be there illegally." The also ever-present, "What's their goal?" discussion came up and "Are they really reaching people or just offending them?" I proceeded to tell said friend that if the founding fathers had waited for a permit we'd still be bowing to the Queen of England.

I think folks who qualify their support for OWS don't, deep down, really support it at all.

[randome]

33. But people who support without accepting input from others...

...are somehow better.

Building barns and now hunger strikes. Anything but directly attacking the people who caused our current stupid economic dilemma.

This does nothing to change things.

[Zorra]

52. here - maybe this will help you understand the Occupy Movement:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth...

...The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

(From MLK's a "Letter from the Birmingham Jail")

[randome]

57. Sure, but what kind of 'direct action' are we talking about here?

Building a barn in the middle of a public park?

I don't get the connection.

Another poster says OWS is equivalent to the founding fathers. Don't see how the barn-building relates to that, either.

I'm sure I'll be castigated as an unthinking tool of the right wing but, hey, I'm optimistic that conversations can still occur on DU.

[Zorra]

78. By calling the building a "barn" when you know it was not a barn,

and then stating that you do "not get the connection", indicates that you are not prepared to abide by basic principles of reason.

I would suggest, that if you are having recurrent difficulties in maintaining discussions here at DU, there is a good possibility that you may want to consider improving your discussion skills.



Discussion terminated. Sorry.

[randome]

82. Fine. It was not a barn.

Take the word 'barn' out. Substitute whatever noun you want. My question remains -how is building a structure in the center of a public park going to change our currently crappy system?

It's a reasonable question from someone who insists on remaining open-minded and objective.

[cstanleytech]

59. Tell me, how many times has that tactic worked and how many times has it failed?

Just a guess on my part but for some reason I suspect the success rate is pretty low.

[Zorra]

67. Let's see, Abolitionist Movement - check. Labor Movement - check...

Women's Suffrage Movement - check. Civil Rights Movement - check. Anti-War Movement - check LGBTQI movement - check

2 constitutional amendments. All huge gains. All huge, significant, necessary changes.

And that's just the US.

[defendandprotect]

68. You seem to forget US history --

Slavery -- and the underground RR

Civil rights -- ending Segregation

Women's movement --

Homosexual/Human Rights --


In many ways, still on going movements --

[randome]

72. None of the examples you cited were resolved by living in parks.

Or building barns. They were mostly won with massive protests against the very forces that were against them.

That's how wars are won. By taking the fight to the enemy. Not finding some other enemy to rail against.

[defendandprotect]

90. Movements change -- different tactics are used -- and, again, they did not build a "barn" -- !!

And, again -- why don't you tell us specifically what you think OWS should be doing?

And, let me also point out to you, tha tfor decades now we have had "massive protests" --

many marches on Washington -- and the will of the people is being ignored.


The entire system has to be changed -- capitalism is over we just haven't buried it yet.

And the police brutality we've seen inflicted upon non-violent protesters is yet one more

strong indication of building corporate/fascism.

[randome]

94. You're not going to destroy capitalism...

...by erecting structures in public parks and getting beaten by police and staging hunger strikes.

Those are not tactics that work well in a war.

We already KNOW that the system is corrupt and that corporations control too much.

Now that the message has been delivered, what's next?

[defendandprotect]

98. Why don't you tell us -- keep asking you to give specifics .... still waiting -- !!

[randome]

100. I did, up-thread.

More massive protests in Washington. The legislators are the enemy. That's where the battle should be fought. Helping the homeless is noble but it will not change the system. It's equivalent to treating the wounded instead of fighting the war.

It isn't idealism that wins a war. Soldiers do. Idealism can INSPIRE but it is soldiers who win the day.

[defendandprotect]

103. No -- Wall Street owns the legislators -- !! However, there is an OCCUPY DC ...

which is why the Keystone pipeline is now delayed for a year --

So -- don't bother with the homeless, eh? ROFL

And -- let's let the "wounded" just die -- !! ROFL




What has won this government's wars has to be the most BRUTAL force on the face of

the earth -- and that's been true from the very first taking over of this continenent --

to today!!


Trust we all support non-violence -- but certainly the Mayors and police seem to have

other ideas on that -- !!

As for idealism, certainly it's built into our Constitution -- you remember that thing

that W called "just a GD piece of paper"?

