I still don't get what the powers that be are THINKING with OWS

[XemaSab]

I've been baffled for weeks about why police are breaking up OWS and all the Occupy protests.

So the cops come and kick people out of Zuccotti Park, and they seriously expect all these people to bag it up and go home?

Here's a news flash: you tell people they can't occupy parks and plazas, you might just be unhappy about where the protest moves to.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. They asked for this and they can't put the genie back in the bottle so deal with it!

[roguevalley]

68. why did the Tzar ignore the peasants? Why did King Louis ignore

the masses? They are completely cut off from their souls and they have equated money with security. A peaceful revolution thwarted turns to guns easily.

[randome]

2. Why is this hard to understand?

A group of people cannot simply take over public property for an indefinite period of time.

Public property belongs to THE PUBLIC. Not everyone agrees with OWS nor with its goals. The job of local government is to see that EVERYONE's rights are upheld.

That includes the rights of people who want to use public parks for other purposes.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. A majority of people can takeover anything they want

What part of THAT FACT do YOU not understand?

[randome]

7. So now might makes right, huh?

Brilliant.

[BeFree]

16. No

But the majority of the park users do rule.

Everyone is welcome, but if you are a cop-kissing brown-nosing scared-of-authority little weenie, you might be uncomfortable.

[randome]

22. Someone please answer this question.

What does camping out in public parks have to do with advocating for greater economic justice for the 99%?

It's a waste of time. The battle should be in Washington and New York.

The march on Wall Street today was at least a step in the right direction.

[BeFree]

25. Got your attention, eh?

Got you talking and thinking, right? That's a success right there?
Shit, you've been posting like crazy about Occupy!!

[randome]

39. No one is saying OWS has not been successful.

People are questioning why time is being spent fighting for the right to camp out in public parks instead of holding rallies and protests.

The people who want OWS to take a more activist role are part of the 99%, too.

[Leftist Agitator]

69. Oy Vey...

"People are questioning why time is being spent fighting for the right to camp out in public parks instead of holding rallies and protests."

It's called "Occupy" Wall Street, not "Rally" on Wall Street, not "March" on Wall Street. The idea is to Occupy.

[Zorra]

57. If you haven't figured it out by now, no one will ever be able

to explain it to you in any possible way that you will ever be able to understand it.





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2329881&mesg_id=2329881

[HughBeaumont]

77. Um, in case it slipped your sight, we TRIED marches in Washington.

Nobody paid attention when there were close to 250,000 people demonstrating against the war. This happened several times during the Bewsh reign of error. Nobody paid attention to the thousands of protesters at the 2001 or 2005 inaugurations. Stations didn't show up. We were a burp on local news. "Pffffffffft . . . a couple thousand commies protested downtown today. Good for them, I guess, no one missed work. In more important news, Demi Moore and Ashton Kuchter got married today! Let's wish those beautiful kids luck!" :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Yet, get 75,000 angry white geriatrics with tri-corner hats (you know, because they had to leave the hoods home), flags the size of Rhode Island and signs depicting our President as a Ubangi cheiftan or calling him a Soviet or a monkey, and HEY, it's a "REVOLUTION"!! It's a "peaceful, clean gathering of citizens concerned about government spending"!!!

See how that works?

The media doesn't like progressives. THEY DON'T LIKE PROGRESSIVES! What the hell is it going to take to get this embedded?

The only reason anyone's paying attention to this is that OWS didn't leave. Camping out in parks tells these fucking idiots THEY MEAN BUSINESS.

Why protest Washington? That didn't work, so you cut out the middleman and go directly to their bosses.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. If I may

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2336559

[geardaddy]

82. +1000

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

9. No they can not. Our country has 'laws' and 'ordinances'.

If you don't like the law or ordnance then work in a legal way to change them.

Camping out in parks isn't going to do anything except get folks arrested and cost taxpayers of the cities being occupied money.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

13. So exactly where in the constitution does it mention permits?

I can't find it in the first part about the peoples right to peacably assemble.

[randome]

29. No rights are absolute.

The right to peacefully assemble does NOT give you the right to invade someone's home or to hold a rally in a day care center.

We accept limitations on our rights EVERY DAY.

