How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Occupy Wall Street

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


200 posted 10-27-2011 04:04 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Certainly wouldn't be the first time, John http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/002111.html

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


201 posted 10-27-2011 04:10 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
M-80's used to be equivalent to a quarter stick of dynamite, we used to say; I don't know how true it was,


Not true at all Bob as it happens, but it certainly was a popular misconception.

Dynamite uses high explosives, M80's contained low explosives. For anyone interested the difference is the speed of decomposition which is subsonic for low explosives and supersonic for high explosives. The original M80 was banned in 1966 though there are still legally available firecrackers  carrying the M80 name (or a derivative) but they're restricted to 50 mg of low explosive material, a big drop from the original which contained up to 5 g.

Based on the video footage I've looked at the majority of the devices used in Oakland were more likely M84 stun grenades issued to police and security forces to disperse or disorientate crowds in the open or individuals in buildings prior to a forced entry. The common name for devices such as this is 'flash-bang' because that's what they do when deployed - they create a large blinding flash of light and a loud bang accompanied by a cloud of white smoke. They're technically classed as non-lethal devices although there are cases where they have been fatal.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


202 posted 10-27-2011 05:23 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Is this a misconception that might have
been popular with those doing the throwing?

Has anyone ever been seriously injured
by an M80?


.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


203 posted 10-27-2011 05:44 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Has anyone ever been seriously injured
by an M80?


Yes, that's why they were banned and replaced by the less powerful version.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


204 posted 10-27-2011 06:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


There is no record of anyone
being harmed by the less powerful version?


.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


205 posted 10-27-2011 06:51 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Numerous minor injuries have occurred that involved the less powerful version Huan,and at least one accidental fatality has occurred when a box of M80 like firecrackers detonated simultaneously inside a car.

There's also a couple of suicides on record where M80 like firecrackers were used but to my knowledge nobody wearing full riot gear has ever been killed, seriously injured or even slightly harmed by the legally available version.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


206 posted 10-27-2011 07:18 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


So it's ok to throw M80s at cops?
How about rocks, glass bottles, etc?
What is the limit?

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/10/26/meet-the-face-of-occupyoakland-riot-all-my-heroes-kill-cops-photo/

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


207 posted 10-27-2011 08:16 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     You might be asking the wrong people, John.  The assumption seems to be that somebody here would be able to answer a question about when it's reasonable to assault police, and I think there is no evidence to support such an assumption.  I was active in the sixties and I wouldn't and didn't support such a proposition.  

     You might ask some of the militia organizations who train with such potential confrontations in mind.

     I was the one who offered the article with the information about the M-80's.  Exactly how M-80's would show up among protestors is a bit of a puzzle to me, and the explanation that they may have been flash-bangs certainly makes as much sense, since there was evidence of flash-bangs being used.  I couldn't say, myself, and I wonder how anybody else can with the information that I've seen made available.

     OIf course if there's information available that isn't some sort of speculative elaboration on the reports I've already seen, I'd be pleased to learn from it.

      In the mreantime, I think that violence is a particularly deceptive tool to use, no matter who uses it.  It gives the illusion of having solved more problems than it actually does solve because of the rage and resentment it so frequently leaves behind.  I'd have to so no amount of violence is right to inflict on police, and that when police inflict violence of whatever sort, it frequently comes back to haunt them in uncomfortable ways afterward.

     It's best if violence can be avoided entirely.  I think.

     Were you suggesting something different?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


208 posted 10-27-2011 10:54 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

Until Sept. 11, the secret monitoring of events where people expressed their opinions was among the most tightly limited of police powers.

Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and provoke trouble.

The pictures of the undercover officers were culled from an unofficial archive of civilian and police videotapes by Eileen Clancy, a forensic video analyst who is critical of the tactics. She gave the tapes to The New York Times. Based on what the individuals said, the equipment they carried and their almost immediate release after they had been arrested amid protesters or bicycle riders, The Times concluded that at least 10 officers were incognito at the events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html




Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


209 posted 10-27-2011 11:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:



From http://www.nlg.org/wp-content/files_flutter/1286308219bodyfinal.pdf

As we discuss the actions of the self-confessed agent provocateur Patrick Howley, editor of the far-right-wing magazine the American Spectator, we should bear in mind that it is all too common for conservative or corporatist agents (sometimes employed by Federal, state or local goverments; sometimes working for conservative or corporatist groups) to infiltrate movements they don’t like for the specific purpose of trying to figure out ways to make them look bad via acts of violence. We saw it in the civil rights movement; we saw it in the antiwar protests of the late 1960s (when a common saying among genuine members of protest movements was “The guy who brings up explosives is the FBI plant”); we even see it in the War on Terror, where most of the bomb plots “foiled” by the FBI wouldn’t have existed were it not for FBI informants egging on and inciting the other group members every step of the way, right until the handcuffs appear.
And, as it turns out, we saw it in the Battle for Seattle in 1999, the RNC protests of 2008, and the G-20 protests of 2009. According to a 2010 report from the National Lawyers Guild that examined those three events, most if not all of the violence therein was committed by either the cops or people working against or otherwise hostile to the goals of the protesters.