That's what "equality for all" and "democracy" are all about --

[Zhade]

107. So we should just let the wounded bleed out?

You do understand a multifaceted approach, right?

[randome]

108. Not at all.

I'm not dissing anyone for wanting to help the homeless. What I am saying is that it's foolish to think this will 'do away with capitalism'. It isn't even close.

[defendandprotect]

110. You have an unfortunate way of saying things ....

That's where the battle should be fought. Helping the homeless is noble but it will not change the system. It's equivalent to treating the wounded instead of fighting the war.

From what I see of this movement it is certainly not "foolish" in any way.

And the comments about capitalism were made by ME -- not the movement.


Indirectly, homelessness is certainly connected to capitalism/corporatism/elitism --

however, no one but YOU has suggested that spotlighting homelessness will "do away with

capitalism" -- !!


Up is not down -- strawmen are just there to be knocked down.

[randome]

113. LOL

If what you say has no connection to 'the movement', please have 'the movement' get in touch with me so I can continue this discussion with him/her/them/it.

[defendandprotect]

114. What I am saying is -- OBVIOUSLY -- I cannot speak for the movement ....

and I don't think that point goes over your head -- !!

And, right, I'm sure the movement can't wait to tap into all you've had to say

on this thread -- !!


ROFL

[No Elephants]

116. Have the movement get in touch with you? Get over yourself. Go see them.

They'll probably be happy to speak to you if you have an open mind and are actually willing to listen and learn.

Do you? Are you?

[defendandprotect]

118. +1000% -- !!

[defendandprotect]

45. Basically, the right to free assembly shouldn't require a "permit" -- !!

I think they hit on just the right description of this movement as well --

99% because I think we all immediately understood what it was all about.

A myriad number of things -- too many to list -- all having to do with elitism/oligarchy

corporate/fascism in America. Just plain easily understood.


:hi:


I think we need to get some 99% buttons out there so we can all show our support for

the movement!

[randome]

46. "Right to assembly"?

Building a barn in a park is the same thing as right to assembly?

That's ridiculous.

[defendandprotect]

48. Two different discussions ... what I said was right to free assembly s/not require a permit !!

That's subject #1 having nothing to do with building a barn -


If you want to have a discussion about the barn building -- that's different.

This was obvious theater to try to point to the needs of our homeless in America

and how they are being ignroed -- !!

And ignoring our homeless, impoverished, the hungry and the unemployed ...

IS RIDICULOUS!!

[No Elephants]

115. There is a theory that a "but" in a sentence is pretty much a signal

that everything that was said so far means nothing.

As in, I support OWS but I am concerned about keeping the grass green (in December no less).

I think enough criticism has come that people now feel they need to give lip service to supporting it--right before they belittle it or say it should stop.

BTW, a lot of the occupiers DID get permits one kind or another.

IMO, when your asked if OWS was offending people, what he meant was that he finds OWS offensive. Did you happen to ask your friend why he was offended? Whether he knows it or not, I bet the real answer is media spin.

[Doctor_J]

38. So no one is allowed to criticize anything about the occupation?

Thanks for clearing that up

[defendandprotect]

47. It's not about true criticism .... it's about feigned support -- !!

:eyes:

[randome]

49. Let me hazard a guess, here.

YOU are the one to decide what 'true' criticism is. Right?

[defendandprotect]

50. Only if YOU are the one to decide what "true" support is. Right?

[randome]

53. So neither of us is an arbiter of truth. We are agreed on that.

So we should each be open to intellectual discussions without resorting to castigation or belittling the other.

[defendandprotect]

58. Provide the criticism .... stop feigning support where it is obviously not there ---

[randome]

61. I can't prove to you that I support protests against our injust economic system.

You'll have to take me at my word. And when I see OWS members building barns and staging hunger strikes, a rational person has to wonder how any of that will change the system.

It's a legitimate question, not 'feigned support'.

[defendandprotect]

66. You can't prove to me either that you really want to discuss anything ....

because you continue to turn away from every discussion ---

If you understand that this is a dysfunctional government -- if you understand that

"Congress is controlled by the oil and coal industry" -- Al Gore/Rolling Stone-June

If you undertstand Global Warming and the true threat of it --


If you understand history -- and history of hunger strikes -- protests --

then the legitimate question is why don't you recognize the urgency and the absolute

need for this movement?


You don't like the barn concept -- you don't like hunger strikes -- what do you think

they should be doing? Please tell us!