Again, why are we even discussing camping rights when the real focus needs to be on economic justice for the 99%.

The march on Wall Street is a step in the right direction. (Have I already said that on this thread? Probably. I apologize if I sound repetitive.)

Fighting cops in Oakland for the right to take over a city's public parks is a step in the wrong direction.

IMO.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

36. No, YOU accept limitations on your rights. A Public Park is not a day care center

If you want to give up your rights, go ahead. I wont. According to the first ammendment, We "The People" Have the right to peacably assemble to address greivences. If we can't do that in the places "we the people" have paid for, then where should we do it? In our bathrooms?

[Tx4obama]

50. You did not pay for Zuccotti park. It is privately owned park that is open to the public

the OWNERS are still paying property taxes on 'their' land.

Also, just because 'other' parks are 'public' that does not mean you can do anything you want in them.
There are ordinances that say you can't drink alcoholic beverages, have sex, defecate, and many have hours in which the parks are closed.

Cites and states have a right to enact laws and ordinances that put limits on your rights. If you don't like it then get the laws/ordinances changed - but as it is 'now' you do NOT have a right to do just anything you please.

Have a nice evening :)

[WildNovember]

54. Actually, the public did pay. That's why that park has to be open to the public 24/7.

Because US Steel wanted a pass on NY zoning/construction rules.

And if you believe Brookfield pays taxes on the property....well, prove it. I think it's doubtful considering that much of rich people's property in NY isn't taxed ...special exemptions...\


But it's certain that taxpayers subsidize Brookfield....the present owner of the park....

Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 06:35 AM PDT
FOIA request reveals Zuccotti Park owners Brookfield Properties heavily taxpayer subsidized

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/01/1032061/-FOIA-request-reveals-Zuccotti-Park-owners-Brookfield-Properties-heavily-taxpayer-subsidized

[randome]

56. OWS is not the public.

It's one group and it's growing in popularity and impact. But, again, what does fighting over camping rights do to further the cause of economic justice.

No one here at DU is AGAINST OWS. That's a ridiculous assertion on the face of it because all anyone is doing is suggesting tactics and a different focus.

What is so wrong with that? Some DUers act like OWS is their own private club.

[WildNovember]

64. lol. The public subsidizes the 1%-er corp that "owns" Zucotti park.

And that 1%-er corp doesn't pay taxes on the park -- the public pays *them*.

Twist, twist, twist, the facts are not on your side.

[CJCRANE]

66. You're arguing against points that the other poster hasn't made:

"No one here at DU is AGAINST OWS. That's a ridiculous assertion on the face of it because all anyone is doing is suggesting tactics and a different focus". No one made that assertion in the first place.

And also making a division that's not really there: "Some DUers act like OWS is their own private club". I don't see any evidence of this. I also noticed you did something similar in your replies to me, you kept mentioning that people accused you of wanting to "shut down" OWS when I never mentioned that nor saw any evidence of that accusation.

You can make your point clearly without using these types of debating tactics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Conflating public space with private property

Is this a new talking point or something?

[HughBeaumont]

78. Siggghhhhh . . .

Policemen attacking unarmed protesters with weapons is NOT "FIGHTING"!! It's ASSAULT and it's the fault OF THE POLICE!!!

FUCK!!

[FirstLight]

20. i think you don;t get the word DISobedience

as in CIVIL...DISobedience.... in order to make a statement and get the world to CHANGE?

[JDPriestly]

62. That is what OWS is trying to do.

Martin Luther King changed prevailing law by demonstrating. He did not try to get the majority of Southern voters to vote for his ideas. Those voters were mostly White and culturally and ideologically unwilling to support his movement.

Martin Luther King demonstrated. He claimed rights that had not previously been recognized.

OWS is claiming the right to a just economic system that is not rigged for the very rich.

[AntiFascist]

67. How ironic is your comment....

recently I had the opportunity to drive past a campground near LA. I was struck by the huge number of RVs, then it struck me....many of the people living in these RVs and campers probably have no other place to go. The occupy movement (encampments) are highly symbolic of what is happening all across America. Maybe you need to get out more?

[piratefish08]

5. hmmmmm... 35000 people in NYC disagree with you......