Here’s how the report described the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle (emphases mine):

To the extent that law enforcement tactics are based on a foundation of avoiding “the failures of Seattle,” such tactics are inherently flawed and miss the point—the mass violations of law in Seattle were carried out by the police. Finding that police in Seattle acted inappropriately, the Report of the WTO Accountability Review Committee
of the Seattle City Council emphasized that: “[T]his city became the laboratory for how American cities will address mass protests. In many ways, it became a vivid demonstration of what not to do.”4 The report goes on to say:

Members of the public, including demonstrators, were victims of ill-conceived and sometimes pointless police actions to “clear the streets….Our inquiry found troubling examples of seemingly gratuitous assaults on citizens, including use of less-lethal weapons like tear gas, pepper gas, rubber bullets, and ‘beanbag guns,’ by officers who seemed motivated more by anger or fear than professional law enforcement.”5

The National Lawyers Guild observed such gratuitous assaults by police and on December 6, 1999 wrote to Mayor Paul Schell that police misconduct was largely responsible for the lack of control in Seattle.6 The letter cited (1) indiscriminate use of excessive force against hundreds of peaceful protesters, including pain compliance holds, the use of pepper spray, tear gas and concussion grenades, the firing of rubber bullets, and (2) detention of protesters without access to counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and without prompt processing for bail. The letter stated that police treatment of protesters ignited the response from the few individuals who engaged in property destruction. As long as law enforcement continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes of lawless “anarchists” bent on wreaking mass havoc at large demonstrations, absent credible intelligence and evidence, we can expect police to direct wholesale assaults at individuals engaging in First Amendment protected activities.

Were there any lessons learned? Well, there was one: Keep the establishment press in your corner and you can (almost literally) get away with murder. Since the establishment media dutifully followed the police-dictated framing of the G-7 protests, that’s how they’ve been inscribed in history. And because of that, the forces of reaction felt emboldened to be even bigger jerks in 2008 in Saint Paul (where, for instance, the only folks talking about Molotov cocktails were the cops and the confidential informants, both of which groups were later shown to be fabricating evidence) and 2009 in Pittsburgh.
http://my.firedoglake.com/phoenix/2011/10/09/nlg-cops-and-informants-cause-mo st-protest-violence/

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


210 posted 10-28-2011 01:20 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Since 2003, the department has been monitored by a federal judge as a result of a consent decree with the federal government. The decree came following a scandal in which four police officers, who nicknamed themselves “The Riders,” were accused of beating up and robbing suspects and planting evidence while they worked the night shift in a poverty stricken neighborhood in West Oakland.

And earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson threatened to put the department — which is already eight years into what was expected to be a five-year consent decree — into federal receivership. Under the decree, Henderson receives regular progress reports from an independent monitor on the department’s progress on reforms. “We are seriously concerned with the department’s stagnation — and now, reversal — in achieving compliance,” Robert Warshaw, the independent monitor in Oakland, wrote in a report just a few weeks ago.

Among the issues concerning Judge Henderson is how frequently Oakland police officers draw their weapons:

According to a quarterly report, reform monitors took a random sample of police reports of 80 incidents from the first three months of this year and found 215 officers had pointed their firearms. The majority of incidents were justified, the monitors said, but they found that in 28 percent of the cases, officers’ use of firearms was inappropriate and unnecessary. The monitors were also concerned that none of the supervisors reading over the officers’ reports raised questions about the events.

Civil rights attorneys say that the Oakland police department’s actions on Tuesday may violate another agreement the city was forced to sign in 2003, a Crowd Control and Crowd Management Policy that stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed after police used wooden bullets, sting-ball grenades and bean bag shots to break up an anti-Iraq war protest. At least 58 protesters were injured in that incident.

“They’re supposed to use the minimum amount of force and intimidation. They used the maximum,” attorney Rachel Lederman told The Recorder.  Lederman is suing the department for violating the crowd-control policy last year, during protests sparked by the two-year prison sentence handed down to former transit officer Johannes Mehserle, who fatally shot an unarmed passenger. One hundred fifty-two people were arrested in those protests. Lederman says that she may fold Occupy Oakland litigation into her current suit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the-oakland-police-departments-troubled-history/


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


211 posted 10-28-2011 01:46 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Maybe Oakland needs a republican mayor??? Just askin'...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


212 posted 10-28-2011 03:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     I am not clear how the response above follows the previous ones.  It offers no new information, nor does it offer rebuttal.  Perhaps an explanation of the way the response is directed at the subject would clear my confusion and perhaps the confusion of others up here.