[randome]

69. I think (my opinion, granted) that OWS should direct their resources...

...against the right people -the legislators who tried to create a 'frictionless economy' fantasy.

Washington is where the enemy is.

How am I turning away from this discussion?

[defendandprotect]

91. Who owns the legislators other than Wall Street?

And, again -- there is an OCCUPY DC which is why the Keystone pipe line was

delayed --

Do you have to be told that you're game-playing -- ROFL

[randome]

93. There you go with the insults again.

You seem too emotionally invested in OWS to play the game I'm playing -which is one of conversation and mutual discovery.

[defendandprotect]

95. You're feigning support for OWS --- and didn't answer the question --- Goodbye -- !!

[randome]

96. I have noticed the tendency of OWS fanatics...

...to inevitably be the ones to duck out of a conversation. I have never refused to engage someone in a conversation. I will never use the Ignore function, either, because I honestly want to learn what I can.

So I didn't answer what question? That Wall Street is the enemy? I agree to a certain extent, but I think the legislators who gave them the tools with which to loot the system are more responsible.

Either way, other than a brief couple of marches on Wall Street and, I think, one or two in Washington, where will OWS go next? If Wall Street and/or the politicians are the enemy, then I would think resources would be more effectively utilized by directly confronting them.

[defendandprotect]

101. "OWS fanatics" .... ??? ... but you wouldn't be insulting anyone, would you? ROFL

Meanwhile, you are not on "ignore" --

What I was indicating to you was that you're enough on the record now for anyone

to judge for themselves what you are all about --

I've made my judgement -- and it is that you can't "learn" anything from anyone who has

nothing to say --

Try first of all taking an honest approach to the question --

I ask you ... "Who owns the legislators?" and you respond --

I agree to a certain extent, but I think the legislators who gave them the tools with which to loot the system are more responsible.

You completely avoid seeing that the legislators are owned by Wall Street --

True -- there are two sides to the Citizens' United fiasco --

Those who BUY --

and those who SELL themsleves --

but Wall Street owns our legislators --


Either way, other than a brief couple of marches on Wall Street and, I think, one or two in Washington, where will OWS go next? If Wall Street and/or the politicians are the enemy, then I would think resources would be more effectively utilized by directly confronting them.


Since I am not OWS or party to their discussions, I have no idea where the movement will go from

this moment --

And, again, this is about OCCUPY -- not "march on" -- so I think you're wrong there again.


Again --

If Wall Street and/or the politicians are the enemy, then I would think resources would be more effectively utilized by directly confronting them.

But OCCUPY WAll Street isn't confronting Wall Street???

And OCCUPY DC isn't confronting politicians?


Bye --

[randome]

102. They're not confronting them in enough numbers to make a difference.

So 'occupy' all the places you want. That still doesn't give anyone a right to erect structures in a public park, which is what this thread was originally about.

And we can disagree on whether to focus on Wall Street or the legislators but that at least is an honest disagreement, and does not deserve to be ridiculed.

And if OWS is about changing the system, then merely 'occupying' some public space will not do that. So if OWS is truly evolving as some have claimed, I think it's about time it evolved to more directly confront the cause of our current inequal system.

On edit:
And yeah, the 'fanatics' part was an over-reaction on my part. I apologize.

[defendandprotect]

112. And you don't think the numbers will increase -- ???

And you're concentrating still on the most meaningless part of this thread --

puting up a structure --

If you want to discuss the right to free assembly and what it may encompass, let's begin

with whether or not we feel that right is precluded if you don't have a permit?


There is an OCCUPY DC -- nor are legislators able to ignore OWS in DC or anywhere else.


Think the intro to this comment is ... "my opinion is" ...

And if OWS is about changing the system, then merely 'occupying' some public space will not do that. So if OWS is truly evolving as some have claimed, I think it's about time it evolved to more directly confront the cause of our current inequal system.

The cause of the "current" inequality is Wall Street/capitalism/corporatism --

And the fact that Obama is again loaded down with Wall Street money which doesn't signal

any positive change in his corporate agenda if he is re-elected.



On edit:
And yeah, the 'fanatics' part was an over-reaction on my part. I apologize.

Actually, I think it is the way that you see supporters of OWS.

But thank you for retracting it!


:)

[No Elephants]

117. Not at all what my post said, but thanks for the big straw man.