[randome]

6. How many?

Where did you get that number from? And what are you talking about? Is that the number of people involved with OWS? The number of people polled who support it? What?

[WildNovember]

37. Livestream.

[lbrtbell]

40. That number is from police scanner reports

Why try to argue a point when you don't even have a basic grasp of facts?

[randome]

47. I asked a question and it was answered.

THAT'S how you get facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Last night there were 500 people

In San Diego, at a local bridge. My estimation. Ask KUSI and that was 150. They have been playing that game for a long time. Indeed, it's editorial policy at the local paper to always give lower numbers, except the tea party. Those were correct. Care to connect some dots? So your good sources, sadly, would be coundown, local Indy papers, the BBC. Or scanners. If you rely on the press, the liberal press no less, you will get half truths and carefully crafted propaganda.

I know you claim you don't watch them. Nevertheless you have gotten the talking points down pat.

Get over it , OWS is not going away and to paraphrase the BBC, every time they get hit, they seen to get stronger.

[metalbot]

84. That's less than half a percent of the NYC population

[jberryhill]

11. But the flip side of that is

When you say they "cannot," and they stay there, you have to have some idea of how far you are willing to go to get them out and keep them out.

Because it is one thing to say "you have to leave" and another thing to make that happen when you are dealing with a large number of people who have the will to tolerate a lot of coercion applied toward that goal.

Eventually either

1. The resolve of those who will not leave exceeds the force one is willing to apply to them.

Or

2. The force one applies to them exceeds their resolve to stay, and further deters them from returning.

The options are 1 and 2 in the absence of some other resolution or accommodation.

[randome]

17. I'd say that two months was apparently the limit.

But why is anyone wasting time fighting over 'camping rights' in the first place?

I thought OWS was supposed to be about advocating for economic justice, not public park access.

The march on Wall Street today is a step in the right direction. More large protests will help the cause, not fighting cops in Oakland.

[jberryhill]

63. Yes and no

When the main focus is on stuff like "Tony Bologna is a bad cop", then the impact is diluted.

But, really, the world is not going to end because some people are sleeping outside in a city. That happens every night in every city year round. Yes there are health, sanitation and safety issues. But there are different ways of approaching them. Up in Vancouver, at least a few weeks back, they had porta potties, and the fire department would come through every now and then to address hazards. It's a question of whether a government engages its citizens as enemies or people.

Simply being able to assemble a lot of people for a demonstration is passé. The right-to-lifers pull off a huge one every year, and it's not going to get them anywhere.

The timing here, leading up to whatever happens with the Supercommittee, is great, and is going to help frame the debate in next year's elections. Along the way, are there going to be dumb ideas and vacuous symbolic behavior. Sure. But it's not the end of the world if a few folks do or say a few dumb things. If everything said or done in any political movement was required to make sense every time, then the bulk of Republican politicians would be employed to entertain at rent shows at state fairs.

[meow2u3]

86. Economic justice also includes ending privatization of public space

The "camping rights" is symbolic speech that exposes the ways the fat cats paid to rig the laws in their favor, and thus, an economic justice issue. The Occupiers are camping to protest the corporate takeover of public property and the arbitrary rules and enforcement tactics they use to keep their ill-gotten gains and power. Thus, the camping is a sign of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience means the refusal to obey unjust laws that create a double standard of justice designed to subjugate the 99% to the whims of the economic royalists. When efforts to change the law within the system prove futile, civil disobedience is a next-to-last resort to call attention to the fact that the entire poltical, economic, and legal deck is stacked against us. I don't even want to venture into what the absolute last resort is.

[Tx4obama]

12. +100. It's time to put civics/government classes back in the school room.

Seem like the basics aren't being taught anymore like the old days when I was in school ;(

Anyway, it's too bad that OWS doesn't have any main leaders that know what strategies that in the past have worked the best for achieving the goals of the group.

I've seen some folks say that this a 'new kind' of movement and that they are going to everything different - well that is not a good strategy for success. Studying what has worked in the past is a good indicator of what should be done in the future.

Just my opinion, and I now that many do not agree.

[ET Awful]

15. This may come as a shock to you, but following every law on the books and being obedient to the

powers that be has rarely been an effective form of protest.