     As for myself, I had no idea as to the party affiliation of the mayor of Oakland, nor did I think it particularly mattered.  Nor did I know of the consent decree, though that certainly seems to fit the difficulty in command and control that I thought the police were experiencing in integrating a multi-force  group with apparently different policies about the use of force who seemed to be following orders that didn't seem coordinated, and for which the Oakland Police deny responsibility.

     It seems to me that there is plenty of decent police work in the world to defend.  

     If this is good police-work, then it ought to be defended as good police-work, and the specific things that made it good police-work should be cited and praised so all of us can feel some pride in seeing how good police work mis carried out.  If there is poor police-work involved, there should be the same  honesty.  What didn't work should be pointed out so that lessons can be learned, and so that proper adjustments in policy and procedure can be made to protect the police from future criticism on the same grounds and to protect the public from further damage, psychological and perhaps physical that can come from such failures?

     Failure to learn from experience is unnecessary.  It is also expensive in more ways than fiscally.  The phrase about the Oakland Police being in the eighth year of a five year consent decree leaps vividly to mind in this regard.

     Just sayin'.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


213 posted 10-28-2011 03:08 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I think I see your logic there Mike, and it might work.  Republican ideology is resulting in shrinking law enforcement agencies across the nation,  get a Republican mayor...shrink the OPD down to nothing! Give the rich another tax cut, problem solved!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


214 posted 10-28-2011 10:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, LR, for seeing the light. After all, if you give the rich another tax cut, they won't be out there robbing people at gunpoint!

I know it's just coincidence that, if you look at the top ten cities with the highest crime rates in the country, they mainly point to one specific party. Of course if you look at the top ten with the highest unemployment rates, you'll find the same.

The reasoniong is pretty simple, as simple as your comment. With democrat leaders assuring people that they really don't have to work for a living, that everyone else owes them a living, that they are entitled to have whatever everyone else has, it stands to reason that, when people who actually work for a living don't give them what they want, they feel they have the right to just take it....sounds like the Democrat way to me.

New word in English...

Ineptocracy (in-ept-o-cra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and
where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed,
are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers .
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


215 posted 10-28-2011 12:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The rich seem to be better at confiscating it than the poor, apparently, and at getting welfare to transfer more of it in their direction, otherwise the concentration of wealth would not be growing in the top One percent.  Would it?

     Certainly it could be coincidental that this transfer of wealth seems to have been roughly simultaneous with the growth in power of the conservative movement, the increase in deregulation and the institution of trickle-down economics.  It may be possible that coinservative politics in the Federal gfovernment has made people more lazy and inept and dependant, as you suggest.

     I think it may be just as likely that it may be attributed in almost equal measure to the relative spinelessness of the Democratic politicians and their unwillingness to stand up for the liberal policies that built this country into an economic powerhouse and tamed, at least to some extent, the tyranny of the business cycles in the years following world war two and well into the sixties.

     Apparently the Reasoning that's been offered is that the longer conservative ideas and policies are given any credence, the duller and less ambitious the American people become.  I'm sorry that a conservative Republican has become so discouraged at the policies of his own party and the influence they've had on the nation as a whole.  It's sad to see.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


216 posted 10-28-2011 01:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, handouts didn't build this country into an economic powerhouse, Bob. Business did. Hard work did. Capitalism did, not people sitting around waiting for their next umemployment check, not people screaming that the government wasn't doing enough for them. It was people cashing in on the American dream, the dream that stated that one's opportunities were endless and subject only to the man's drive and determination. There are people using the American dream today...only they are foreigners coming here to learn, study and work to be a success. They appreciate the dream....Americans don't. The people who built this country would smile sadly as to what it has become.

When did democrats go from the party of "Ask not what your country can do for you...?" to "Let the government take care of you"? Who knows, but I'll bet JFK would be spinning in his grave to see what his party has become. Ask what you can do for your country?? A ridiculous concept, right, Bob?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


217 posted 10-28-2011 03:28 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

