Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
The citibank arrests a few days ago, that had the video of the plainclothes cop snatch that girl away at the end?
Now that people are being released, it seems as if that lady was the one person who was able to close her account, and the cop that grabbed her and handed her off to the cops had been inside with them as part of the protest and was being the loudest and most obnoxious person.
One point of contention is that Citibank is claiming it was police prerogative to charge them with trespassing and not the bank's. I don't know how that actually works out though.
well the police can arrest people when they have probable cause, it's definitely up to the DAs whether to charge or not
but could a police officer have probable cause without the bank saying people are trespassing? probably not so I think Citibank is just trying to save face
Ubik on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Isn't Denver one of the more liberal US cities? Like the Madison or Austin of the rockies?
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That Denver story broke my rage bar.
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Occupy the Texas duststorm
0
Options
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
wow
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
I probably overstated that. I'm not really wanting a Kent St scenario, lol. Although, it certainly would prove a point.
But to me, the inherent problem with Occupy* is that they aren't really making life uncomfortable for anyone. They in a park designated by the local government, a government which is allegedly paid for by the 1%, as a "protest zone". So that's certainly well within the bounds of the unfeeling bureaucracy.
They are marching at times and places designated by the authorities.
All of this is too polite. If you want to run a comparison to the civil rights movement, they were disrupting the system. Going outside of the bounds of what they were told was proper, getting arrested, and causing problems that had to be addressed.
Here, the local government can just wait until a Nor'easter blows through, or someone accidentally turns the sprinklers on, and everyone goes back to art school.
0
Options
Mateysee, look how sad i amnow give me your wallet.Registered Userregular
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
Goddamn, it's about time we started having some actual interesting dialogue about this whole thing
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
I have sources in Denver that say the next step from City Hall is to throw water balloons from the roof and resort to teasing and name calling.
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
That's some pretty much self-fulfilling cynicism you guys got going on there.
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
If you have to have bloodshed and atrocity to enact change then why bother being civilized at all, ever
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Of course, it's possible that the sprinklers had been pre-set, and whoever oversees them forgot to turn them off. But those commenting on the post certainly don't buy this argument.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
I probably overstated that. I'm not really wanting a Kent St scenario, lol. Although, it certainly would prove a point.
But to me, the inherent problem with Occupy* is that they aren't really making life uncomfortable for anyone. They in a park designated by the local government, a government which is allegedly paid for by the 1%, as a "protest zone". So that's certainly well within the bounds of the unfeeling bureaucracy.
They are marching at times and places designated by the authorities.
All of this is too polite. If you want to run a comparison to the civil rights movement, they were disrupting the system. Going outside of the bounds of what they were told was proper, getting arrested, and causing problems that had to be addressed.
Here, the local government can just wait until a Nor'easter blows through, or someone accidentally turns the sprinklers on, and everyone goes back to art school.
I agree. Thing is, as much as I hate that fact, even disrupting daily business won't get the job done. Folk will just get arrested for a while and released, and no one will remember in a few years. Something big would have to happen, big and violent and shocking and uncomfortable not just for folk in Washington or New York but also for folk in Smalltown USA and with our allies overseas. We are a nation of apathy, when it gets down to it. It's gonna take a lot for us to get angry enough to do something when we have the easy option of changing the channel and ordering in some thai food.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Loitering uncomfortably outside the grocery, close enough to the carts that people have to look at you, far enough that they can still get their carts.
Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.
I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.
I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.
just because there weren't rules in place to prevent what happened, doesn't mean that the bankers on Wall Street didn't act extremely irresponsibly and without regard for the consequences of their actions. they're grown adults, they should be held accountable for their actions.
I probably overstated that. I'm not really wanting a Kent St scenario, lol. Although, it certainly would prove a point.
But to me, the inherent problem with Occupy* is that they aren't really making life uncomfortable for anyone. They in a park designated by the local government, a government which is allegedly paid for by the 1%, as a "protest zone". So that's certainly well within the bounds of the unfeeling bureaucracy.
They are marching at times and places designated by the authorities.
All of this is too polite. If you want to run a comparison to the civil rights movement, they were disrupting the system. Going outside of the bounds of what they were told was proper, getting arrested, and causing problems that had to be addressed.
Here, the local government can just wait until a Nor'easter blows through, or someone accidentally turns the sprinklers on, and everyone goes back to art school.
Aren't we approaching a thousand arrests at this point? A lot of the marches and site demonstrations haven't been designated at all.
But really, I don't think this sort of demonstration is at the point where it can be primarily disruptive yet. You have to get enough people involved to create a buffer. If 1500 crusty hippies go block the doors at a financial institution, the guys at the top don't give a shit, because they still make 8 figures and get to ignore it for all but 20 minutes of their day. During the civil rights movements, many of the specific sit-ins didn't really get to anyone except that business's owner and some 200 circulation Picayune. It was more the pervasiveness of the idea that civil disobedience was appropriate for anyone to join in on.
Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.
I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.
Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.
0
Options
Mateysee, look how sad i amnow give me your wallet.Registered Userregular
A real question
Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?
I agree. Thing is, as much as I hate that fact, even disrupting daily business won't get the job done. Folk will just get arrested for a while and released, and no one will remember in a few years. Something big would have to happen, big and violent and shocking and uncomfortable not just for folk in Washington or New York but also for folk in Smalltown USA and with our allies overseas. We are a nation of apathy, when it gets down to it. It's gonna take a lot for us to get angry enough to do something when we have the easy option of changing the channel and ordering in some thai food.
Even something as non-violent as a bank run would likely get the point across.
This isn't really a protest driven by action, so much as loitering in a public campground.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Posts
They just need to install automated push-button firehoses all around the city.
Of course not. Then there would be nothing to complain about.
thats amazing
well the police can arrest people when they have probable cause, it's definitely up to the DAs whether to charge or not
but could a police officer have probable cause without the bank saying people are trespassing? probably not so I think Citibank is just trying to save face
After several nights of no sprinklers and being told that the sprinklers were off for the season, the "forgetful groundskeeper" excuse doesn't really fly.
do you have a source for this
i would like to read it
As much as I support the idea of protesting for the majority, if sprinklers are going to be enough to be an issue for these protesters they are not very serious. If they want actual change from these movements there will probably be a Kent State like event at some point in this thing.
This has been my contention the whole time. Going camping on the lawn of city hall is only gonna get you so far against a faceless kleptocracy that only listens to money and violence.
Mmhmm, now if they can force a confrontation which ends with some kind of wholesale slaughter of the protesters they will likely gain the support needed from political factions as national outrage builds to dangerous levels. Or they need to find and expose some terrible truth of equivalent shock and horror (which is doubtful, as Wikileaks couldn't accomplish that here). Without one of those, though, this will be little more than a longer running Jon Stewart Rally. Interesting, but probably not going to cause much change.
It leans that way, and seems pretty liberal compared to other parts of Colorado.
But it doesn't even compare to Boulder, which is only like 25 miles away.
so I dunno, I'd probably say mildly liberal, but I'm not sure
I probably overstated that. I'm not really wanting a Kent St scenario, lol. Although, it certainly would prove a point.
But to me, the inherent problem with Occupy* is that they aren't really making life uncomfortable for anyone. They in a park designated by the local government, a government which is allegedly paid for by the 1%, as a "protest zone". So that's certainly well within the bounds of the unfeeling bureaucracy.
They are marching at times and places designated by the authorities.
All of this is too polite. If you want to run a comparison to the civil rights movement, they were disrupting the system. Going outside of the bounds of what they were told was proper, getting arrested, and causing problems that had to be addressed.
Here, the local government can just wait until a Nor'easter blows through, or someone accidentally turns the sprinklers on, and everyone goes back to art school.
Goddamn, it's about time we started having some actual interesting dialogue about this whole thing
I have sources in Denver that say the next step from City Hall is to throw water balloons from the roof and resort to teasing and name calling.
Xbox Gamertag: GAMB1NO325Xi
That's some pretty much self-fulfilling cynicism you guys got going on there.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
"Meanwhile, in Canada..."
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Too bad they're probably right
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
I agree. Thing is, as much as I hate that fact, even disrupting daily business won't get the job done. Folk will just get arrested for a while and released, and no one will remember in a few years. Something big would have to happen, big and violent and shocking and uncomfortable not just for folk in Washington or New York but also for folk in Smalltown USA and with our allies overseas. We are a nation of apathy, when it gets down to it. It's gonna take a lot for us to get angry enough to do something when we have the easy option of changing the channel and ordering in some thai food.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/texas-agency-censors-scientific-report-to-remove-references-to-reality.ars
Steam
We are the 99%
I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.
just because there weren't rules in place to prevent what happened, doesn't mean that the bankers on Wall Street didn't act extremely irresponsibly and without regard for the consequences of their actions. they're grown adults, they should be held accountable for their actions.
Aren't we approaching a thousand arrests at this point? A lot of the marches and site demonstrations haven't been designated at all.
But really, I don't think this sort of demonstration is at the point where it can be primarily disruptive yet. You have to get enough people involved to create a buffer. If 1500 crusty hippies go block the doors at a financial institution, the guys at the top don't give a shit, because they still make 8 figures and get to ignore it for all but 20 minutes of their day. During the civil rights movements, many of the specific sit-ins didn't really get to anyone except that business's owner and some 200 circulation Picayune. It was more the pervasiveness of the idea that civil disobedience was appropriate for anyone to join in on.
Let me tell you, your contribution of "^5 Denver" was enthralling.
Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.
Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?
Even something as non-violent as a bank run would likely get the point across.
This isn't really a protest driven by action, so much as loitering in a public campground.
1688 - The Glorious Revolution.