[randome]

21. Protesting WHAT?

Tell me how camping rights in public parks has ANYTHING to do with the economic meltdown that has put millions more Americans out of work.

Draw me a picture because I must be too stupid to understand whatever code OWS is using to advocate for the 99%.

[CJCRANE]

27. Well, we're talking about it aren't we? And so is Al-Jazeera, BBC, Russia TV

and people all over the world.

The Movement Is The Message (as DUer Jackpine Radical says).

[randome]

33. No one is trying to shut down OWS.

This is not a turf war. These are not 'gotcha!' threads.

If OWS represents all of us, then it needs to LISTEN to all of us.

Otherwise, it doesn't represent the 99%. It represents the 90% or the 80%.

Yes, OWS has got everyone talking. Now what? Just keep fighting cops in local cities? That's the question people are asking.

Now what?

[CJCRANE]

41. It's up to each Occupy group to decide what they do next.

They'll discuss it, vote and reach a consensus. That's democracy in action.

Watch this space. Or get involved. The choice is yours.

[randome]

45. DU is a way to be involved.

But a lot of people want to shout down that involvement because they perceive that making suggestions equates to wanting to shut down OWS.

Change is essential. That includes for OWS.

[CJCRANE]

48. You can make any suggestions you like

and others are free to agree or disagree. That's democracy.

Change is coming whether we like or not. I don't know what form it'll take but I'm sure it'll be interesting...

[EFerrari]

28. Really? You don't see how re-claiming public space

is good for marginalized people or how putting everyone in a tent makes people living in mansions at the expense of their community more visibly wrong or how keeping people on the street grows the movment? All those things are invisible?

[randome]

30. They ARE invisible -to the 1%.

They are only too happy, I would think, to watch OWS fight local cops instead of holding rallies on Wall Street and Washington to get the laws changed.

What you mention is reclaiming public space for one group's use and therefore exclude the use of parks for people who don't happen to agree with OWS.

No civic government can let that go on indefinitely.

More protests! Fewer camp-outs in public parks!

[EFerrari]

42. No, they aren't invisible to the 1% who are spending millions today

to counter them. And the camps are a protest, duh. More than a protest, they are a rebuke to the basic premeses of the status quo that draw power away from DC and New York.

[Occulus]

32. Randome, if you don't get it after this much time, your statement that

"I must be too stupid to understand"

is SPOT ON.

Yes. You do seem to be just plain too stupid to understand, and YOU SAID IT, not us.

[randome]

35. And still no answer to my question.

DU is a discussion forum. Why is it so hard for people to engage in a conversation here?

Someone, anyone? An answer to the question I posed in #21?

[CJCRANE]

43. The very fact you're using the term "the 99%"

proves they're changing the conversation.

It's only been two months. Rome wasn't built in a day. Let's see what happens (or get involved and make it happen).

[EFerrari]

44. Your question has been fully answered.

That you don't or won't understand the answer is on you.

[JoeyT]

70. Depends on how you look at it.

You can intentionally fuck the economy up beyond belief, kill innocents, commit war crimes, poison water supplies, befoul the air, and your punishment is book deals and speaking fees, or in the worst cases a bit of public shaming and a massive golden parachute.

You occupy a park to demand economic justice? You get riot squads macing and beating people. A park you helped fund and riot squads your tax money pays.

Looks pretty self explanatory to me.

[FirstLight]

24. If you studied

the civil rights movements, the womens rights movement, the anti war protests for Vietnam (sorry we can't count the ones for the Iraq war, they were un-televised and ineffective because of the fascism rampant in the country the past decade)...or if you look at Egypt and other countries' ...you will see that very rarely do protestors obey the letter of the law.

I think we intend to do things differently, as in, really truly work hard to keep the movement NON violent...because the cops, and feds expect us to fight dirty. They don't know what to do with true nonviolent dissonance...

[WildNovember]

31. The 1% have taken over public property for generations, & they're trying to do it again.

Not everyone agrees with that, either, but might apparently makes right. Props for turning the tables.

[WildNovember]

34. oops, double post

[Bjorn Against]

46. They can still use the parks

I am not aware of any Occupy banning people who disagree with them from the park, every park that is occupied is open to the public as a whole. You are right we need to protect everyone's right to be in the park, that is why it is so wrong to kick a large group of the people out.

Anyone can go to the parks, they do have to share the park with others though even if those others do happen to be protesters.

[XemaSab]

51. I don't agree with the Tea Party

but it's a free country and I support their RIGHT to make jackasses of themselves in public. :shrug:

If every civic demonstration needed 100% popularity in order to move forward, then we'd have some awfully quiet streets, wouldn't we?

[randome]

61. Who said anything about popularity?

But taking over public parks has nothing to do with economic justice, so far as I can see.

Marching on Wall Street or marching on Washington are things I can support.

[JDPriestly]

58. One of the cries today went something like this:

Mayor Bloomberg, beware, Zucotti Park is everywhere.

So the people surrounded the Stock Exchange, walked up Broadway, took over Union Square where they joined a lot more protestors, held a short rally, then walked down to Foley Square where a huge influx of protestors including union members joined them.

It isn't a matter of taking over one square or another. The OWS is now a full-fledged and free-flowing movement with a life of its own separate from one particular location.

[randome]

59. I'm all for that.

I just want the focus to stay on economic justice, first and foremost.

[Bjorn Against]

65. And an occupation helps keep that focus

The reality is if the protesters did not hold their ground the movement would have never even gotten off the ground. An occupation not only gets people to a protest it keeps them there, it gets people coming back every single day and that is what it takes to bring about real change. If the occupation stops the momentum of the movement can not be sustained, the occupation of public places is essential to making sure the movement will bring about real change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Yup I can confirm that one for San Diego

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. But a minority of the people can take over the commons

With the courts behind them.

[Aerows]

81. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible

Will make violent revolution inevitable. -JFK

If OWS hadn't camped out, they would have been ignored, because the PTB want the status quo to continue. The status quo needs to be shaken up, because there is no justice in this country. Is it inconvenient for some? So be it - if we fail to change the direction our nation is headed in, it will be a hell of a lot more inconvenient for everybody.

I'd much rather have people camping out in the park attempting to raise awareness and to change the system peacefully rather than to have a full blown violent revolution. Make no mistake, either - if change isn't achieved peacefully, it won't stay peaceful. Then you and everyone else will have plenty to complain about.

[JDPriestly]

83. I hope you saw this, randome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2337714

You would think that a small group of people could not just take over the police, but they can.

Fact is that if you can't afford to rent a meeting hall, the size of any meeting you can hold is very limited.

Yesterday morning, I attended a meeting of a small group of people about a community issue. Most of us are, I figure, retired and living on Social Security which means we barely have enough money to eat.

Our homes are not big enough or accommodating enough for holding meetings even small ones, so we had to meet in a local restaurant, which meant that most of us bought a small drink and one person shelled out to buy a disgusting looking breakfast. We didn't want to take advantage of the owner of the restaurant (which was nearly empty but still).

So that is why the poor take over a park in order to hold a meeting. Because they don't have the means to rent a hall for long enough to hold their meeting.

And besides, I have been to the Occupy Los Angeles site. They welcome everyone and anyone. You can just join in or just be there.

The LA site is a little different from the other sites because it surrounds City Hall on the outer edge of a long mall/park that stretches between the theatre, past the court house and the county building and on to City Hall.

Most of that long mall/park is under construction because some big developer intent on uglifying the city is building some sort of commercial mall in it.

So the city can't really complain about the monopolization of the space because a) it wasn't used much anyway and b) they have allowed a private company or companies to close down some of the public park areas around it anyway.

Further, there are other parks in the area, some of which are barely used.

So, OWS is not exclusive. OWS is the 99%. Anyone can join in. Anyone.

[Warpy]

4. They keep thinking it's safe, they're running out of steam

Then the fucking fools rush in with Robo Cop and give the whole thing renewed energy.

It's what Gandhi meant when he said "Then they fight you and then you win."

[Newest Reality]

8. The long-term overtones of what the occupy movements

represent is that eventually, the powers that be, should become the powers that were.

How long can we continue to endure the results of the current system and what it intends concerning our well being and survival in many ways? Representation is nearly obsolete. Large corporations are increasingly flexing their muscles in the most vital areas of our lives and they do so with concern only for profit on behalf of the wealthiest with little value placed on humans and the viability and sustainability of life and planet.

We are at the wire and there are many now, who know how and why. You can't ignore that, except at your own peril. Change is the only constant and sometimes, you have to make it and steer it together.

[randome]

10. Who says anyone on DU wants to 'ignore' OWS?

Pointing out that the movement should have more important things to do than fight over 'camping rights' means more and more people want to be involved in OWS.

Ignoring anything outside the echo chamber of 'All is fine. We got this.' means excluding the very people that are part of the 99%.

It doesn't make sense. No one at DU is trying to close down OWS.

I realize you didn't specifically say that so I apologize if I went a little overboard. I just wanted to get what I wrote out into the ether.

[Tx4obama]

18. You are correct. NO one at DU is trying to close down OWS.

Some of us would just like to see the focus back on the issues and not on the tent encampments.
And would like to see a different strategy that works a bit better.

But apparently having an opinion that differs from anyone elses doesn't go over very well these days ;)

[WildNovember]

38. The people out there know why. And so do you, I think.

[Newest Reality]

23. I understand and it is good to express

your feelings and thoughts.

I think you see that my "ignore" was more general and not specifically targeted at my fellow members. Many DUers have been very understanding and supportive of the movement. I think that the existence and struggle of the occupations has also been good for DU.

[Huey P. Long]

14. Former Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis, In Cuffs

Former Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis, In Cuffs


Ray Lewis (Photo via Lauren Thorpe)

"If that’s not Pulitzer-worthy photography–capturing the true insanity of today–then we don’t know our Pulitzers."

http://www.observer.com/2011/11/former-philadelphia-police-captain-ray-lewis-arrested-ows/

[frylock]

19. what would he know about "laws" and "ordinances?"

[Imajika]

49. Fighting over camping rights in public parks is a giant loser..

You already see supposedly liberal/progressive mayors from Oakland to Portland and elsewhere drawing the line on that. Public parks have rules and while some judges might cut OWS some slack for awhile, ultimately the cities will win and eject the campers. Worse, these fights are largely taking place in cities that ALREADY vote Democratic. It is basically causing a fight between Democratic mayors and progressive activists. And last I saw in the latest PPP poll, OWS had already managed to become less popular than the Tea Party.

Today's march on Wall Street was much better. The last I saw the march on the Brooklyn Bridge was pure awesome. Protesters didn't block traffic and because of that they got the message out and the folks in their cars were largely honking in support rather than in frustrated anger.

The most important thing though is that OWS gets people to VOTE. It is great to get folks in the street, but policy changes really only come at the ballot box. A protest movement is a battle for public opinion. If the public likes what OWS is doing, it will be sympathetic to their demands and cast votes that further those goals. If the public turns against OWS because all they see is battles over camp sites and police, they will consider the movement fringe and vote for politicians that oppose everything OWS stands for.

[JoeyT]

71. No, I don't see liberals or progressives cracking down.

I see Democrats. That might be a mistake. I'm thinking these people might remember that come election time.

[Zorra]

52. I hear City Hall is very comfortable in winter. nt

[EFerrari]

53. They've done everything possible at every step to anger people

and draw supporters.

I say, thank you!

[quinnox]

55. Its fear, just like the naysayers and right wingers, they don't know

what to do and are getting desperate hoping this all goes away. I think they may end up being bitterly disappointed as this thing keeps growing until it truly is beyond their control, which scares the powers that be shitless.

[AntiFascist]

60. What would they prefer, OWS protests now...

or a "Blade Runner" type city of the future?

http://soma.sbcc.edu/Users/DaVega/FILMST_101/FILMST_101_FILMS/Bladerunner/Vertical%20Apocalypse_Bullock.pdf

[Aerows]

85. Talk about inconveniencing

I said pretty much the same thing up thread before I got to your post. If people think nonviolent protest is inconvenient, what they hell do people think a violent one would be? Hello Egypt - that looked pretty damned inconvenient to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

[JDPriestly]

80. Here you go. This is what they are thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2337714

Ultimate security for the top 1%. Misery for the rest of us, all of us.