In Colonial America, starting in the 16th century, land grants were given for the purpose of establishing settlements, missions, and farms.[citation needed] Countries granting land included Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain.
Under colonial law, a patentee had to improve the land. Under this doctrine of planting and seeding, the patentee was required to cultivate 1-acre (4,000 m2) of land and build a small house on the property, otherwise the patent would revert to the government.[5][6]
Starting with the American Revolutionary War, United States veterans often received land grants in lieu of other remuneration.[citation needed]
Between 1783 and 1821, Spain offered land grants to anyone who settled in their colony of Florida. When that colony was transferred to the United States, the resulting treaty agreed to honor all valid land grants. As a result, years of litigation ensued over the validity of many of the Spanish Land Grants.
During the Mexican period of California (and other portions of Mexican territories inherited from New Spain), hundreds of ranchos and large tracts of land were granted to individuals by the Mexican government. The ranchos established land-use patterns that are recognizable in the California of today.[7]
Controversy over community land grant claims in New Mexico persist to this day.[8]
During the 19th century, extensive land grants were made to railroads, since their development was seen as a new form of transportation internal improvements. The Land Grant Act of 1850 provided for 3.75 million acres of land to the states to support railroad projects; by 1857 21 million acres of public lands were used for railroads in the Mississippi River valley, and the stage was set for more substantial Congressional subsidies to future railroads.[9] Four out of the five transcontinental railroads in the United States were built using land grant incentives.[citation needed]
Since the conclusion of the Spanish-American war, there has not been a legitimate use of Land Grants.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant#United_State



[Edited - Ron] Without that initial 'handout' there really wouldn't have been any work to do, but if you want to have a conversation with my Native American side of the family I think they might have another word for it.

If you think OWS is about handouts, and sure thats what the highly paid Fox people are paid to tell the middle class (blame the poor!), then you're really missing the point [Edited - Ron]

Expect a thread soon from me though on how the Bannana Republican narrative is crumbling all around, but, like Japanese soldiers who don't know the war is over they just keep on banging that same old beat.....

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2011 06:41 PM).]

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


218 posted 10-28-2011 04:24 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
So it's ok to throw M80s at cops?
How about rocks, glass bottles, etc?
What is the limit?


Is it ok to throw stuff at cops?

Yes, I believe that in some situations throwing stuff at cops is ok.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


219 posted 10-28-2011 05:23 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Is it ok for cops to throw stuff back?


.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


220 posted 10-28-2011 06:22 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Is it ok for cops to throw stuff back?


No, a police officer is generally held to higher standards than a protester, that means they're not expected to instigate the violence either.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


221 posted 10-28-2011 07:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Throwing back is instigating?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


222 posted 10-28-2011 07:55 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Given the kind of protection cops now wear,
what caliber can the stuff it is sometimes ok to throw at them be?


.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


223 posted 10-28-2011 08:44 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Throwing back is instigating?


No Mike.  I used instigate in the context of start - they shouldn't throw stuff back or instigate (start) the throwing.

quote:
Given the kind of protection cops now wear,
what caliber can the stuff it is sometimes ok to throw at them be?


I'm not sure that there is an upper limit. It'd probably depend on the situation and what was readily available. If the cops are policing a friendly St. Patrick's day parade - maybe shamrocks? If the whole Iranian police force was marching towards downtown Israel a small nuclear device perhaps?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


224 posted 10-28-2011 09:34 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:



     The rich seem to be better at confiscating it than the poor, apparently, and at getting welfare to transfer more of it in their direction, otherwise the concentration of wealth would not be growing in the top One percent.  Would it?

     Certainly it could be coincidental that this transfer of wealth seems to have been roughly simultaneous with the growth in power of the conservative movement, the increase in deregulation and the institution of trickle-down economics.  It may be possible that coinservative politics in the Federal gfovernment has made people more lazy and inept and dependant, as you suggest.



     I'm quoting myself here, Mike.  

     You didn't respond the first time I said it, you tried to change the subject and talk about capitalism, as if I had anything against an appropriately regulated capitalist economy.  I don't.  You may have missed my statements to that effect over the years, so I will reaffirm those now as well.  My comments were about deregulation and unregulated capitalism and what has been the consequence to the country of an attempt to return to that stae of affairs.  Bad for the country, good for those with money.

     Some upward mobility is possible, but it seems considerably less than when unbridled capitalism is regulated and mega-mergers are discouraged and competition is encouraged.  Increased concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people may be fine for those people, but it is not good for the country as a whole.

     The same people that did very well under a better regulated economy are taking it in the ear under the current conservative style of economics.  Has our former middle class suddenly been struck with laziness or have the conservatives been struck with a case of selective blindness and deafness?  I've heard your answer, above.

     Republicans and conservatives have been making that same argument with equal tenacity while the middle class has been shrinking and the poor have been growing for thirty years and more.  I suggest to you that the nature of people has probably not changed all that much, and what has changed is that the economic system in which they've been working has been selectively stacked against them over that period of time.  We know it's been changed because the Right has gone about changing it and has been proud of the changes it's made and it trying to make more of the same.

    I'm glad, however, to hear a republican say nice things about immigrants.  It's a bit sad, since you find them such a plus, that Republicans as a party are working so hard to keep so many of them out of the country, and that the Republican Party tries so hard to nmake the path to citizenship for them so difficult.  It seems sort of wrong-headed to me.  Fortunately, I don't have to deal with that contradiction.  My party is screwy enough.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors