OK, this scares me. I am an Obama supporter. However, a line has been drawn re: OWS

[graywarrior]

and the apparent police state and I feel as though I need to take sides: the government or the movement. I choose the movement. Especially in light of the "practice Martial Law techniques" that are occuring across the country with closing down of OWS camps. Anyone else feel this way?

[RKP5637]

1. OWS! n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Martial law requires the use of military forces

These are local police departments.

As much as the President has done to disappoint me he is NOT creating a military police state run from within the WH.

[golddigger]

5. Homeland Security ringing any bells.

[Javaman]

99. The new goon squad.

it's the non-Martial Law Martial Law.

[piratefish08]

7. he's given them carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they please.

"President Barack Obama's spokesman is suggesting the president believes it's up to New York and other municipalities to decide how much force to use in dealing with Occupy Wall Street demonstrations."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Presidents don't normally tell local officials how to run their cities

Could you imagine Bush telling San Francisco, "I think your ban on Happy Meal toys is stupid. You can't enforce it."

[roguevalley]

25. google little rock. You are incorrect i believe

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. 1. I said "normally"

2. Desegregation was hardly "normal." The POTUS was responding militarily to a would-be use of military forces.

3. Deseg enforcement hardly qualifies for martial law.

[bbgrunt]

123. well his justice dept doesn't care about state's ri8ghts regarding mmj.

[rhett o rick]

188. And OWS is "normal". OWS is here whether you deny it or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2330588

[FunMe]

210. It's a movement, not a protest.

You're absolutely right. OWS is here to stay until our government and Wall St. change. The more police brutality .... the bigger the movement grows.

[kenfrequed]

203. Roosevelt

Called up the military to defend strikers at one point in time.

[Horse with no Name]

171. That was my FIRST thought

Little Rock.

[piratefish08]

38. that's as silly as swapping jokes and beers on the WH lawn over a local issue....

could never happen!

[Response]

103. That is a poor analogy to equate OWS with happy meals.

Bush supported anti-abortionists by phone while president.

OWS is as much about the first amendment of the constitution as it is about the ability of corporations to purchase political influence while undermining the economic structure of our democracy.

If a president can't get behind that then what can s/he?

[No Elephants]

106. Again, two words: HOMELAND SECURITY.

I know a nice guy who works in Homeland Security in Boston, but I don't want to put him on the spot by asking for info. He probably would not be able to tell me anyway,

[Juneboarder]

133. Don't you think

there's a bit of a difference between a ban on happy meal toys and continuous blatant physical abuse against american citizens? Apples and oranges in my opinion.

[jwirr]

151. He can say that he believes the protesters are non-violent, acting

in good faith and in general support their ideals without telling the weak ass mayors that they are free to do as they please. Like he did with the HCR he refuses to support anyone but the corporatist.

[Divernan]

173. You win the prize for the most offensive & inappropriate analogy I've ever seen on DU

Let's see. Banning Happy Meal toys versus spraying an 84 year old woman in the face with pepper spray.

[sabrina 1]

190. Do they tell local officials that their laws on Medical Marijuana

eg, are going to be ignored by the government? I thought that just happened.

I think it's a question of priorities, what Presidents tell local officials.

[stockholmer]

222. a picture to illustrate the inaccuracy of this

LITTLE ROCK

[Hestia]

229. This picture explains exactly why the cops here aren't doing to OWS Little Rock overnighters

what the goons are doing in the rest of the country. They are abundantly aware that if they do do something out of hand to any protestor it will be blown up out of proportion, media wise. They are very cool to the long time OWS here. Now more people just need to show up in support.

[No Elephants]

105. Well, that is the position for public consumption. We don't know what all

Homeland Security says on those phone calls.

Still, the public version is bad enough, IMO.

[certainot]

144. the left gives them carte blanche by ignoring weeks of team limbaugh attacks on OWS

people really concerned about police brutality might want to listen to their local radio talkers attack and lie about OWS and make excuses for the brutality.

Here's what Limbaugh said in first hour yesterday morning....

praphrasing Limbaugh:

xxxxxx'
Bloomberg liberated Zuccotti Park.
lousy hippies thieves rapists purse snatchers
sexually transmitted diseases, murder, filth, gunfire, scabies
The protestors are so used to urinating and defecating in the streets so when they go back home to their parents they might need to be housebroken again. They’re going to have to put some newspaper down.
endless parade of human debris,
whining little wimps
looking for free meals free drugs free sex
it was never big, never any public support, not the backbone of America
white house wanted bloomberg to get them out because it was one big ad for the dem party.
'xxxxxx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2322293

PS ......and the writer said the spokesman said- so that's what o said?

[zeemike]

219. And it is then broadcast through out the whole network of

Right wing sites with in hours.....just google any of those quotes and see how many hits you get....all from right wing sites that will all say the same thing...the key to propaganda is the big lie told often and then becomes fact.

[certainot]

252. that's the thing, there's no written record of the massive public dump that is daily talk radio repe

repetition from 1000 radio station sto 50 mil

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

231. He is not giving "carte blanche" to anyone...

... he told them to do as they are supposed to do, deal with it on the local level with their existing laws. That is the opposite of martial law coming from the federal level.

[graywarrior]

8. True. But still. This was a coordinated effort.

I want to believe that O will do the right thing. But I've attended several OWS marches and my heart is steeped in support for them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. He's a political animal. He'll support OWS if OWS polls favorably with the public

Otherwise, he will silently hope it all goes away without a fuss.

[rhett o rick]

53. This is a revolution and he has to choose sides. I think we will see the true Obama when he chooses.

[chervilant]

127. When?

Mr. Obama HAS chosen. His silence is DEAFENING.

(Lots of us would rather believe the hype that got Obama elected, but all of the shiny has worn off now, and most of us can clearly see the dross.)

[indepat]

167. The silence is the deafening

:patriot:

[Carolina]

189. Exactly

how many more chances can people give him; how many more excuses can they make. Geez.

By his silence, his inner circle of advisors, his appointments... he has chosen!

[bvar22]

139. He has already chosen.

The President is the Top Law Enforcement Official in the USA.
Law Enforcement is a department of the Executive Branch.

The attacks on OWS were coordinated at the National Level on Tactics & Timing.
Somebody pushed the "GO" button.
There is no other possible explanation.

As the TOP Lew Enforcement Official in the USA, if Obama did NOT know about it and give the OK,
then we have a rogue department of the White House.
As President, Obama would need to address this Out of Control department.
This would be evidenced by the decapitation of the heads of FBI and Homeland Security.

To NOT do so will make him complicit.


Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[piratefish08]

238. stop confusing the issue with facts!

[hack89]

142. Saying over and over again that it is a revolution does not make it so

it is not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. It is not even certain that OWS will have any lasting impact whatsoever.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

184. And saying it isnt a revolution over and over wont make it go away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2330588

[hack89]

200. I don't want it to go away

I support their goals. I just don't see this as a revolution.

[rhett o rick]

209. So you think they will give up? Because the over-lords sure as hell wont. nm

[hack89]

212. Time will tell - if they can't find away to mainstream their message

so that they can influence elections then they will fail regardless of whether they give up or not.

[rhett o rick]

237. What do you suggest? nm

[hack89]

248. They need to engage the political process somehow

unfocused anger does not create legislation or elect sympathetic office holders. The Tea Party managed to do it - OWS surely can find away to do the same.

[rhett o rick]

256. How do you recommend they "engage the political process"? nm

[hack89]

257. Concise legislative goals

visit elected officials. Voter drives to ensure OWS supporters actually vote.

[Skelly]

213. Are all revolutions

seen as such at the time?

[hack89]

249. Don't know

we could have two competing revolutions - the Tea Party and OWS. Or one revolution. Or none. Time will tell but I suspect the answer is non. All it takes to deflate both OWS or the TP is a relatively modest improvement in the economy and job situation.

[Skelly]

259. I hope

that is not true. Not this time around.
I DO think the OWS and Tea Party need to start those "middle east" talks. I would like to see the middle ground found between each. Change is a coming.

[AntiFascist]

247. Just because the MSM says so?

maybe you should try watching Current TV.

[defendandprotect]

179. Obama is Wall Street -- that's why he has a Wall street team -- !!!

[rhett o rick]

185. Obama = Jeff Immelt = Obama nm

[No Elephants]

109. That is your opinion. I think he will do whatever works with his big donors for now.

And what pass for his own beliefs, most of which can be found on the websites of DLC, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, No Labels, etc.

[Marr]

162. If Obama's past comments were true and he really doesn't care about being reelected...

...then no amount of public support for OWS will do it, and he'll just keep servicing his future employers on Wall Street until he steps out of the White House.

[Hawkowl]

163. He consistently does NOT back popular positions

Public option, criminal investigation of the banksters, etc. He is a tool of the establishment. I would think that by now it is quite obvious.

[defendandprotect]

180. Dem/Third Way policy to "ignore the base of the party" --- !!! Ignore the will of the people -- !!

[quakerboy]

230. Incorrect

He will wait for polling that shows it as unfavorable, then silently hope it all goes away. All the while making grand statements about helping people, while providing federal support for actions to attempt to crush the movement.

[No Elephants]

107. Then you must have a very good heart indeed, especially since this is such a conflict for you.

Respect.

[hootinholler]

71. Does it?

Really? I thought that Martial Law simply required the suspension of rights.

That generally would require a military like force to enforce.

[Samantha]

78. I have not heard anyone declared martial law

but decided to look up the definition and found this:

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.<1> Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.<1>

at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law (yes, I know -- it's wikipedia!)

I found this hurriedly while I was looking up the definition of Posse Comitatus:

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

at this site: http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm (note a DOJ site):

Let me be the first to say I am not a lawyer. But I have always heard the military cannot be used against the citizenry because of this principle (granted it has been violated). But it does appear this Act is still enforce although several spins on it have been spun since 9/11. Just my two cents, and of course, I might be wrong.


Sam

[Aleric]

132. We didn't "declare war" on Iraq or Afghanistan either

but plenty of people are dead.

You are arguing by semantics, nothing more. Meanwhile, Bloomberg ignores court orders, vets get shot in the head with tear gas canisters by police, etc. etc. etc.

Does it really matter whether it fits a legal definition of "martial law"? Not really. Not in a nation where Presidents make war on other countries without congressional declarations of war. Not in a country where the President determines it is legal to assassinate American Citizens without due process of law in the name of "National Security." Not in a country where corporations are "persons" with more rights than natural humans.

And, further, the 50 governors have the ability to declare martial law in their states. So your arguments are really meaningless.

[Juneboarder]

138. Two words: Patriot Act

Protestors can be considered as low grade terrorists, and therefore supporting OWS could lead them to treat supporters as guilty until proven innocent. Just depends on how desperate that 1% gets.

[dixiegrrrrl]

153. thing is, you don't need the "official" military when you militarize the police.

Which Homeland Security has done, via Blackwater Training of police all across the country.
I have read about it for a long time now, but will cite a summary from Wiki:

"United States Training Center (USTC, formerly Blackwater Training Center) offers tactics and weapons training to military, government, and law enforcement agencies.

USTC's primary training facility, located on 7,000 acres (28 km2) in northeastern North Carolina, comprises several ranges, indoor, outdoor,
urban reproductions,
a man-made lake, and a driving track in Camden and Currituck counties.
Company literature says that it is the largest training facility in the country.
In November 2006 Blackwater USA announced it acquired an 80-acre (32 ha) facility 150 miles (240 km) west of Chicago, in Mount Carroll, Illinois to be called Blackwater North. That facility has been operational since April 2007 and serves law enforcement agencies throughout the Midwest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#United_States_Training_Center

The result? Police and military are virtually indistinguishable

PLUS
police now have the same "crowd control" weapons that the military developed and used against the citizens in Iraq.
Sonic Sound Weapon: picture from Zucotti Park Monday night.

[AikidoSoul]

158. Posse Comitatus was killed dead by the Bush administration Five Years ago

I have permission from the author to re-publish this here in its entirety:

http://possecomitatusshotthroughtheheart.blogspot.com/

Posse Comitatus Shot Through the Heart - Thursday, November 02, 2006

Here's the 21st Century version of what has happened to Posse Comitatus: it has been thoroughly trashed. And it was done quietly.

But now you can hear the screaming from Washington, D.C. to the Pacific Ocean.... and beyond. The changes sneaked into law now given George W. Bush new powers. They open the door to use the military for policing actions to "restore public order", and gives the president much leeway to exercise these powers. One of the most troubling is that he can now mobilize the National Guard without the permission of state governors, and can move them into other states -- for up to 365 days.

But some changes to the law are so subtle that you might miss them. See if you can find the new doors that have now opened for the president to act. Here are the changes:

* Section 522 (House section 511) extends from 270 days to 365 days
the period for which the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve may be involuntarily called to active duty.
* Section 1076 (Senate section 1042):

o Amends the "Insurrection Act" (i.e., Chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) by:

§ Changing the title of chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order";

§ Changing the title of section 333 of chapter 15 from "Interference with State and Federal Law" to "Major Public Emergencies; Interference with State and Federal Law";

§ Clarifying the President's authority, under section 33 of chapter 15, to use the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, without a request from a State governor, to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down; and

§ Including those who are obstructing the laws to the existing requirement for the President to issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

o Amends Chapter 152 of title 10, U.S. Code, to authorize, with certain limitations, the President, in any situation he determines to exercise the authority provided in section 333 of chapter 15, to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment (e.g., food, water, utilities, transportation, search and rescue, medical care, and other assistance necessary to save lives and property) to persons affected by the incident.

o Amends section 12304 of title 10, U.S. Code, eliminating the limitation imposed on the President's authority to involuntarily call to active duty members of the reserve components to perform law enforcement and other duties in response to serious natural or man-made disasters, accidents, or catastrophes to only those incidents involving terrorist or weapons of mass destruction threats or attacks.

How was this done? It was done in the dead of night in the Congress of the United States. It was slipped into the Defense Appropriations Bill of 2006 entitled, "USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES". The original language of the provision was stripped out and new language put in its place.

Senator Patrick Leahy (remember him? He's the senator who was sent U.S. military vintage anthrax some years back, but the cuprits were were never caught). He, along with other Democratic members of congress have expressed public outrage that Posse Comitatus has been gutted after almost two hundred years. According to Leahy, his committee had created the original language for the provision that empowered the National Guard, but the new language empowers the president instead. Leahy says the language, "...was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

This late night tactic has become the prevailing modus operandi of the Republican Congress.

Let's be clear there was no reason for this law except to seize power to act unilaterally to mobilize the National Guard without needing to consult state governors, and to easily allow the president to use the armed forces for law enforcment in America's streets.

The implications of this are mind boggling. If anyone argues that these new powers are needed for disasters and terrorism, please forget that argument. For many years the armed forces have played major roles in emergencies, disasters, drug interdiction, and other situations. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1984, (called the Stafford Act and amended in 1988 under 42 US Code Section 5121 et seq.), provides the authority under which armed forces' assistance is given. And if you look hard, you will see that no president was ever prosecuted for violation of Posse Comitatus, although there have been some notable violations. The powers that were there were sufficient, but George W. Bush wanted more.

Senator Patrick Leahy's entire official statement regarding the new provision:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html

Here are two of the most salient quotes from Senator Leahy's official statement about the new provision being slipped into the bill:

"It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. "

"The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked Posse Comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

Many of us fear that this power has been grabbed to stop any and all public reactions to another stolen election. The public is much, much more aware of this problem now. There are press reports in several states of voters trying to vote for Democrats, but the machines keep showing votes for Republicans instead. Even conservative computer scientist Dan Wallach admitted today that after years of studying security issues with computerized voting machines that, "All the reports I've seen have generally been at the expense of Democrats "

What a pity that we have a president and a congress that have willfully worked to shred so many of the intricate protections that our Democratic system of checks and balances produced over two centuries. As we see each component of these efforts slip into place, we see a fabric forming of disturbing shape and color that threatens to ensnare us all.

Ashley Simmons Hotz
Monticello, FL

[Ed Suspicious]

89. If these militarized police forces don't count as a de facto domestic military... n/t

[hifiguy]

121. +1

These days cops are military in all but name.

[Aleric]

134. +1 And today's phrase is "de facto"

translation: reality. Law and reality have little to do with one another.

[Response]

95. Many of today's police forces were the black ops gear

that one would expect from the military. I see this as a soft version of Martial law: a dress rehearsal for the harder form to follow.

[spooked911]

197. Yep

I agree.

[Response]

240. Sorry. Wear (sp).

[a2liberal]

97. Who do you think blocked the NYC airspace so helicopters couldn't get eviction photos? (n/t)

[No Elephants]

102. That is probably an exaggeration, but he does seem to have been involved.

And he certainly has not been an enthusiastic supporter.

[RoccoR5955]

122. So what do you call it when police use military tactics?

I guess it's not a police state until the freakin' Marines are called in, huh?

[Donnachaidh]

155. these are local police depts manning high frequency sound cannons

THAT is *military*.

:eyes:

[iscooterliberally]

168. Our military police state as been 40 years in the making.

Normally I would agree that Martial Law requires military forces, but our local police departments have been militarized for years. The town that I live in has a tank. They use SWAT teams to serve no-knock warrants for marijuana. They sometimes show up at the wrong address and kill innocent people and/or family pets. They do this because they are afraid that someone might flush their evidence and preventing that is more important than human life to these folks. I recently read that Houston is going to start using drones. Here is a link to some of our drug war victims:

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

Let there be no doubt that we now live in a fascist police state, and the military is no longer required to enforce martial law.

:hide: :scared:

[Major Hogwash]

245. Yeah, now we have to watch them watch us from the sky!!

Gives a whole new meaning to the "eye in the sky" phrase in that song now!!

[quakerboy]

224. Police Militarization

Many police groups have become more and more militarized in their equipment and tactics. They have effectively become paramilitary forces within our own country.

I would agree that President Obama has/is not creating a military police state. I think that it preexists his presidency. It started under Reagan, and was completed under shrub.

It just becomes more visible now, since we can see it is not just a clear lawbreaker like shrub misusing the system for his class benefit, a renegade action, but rather a systemic change that has happened, acceptable and even encouraged for use against the people by even the most benevolent powers.

[golddigger]

3. Seconded. The movement.

[pnwmom]

4. What do you mean by "practice Martial law techniques"?

[graywarrior]

15. I watched a vid of the NYPD moving the protestors out of the park

They seemed a little extreme to me, with their helmets, thei kicking of protestors, the numbers of police. I attended a lot of protests in the 60's. This seems different somehow. I could be wrong in using that term, but it just seems too coordinated across the country.

[RKP5637]

26. Frankly, IMO, it looks like a coordinated attack on OWS, wherever it's coming from. n/t

[graywarrior]

42. It really does!

[dixiegrrrrl]

61. Blackwater was paid by DHS to train police all over the country.

city/state police have been given tons of OUR tax money to become militarized, and trained for urban "warfare".
You are right..today's urban police ARE different..much much different..in many ways.
But not different from Bull O'Conner's attack dogs in some ways.

[Major Hogwash]

110. Where was the 2004 GOP convention held??

Attorney General Ashcroft gave speeches to gatherings of state and city police officers, sheriff's departments, county marshals, and other localized police units in 2004 that were PRIVATE -- barred from being attended by the general public or the press -- on how to implement the Patriot Act in their particular jurisdictions.

[No Elephants]

111. Homeland Security.

[rhett o rick]

16. Do you stand with the 99%? Do you think Obama stands with the 99% or Jeff Immelt? nm

[pnwmom]

18. Yes. But I can still ask a question, can't I? I hardly watch TV,

so if it's been on TV, I haven't seen it.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[graywarrior]

28. I'm hoping he stands with us. I believe that he does.

I want to hear him say it.

[rhett o rick]

57. He is in an extremely difficult position. This is a real revolution. This wont go away. He has to

choose a side. A lot of conservative appointees have his ear. He cant sit on the fence.

[Carolina]

194. Good luck!

You'll be waiting a long time to hear him say anything positive or supportive about OWS.
And his words won't matter anyway, because he is (or was) good with words but piss poor with actions.

[roguevalley]

30. 99 forever. Obama? bwahaha! Not so much

[chervilant]

149. Indeed...

I had issues with Mr. Obama before he became 'our guy,' the sole contender for the Democratic vote. Then, I had issues with his adjuration that we must move forward, and stop dwelling in the past (what a trite justification for avoiding the prosecution of the myriad war criminals from the Bush cabal...). Then, Obama appointed a Confederacy of Dunces to key posts in his administration, including Arne "I play basketball" Duncan as SecEd.

Geezus H. Christ on a Cracker!

Now, I seldom get crap from the Obama sycophants because Obama's performance is so identifiably antithetical to the Democratic Party Platform. I guess it's difficult to nigh-on impossible for them to refute the concerns that a growing number of us have with this administration--nay, the entire corrupted, oppressive, undemocratic system.

TPTB--including Mr. Obama--had better understand that We the People will prevail.

[noiretextatique]

29. i think the OP is talking about

this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2319102

and this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2322653

and this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2322603

and this:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/09/25/occupywallstreet-nyc-police-brutally-beat-peaceful-protestors-70601/

[PuraVidaDreamin]

6. I would say I feel exactly like you do.

His reactions to date saying he understands people are frustrated indicates how out of touch
he has become. Frankly, it's insulting.

[chervilant]

130. Plus a gazillion...

The patronizing...the condescension...I find both offensive and divisive.

[TBF]

9. I choose resistance - I do not agree with how the status quo is running this country. nt

[DLnyc]

10. I support a radical change to our socio-economic system.

Clearly, the status quo utterly fails to serve the needs of the many. In fact, it likely will fail to even preserve the planet earth in a condition habitable by any significant number of human beings.

If OWS can force Obama to act in some fashion that brings radical change quickly to our system, great. Otherwise I think history is passing him by.

[Imajika]

11. Obama is not against OWS...

Not sure where this silly idea is coming from. His statement that he understands the frustrating and reason for the protests is the best he can do. And of course he is going to say that mayors should take the action they feel is needed. What is going to do? Second guess mayors and have the press corp grilling his administration on every city mayor's decision?

Considering the wildcard nature of protests like this and that bad things can and will happen from time to time, the President can not publicly support it. If he did, every time someone near an occupy urinated on the sidewalk the press corp would demand to know if he supported lawbreaking and lewd conduct.

OWS has helped change the debate in this country from debt to income inequality. If absolutely nothing else comes from it, that is very significant and has helped the President quite a lot. I am quite confident Obama is thankful for OWS and the people out in the street - but he will never be able to say it.

[snagglepuss]

17. As asked on another thread. Who faciliated the mayors coordinated attacks

on OWS?

[pnwmom]

20. If you think they were coordinated, don't you think the mayors would be capable of that?

[TBF]

24. LOL - sure, they'd do that without the feds knowing

:rofl: :rofl:

[jeff47]

94. Knowing and helping are two different things.

This mini-thread is about helping, not knowing the mayors had a conference call.

[treestar]

113. Why not? What is so funny about that?

IMO you're showing a predisposition to want to believe a proposition here.

[Divernan]

176. Hysterically funny! YOU labeling anyone else as having predispositions.

[certainot]

140. imajika is right, and if those mayors are mostly GOP this is easy to explain- anyone check that out?

the GOP and any wall st friendly mayor and their police depts can easily be coordinated at the urging of the GOP and the think tanks that do a lot of their work for them

a conference call- easy.

[rhett o rick]

19. This is a revolution. He has to choose sides. So far he hasnt. nm

[graywarrior]

21. I have not heard one way or the other what he thinks

I believe in my heart that he is on the OWS side. I'm just saying that I no longer believe in heroes and I've decided to stand with the people. This may be spurred by a personal thing that is happening with my brother because he is low income and very messed up in the head. I've been observing the way people treat him because of that and it angers me. He has no voice.

[piratefish08]

41. he isn't?

"President Barack Obama's spokesman is suggesting the president believes it's up to New York and other municipalities to decide how much force to use in dealing with Occupy Wall Street demonstrations."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2 ... /


not WHETHER to use force. HOW MUCH force.

[certainot]

141. that's what the writer said of the spokesman... give me a break

[piratefish08]

174. a spokesman doesn't speak on behalf of? Obama better fire his ass STAT and clear the air

regarding his love for the protesters.......

[certainot]

191. he's voiced his support for peaceful protests on many occasions and imajika is right, as

things get crazy his support will be used against him ad the dem party.

that wouldn't mean shit except the left allows the right to dominate media, specifically, by giving 1000 coordinated right wing radio stations a free speech free ride to distort anything obama or OWS protestors do or want to do.

if we had a real media where truth and perspective wasn't so trashed by team limbaugh because the left completely ignores them it would be a lot easier for someone like obama to show more support. does it matter? i think it does because OWS gains will continue to be obstructed most by one party in particular and as real reforms go through the political process of elections and legislation the compromising at every step will be proportional to how intact the right's domination of media is. and the the GOP doesn't have to pay any attention to any protestors as long as team limbaugh is there to yell over them, unapposed from 1000 radio stations, and create made-to-order constituencies and media emphasis.

[MrMickeysMom]

76. Neither is he for OWS...

So, what is he exactly? Is he sitting on the fence of a revolution? Fence-sitting?

In fact, OWS has focused an earlier phrase Obama has used in the recognition of "Main Street" rather than "Wall Street". I would say in light of what has factually happened with these peaceful people in the movement, he then describes OWS as on par with the Tea Party.

I don't understand you consideration of "the wildcard nature of protests like this and that bad things can and will happen..." I would say that all the bad things coming out of the OWS movement have been instigated by a police state and I would go FURTHER to predict that a handful of mayors do not do anything in such a coordinated move without their respective local governments having been coordinated.

I know this to be true.

[cantbeserious]

81. There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

eom

[Carolina]

195. Love Jim Hightower!

[Response]

98. The best he can do?

As I recall, John F. Kennedy confronted Alabama governor George Wallace over race issues, yet some 48 years later President Obama isn't able to do anything more than suggest that he understands frustrations while ignoring an unlawful crackdown on OWSs first amendment rights?

Saying one is not against a thing is certainly not the same as saying one supports a thing.

You also mention that 'the President can not publicly support it', but as I recall President George W. Bush supported anti abortion marches.

From the WIK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

George W. Bush was out of town during six consecutive marches (2000-2006) during his tenure. However, he spoke via telephone line amplified by loudspeakers. In 2004, he thanked participants for their “devotion to such a noble cause” from Roswell, New Mexico. During his telephone addresses, he tended to speak broadly of opposing abortion as opposed to offering any specific efforts being made to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.<1>


If an asshole like Bush can do that then why can a Democrat like Obama support OWS? OWS hasn't assassinated any doctors in its protests.

[totodeinhere]

193. He needs to exercise some leadership. Worrying what someone might say if he comes out against the

tactics of those mayors is not leadership. A leader will stick his or her neck out sometimes to do what is right. Obama hasn't done that.

[stockholmer]

227. the state of Democratic leadership, starting from the POTUS on down

[RufusTFirefly]

12. The line between police and military is rapidly blurring...

Leaf through a police magazine these days and you'll see ads for automatic weapons, military equipment and the like -- all being pitched at police officers. Midsized and larger police departments have long had SWAT teams. But now, even patrol officers have access to more firepower than they used to. The must-have item this holiday season: an armored assault vehicle. That's right. A tank, which will be back at the station house if you need it.

"There's a sense among new recruits that police work is about soldiering," my friend lamented. "And we don't discourage it. In fact, we encourage it -- when (in reality) about 90% of what we do is community relations."

Source: Are police becoming militarized?

[graywarrior]

23. Thank you for that!

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Also used by the soldiers - er, I mean police in NYC

Sound as a Weapon

In fact, LRAD, which is 33 inches in diameter and looks like a giant spotlight, has been used by the U.S. military in Iraq and at sea as a non-lethal force. In these settings, operators can use the device not only to convey orders, but also as a weapon.

When in weapon mode, LRAD blasts a tightly controlled stream of caustic sound that can be turned up to high enough levels to trigger nausea or possibly fainting. The operators themselves remain unaffected since the noise is contained in its focused beam.

Source: ABC News (2004)

Although the LRAD weapon was apparently not used at the 2004 Republican Convention in (anyone? anyone?) New York City under Mayor (anyone? anyone?) Bloomberg, apparently it was used by the Marines -- er, I mean the NYPD -- to help clear out OWS the other night.

Here's what Keith Olbermann had to say about it:

Who else but an archetype like Bloomberg could claim a group of protestors were making too much noise in a residential area, then choose to try to disperse them by bringing out LRAD Audio Cannons, machines that send painful waves of sound indiscriminately over the very same residential area?

Source: Daily Kos

[graywarrior]

40. !

:thumbsup:

[RufusTFirefly]

46. Don't worry! If you're innocent, you'll be safe

As the great Edwin Meese (Attorney General under Ronald Reagan) said

"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."

Source: U.S. News and World Report via Wikipedia

[graywarrior]

48. Innocent according to whose laws?

[RufusTFirefly]

52. Aw, now you're just trying to cause trouble.

:hi:

(I wonder whether anyone has ever called Edwin Meese "the great Edwin Meese" before and actually meant it.
Gee, I hope not!)

[rhett o rick]

59. It's easy. THe 1% are innocent and the 99% are not. nm

[Javaman]

101. Money buys a lot of innocence. nt

[rhett o rick]

58. Please include the sarcasm emoticon. nm

[RufusTFirefly]

60. Sorry, I figured my bowing down before Ed Meese was a dead giveaway

I'll work on being a little less subtle in the future.

[rhett o rick]

73. I am sorry. It's just that I have such a short fuse that I occasionally jump all over

someone because I didnt take a breath and figure out they were being subtle.

Please dont be less subtle, I should have figured it out. I just need to try not to overreact.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. No worries. We've all been there. (I'm a big Bernie fan -- and I mean that non-ironically.) n/t

[inna]

124. iirc, acoustic weapons were first used against domestic population in 2008

at the repug (or was is dem?) convention in Twin Cities.

[Ed Suspicious]

91. I can't find the article now, but I read larger police forces have access to tanks

and I also heard about drone patrols in the south. They are military.

[Serial Mom]

206. Since 9/11/01 Police have been trained as para-military

Check out the Maddow/Engel clip titled Selling Fear and just watch what the retired Lt. Col. Grossman teaches the police... he has over 300 speaking engagements per year... all to make money on the the Preaching/Selling of FEAR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44292512/


Then look what group he is now associated with and read about this group... again to make money on the Preaching/Selling of FEAR...

http://www.warriorsciencegroup.com/

The last paragraph is scary that we even have people who would believe it...
The Warrior Science Group will help our civilization to raise up a generation of Rennaisance Warriors who will function at the highest levels of human performance, to answer the summons of the trumpet and meet the challenge of the age. These Warrior Science graduates will man the ramparts of our civilization, at home and in distant lands, holding together the tattered fabric of our civilization in this dark and violent hour.


FEAR HAS TO STOP and if OWS is the way to show the government, we as citizens, don't want to live in fear, then that is what we all have to do.

[grasswire]

14. it is always so

With repression, comes the moment the citizen must choose between pursuing liberty and allowing tyranny.

Our New England ancestors chose between loyalism and liberty, knowing they were putting "lives, fortunes, sacred honor" on the line.

Most of my family members chose liberty. Another line fled to Canada -- literally fled. My grgrx? on that side was nailed into a wooden box with a jug of milk for sustenance and carted out of of town to a boat, just ahead of the patriots who were in the house talking to his wife. He fled to Canada. His line didn't come back to the U.S. until 1922, and suffered mightily when all land and property in New England was seized.

We may each come to that moment of choice again.

[TBF]

27. I come from Puritans

(on my mom's side) - they arrived here in the 1660s. You bet I choose liberty.

The fascists will get no cooperation from me.

[XemaSab]

55. My family came here in the 1880's. You know why?

'CAUSE FREEDOM KICKS ASS! :patriot:

[defendandprotect]

181. The Puritans were fascist ....

in their religious beliefs and in trying to force them on others -- !!

Remember the Witch Burnings? Salem?


Then there was the little matter of the native Americans greeting them --

providing them with food -- helping them to get thru the winter --

[graywarrior]

32. Mayvbe it's in my blood, coming from MA

[eilen]

234. There is a branch of my family that went to Canada too. nt

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

31. So glad to have an Obama supporter say it. Thank you. nt

[graywarrior]

33. Of course.

:toast:

[madinmaryland]

36. Obama does not control local police forces, and he has not called out

the National Guard (which I don't think he can do, as only a state governor could do that). Now could he do more to see that police intervention doesn't happen, maybe, but at this point it is a local/state issue. If the federal government were to involve itself one way or the other would set a bad precedent.

[newspeak]

199. and yet, FDR called out the national guard

to protect laborers from the police and, I believe, pinkertons.

[AntiFascist]

251. NOT TRUE! Look up CONPLAN 2502....

Please don't spread misinformation!

The President seems to be given responsibility when the Feds are called upon to handle civil disturbances. Although the actual plan may be classified, it seems to be a variation on Operation Garden Plot, which has been declassified:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2321816

"it is anticipated that Federal assistance will be directed by the
President. When Federal intervention is directed, required military
resources of unified and specified commands will be transferred by
the JCS to their respective Military Departments. Concurrently with,
or following the direction to use active Federal resources in civil
disturbance operations, designated National Guard units may be called
into active Federal service and Reserve units may be ordered to
active duty."

[slay]

39. He crossed my line long ago

n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. Mine too. As for #OWS....SOLIDARITY!

[slay]

56. Indeed!

[MedleyMisty]

64. That sign...

That's why they call everyone else terrorists. That's why they call everyone else lazy bums who just want to live off government money.

Everything that they say is pure projection.

[slay]

68. Good call

i see republicans do that shit all the time - like The Protect IP Act - which will actually hurt the internet - etc.

[Bozita]

67. That's a keeper!

[chill_wind]

72. Afraid so here as well.

Some still seem to need flashing neon lights.

[Texasgal]

43. I must say this again..

Please know that I ADORE you Graywarrior! :)

I was under the assumption that OWS does not follow party lines, that's the beauty of the movement!

People.... with no political ties fighting together for what is wrong! I do not care if Obama ever mentions OWS! This is not about HIM. Or any party liner. It's about US. As Americans.

[graywarrior]

45. There you go! You are correct. They do not follow party lines and

I am close to doing the same. I'm fed up with politics and politicians. They are not us.

[Texasgal]

70. :)

This is what makes the OWS so special.

It's not politics. It is US.

:hugs:

[kestrel91316]

44. Absolutely. We support political ideals. If our "leaders" do not work their

asses off to uphold those ideals we have every right to dump them and find better leaders.

He's pushing his luck.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. Not a "right" --

but an "obligation" -- our Founding Fathers were very clear on that. :)

[lunatica]

49. My avatar says it all for me

I created it in Photoshop.

[graywarrior]

51. I love it

I want to put something like that all over my car.

[rhett o rick]

54. Yes it does. The question is, should you convince some one that they are a slave if

they dont know it?

[graywarrior]

62. Denial is a disease

[lunatica]

65. That's my sig line

And yes. People can be awakened up to their slavery. It's happening now with the OWS.

[graywarrior]

66. They sure are waking up!

[WillyT]

63. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

EXACTLY !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[sarcasmo]

69. Kick!

[slipslidingaway]

75. knr - I'll choose the movement. n/t

[Huey P. Long]

77. We are on our own. Support OWS, or get crushed into powder.

[mike_c]

79. I chose the movement long ago and have never supported this administration....

The Obama administration was on the wrong side of this movement before it was even a movement.

[w4rma]

80. The FBI helped coordinate the crackdowns. COINTELPRO?

Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night'
…
According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.
…
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies

[jeff47]

93. The examiner is not a reliable source

For example, they have articles about a secret government program that teleports people to and from Mars, with technology given to us by aliens.

Not saying it didn't happen, but citing the examiner as proof is like citing a delusional guy with a tin-foil hat.

[sandyj999]

82. I Choose OWS! He isn't interested. Huge disappointment in my life. But I'll get over it.

[mdmc]

83. OWS over the DLC anyday

[jerseyjack]

84. Get Real. Obama is gonna do little for you or me.

In 2017, he will be a major stock owner in the Carlyle group like Clinton. He will be laughin' and scratchin' while you and I are still trying to figure out what happened. He has been bought and sold. Why else would Geithner and Summers have influence in economic matters?

[Vinca]

85. Sadly, they're all politicians in the end. We're on our own.

[mod mom]

86. Agree 100%

[LWolf]

87. No question which side I'm on. nt

[The Doctor.]

88. Obama's moment of truth is coming.

I've thoroughly believed that Obama is a good person trying to achieve good while in office. I still do. This movement is bringing something to the fore sooner than many of us expected. He is going to be forced to make a decision that is well outside of his strategy.

He knows what the right one is.

[graywarrior]

115. The truth is out there in plain view.

All he needs to do is say he supports OWS and 2012 is his. I've been reading many articles that voters are fed up with Occupy. I call BS on those articles.

[The Doctor.]

161. I agree.

I also believe he will give a statement in the not-so-distant future.

Hopefully, he acknowledges that the movement is peaceful.

[Marr]

164. It's come and gone-- several times.

He's a good politician and knows how to offer an occasional, vague statement of support for things like OWS or the so-called "public option", while actually maneuvering against them. He's shown what side he's on several times already, and he's currently demonstrating it again with actions.

[The Doctor.]

166. Wrong again. As usual.

You all can't seem to understand that what he's done is virtually the best that CAN be done. The implications of that might be frightening, but undercutting the President who is, in reality, on our side is not a useful exercise at all. Don't think so? Then answer this question;


"How would he have managed to get a public option through Congress?"


It's not a coincidence that the Anti-Obama league can't answer that question realistically.

[Marr]

170. The question you ask never stumped anyone, and it's been answered a million times.

Maybe you just don't want to hear it.

If he'd been sincere in his claims about healthcare, he would've pushed for single payer, publicly and constantly, for months. Maybe he'd even have got it through-- who knows. Or maybe he'd have to settle for some lesser alternative, like a "public option". Maybe he'd have got even less than that that-- maybe even zero.

What he actually did was to set up a lot of political cover and build a nice fat bailout for the insurance industry. He got us LESS than zero, and grafted the problem industry directly onto the treasury.

[The Doctor.]

175. So, just make stuff up, eh?

You're saying that if Universal Single Payer or a Public Option were in the bill, Congress, which is owned in the majority by the insurance industry among others, would have allowed a bill to pass that would be a death sentence for said industry?

Really?

Just say, "Yes, I really believe that." So I can have the best laugh I've had all month.

Please, I just want to see it.

Will I have to wait long?

[Marr]

178. How can you so easily accept the fact that Congress was in the industry's pocket...

but the idea of the White House similarly acting on behalf of the insurance industry is unthinkable?

[The Doctor.]

183. Really? Has this not been explained to you?

Or do you simply ignore what people tell you if you don't like it?


Let's pretend you're in the WH.

A bill comes to your desk. You hate it, but the bill does force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions, it extends COBRA enrollment, and there is no question that it will save lives. It has a bunch of crap in it you hate, but you want to at least help the few million people that are suffering with the current situation.

Do you;

A) Sign the bill and suffer the fallout from the media and the haters?

-OR-

B) Veto the bill and let the suffering continue knowing that there will not be another fight over this legislation during your term?

Just answer that.

[Marr]

201. How about you answer my question instead of posing a different one?

I'll restate.

In this little drama you've constructed, you assume the President is acting as an earnest and honest representative of the people. Congress, on the other hand, is in the pocket of the insurance industry.

Why do you assume the President, a politician who began in Congress, after all, has some nobility that the Congress lacks? Why do you assume he was not acting on behalf of the insurance industry, when you so casually accept the idea that the Congress was?

[The Doctor.]

214. I don't blame you for not wanting to answer it.

You'd have to admit something you'd rather not.

Now, I've answered your question many times before, but the anti-Obama faction don't actually digest it. Instead they start trying to deny all the pieces without actually applying reason or logic. First, I'll answer your question, but then, if you are an earnest dealer, you can answer mine.

I'll start with what should be an obvious question; "Why on EARTH would the insurance industry and lobby spend
hundreds of millions of dollars creating an astro-turf movement out of thin air, Lobbying all their congress critters, deploying all of their media resources, and generally marshaling everything they could to fight against a piece of legislation if Obama would have signed whatever they wanted anyway??

If Obama were 'in their pocket' at a time when they were perfectly happy with the status quo, then there would have been no attempt at reform at all. Instead, they started the campaign to destroy single payer/public option in August of 2008 when it was apparent he was going to win and because he had announced that he intended to go for Universal care for Americans.

If Obama were 'in their pockets', why would they 'allow' him to force the entire industry to spend 85% of their revenues on care instead of applying every penny they could squeeze out of people to their bottom line?

Despite what you might have otherwise been told, the industry is not happy with this bill, otherwise I might ask you to explain why in the hell they're still fighting it.

Actually think about this.

Obama is not 'in their pockets' because he could have so easily said, "It doesn't contain what I said it should" and vetoed it just as they would have wanted him to.

That's without even taking into account the fact that he grew up poor, has always been on the side of the downtrodden which is why he went into politics, and how large of a political risk he took by tackling this.

I don't know whether any of this is getting through to you, but it's just reason and logic. There are simply no reasons to believe that he was 'in their pocket', and every reason to believe he is not and never was.

Then look at the question I asked you, and it's easy to see how little sense it makes to think he was their lapdog.


Now, I answered your question thoroughly. It's your turn.

[Marr]

220. Yes, I'm sure the insurance industry is totally against Obama's mandate for citizens to

buy their fraudulent products in lieu of getting healthcare.

Do you actually believe they're against Obama's 'healthcare reform' legislation? They practically wrote it.

[The Doctor.]

226. Wrong, it's your turn. Remember 'earnesty'?

Meanwhile it's obvious that not a single thing I said got through to you. Once again; without that provision it would have never made it to his desk because it would have spelled the end of the industry. Or do you not get that being forced to sell policies to people who went without coverage until they were diagnosed with something would destroy the industry? (not that I have a problem with that)

So, this bill with this disgusting mandate is on your desk.

Do you let people continue to suffer, or hold your nose, sign it, and put an end to some of the more heinous practices of the industry?

If you refuse to believe that the bill has such life-saving provisions, then you need to remedy your ignorance and read it.

I play in good faith, I answered your question, now it's your turn to answer mine.

[Marr]

241. The answer to your quesiton is implicit in my reply.

But to just answer it directly, if I were faced with the option of signing a fat insurance industry bailout, mandating that regular people who can barely afford an occasional visit to a doctor instead send that money to bloated insurance companies in exchange for absolutely NOTHING, or passing on the whole thing, I'd pass.

There are a whole lot of people who are going to be paying insurance premiums now instead of at least getting the little bit of healthcare they could afford. That money is going to be shoveled right into the insurance industry's gaping maw instead.

The insurance companies were and are the problem, and we had a chance to do something about it. Obama chose to go along with the rest of the 1% and graft it onto the government.

[The Doctor.]

244. There are many people who will get to live that might just disagree with you.

If you can, in good conscience, veto a bill that would save thousands, then I'd really like to have a better understanding of your reasoning.

As an aside, you are the first person with the yarbles to answer that question from me. Kudos.

If you don't have another question, then I have one for you;


You said; "mandating that regular people who can barely afford an occasional visit to a doctor instead send that money to bloated insurance companies in exchange for absolutely NOTHING," I'm sympathetic to that sentiment.

Tell me, What is the 'penalty' for not adhering to the 'mandate' to buy insurance?

Your answer or lack thereof will either change or reinforce my opinion of this bill and Obama's role in expediting it.

You have a unique opportunity, right here and now, to actually change someone's mind. Do not blow it off.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

216. Huh?

Two things I recommend;

- Comprehension of what you are responding to.

- Not shooting straight for the 'worst vote I ever cast' line on your first day.


It's just a little, well... transparent.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

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

[eilen]

235. Remember Wisconsin? Obama napped through that one. nt

[deutsey]

90. Movement!

[harmonicon]

92. Is he now a city mayor or something? Your post doesn't make much sense to me. nt.

[a2liberal]

96. K&R (n/t)

[MissDeeds]

100. I stand with the movement, too

K&R

[quinnox]

104. This is getting bigger than any one man or politician, even Prez Obama

President Obama, fortunately, is not the end all be all, and will be a faded memory when he exits office just like other presidents have been. But something tells me this OWS thing is just getting started. Bar the doors, because things are going to get rough!

[yodermon]

108. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE == TERRORISM

wait for it

[newspeak]

202. read above

little boots already laid the grown work. Read about insurrectionists and posse comitatus. Little boots, with the patriot act, seeded the destruction of civil rights in this country. And once we have lost the constitution, the bill of rights, we, as a nation, lose our identity-just another tyrannical banana republic.

[treestar]

112. Obama's doing nothing wrong regarding this

Putting it in perspective, it's a matter of the law in each place. All local. So there is no way I'm going to consider my presidential vote on this.

Cops do what they have to do and so do protestors. Cops are not always wrong just because. It's going to be entirely different in each city! Obama was right when he said it's their issue - he's respecting the separation of powers.

[graywarrior]

117. I won't consider my vote. But I find myself more and more

standing with the people and not with any politician. I'm done with saviors and rockstars.

[treestar]

136. That's good, because no politician is supposed to be

a savior, not even, to some people's utter shock, the President.

But the politicians are the elected ones who make the policy, so who we elect is more important than just generalized complaining. I'd respect these people more if they were working for some local candidates instead of sitting around waiting for the President of the US or "the corporations" to magically change things to their liking.

[Marr]

165. Holy cow-- you think Obama's 100% A-OK and on the right page?

[madfloridian]

198. Why in regard to OWS does he respect local powers, but not in legalized marijuana?

And not in respect to public education?

[newspeak]

204. I'm sure glad FDR had a different take on that

One of his finest hours was sending in the national guard to protect the laborers.

[City Lights]

114. I also choose the movement.

Rec'd.

[sulphurdunn]

116. The police supression

you're seeing now is merely the finger of one hand of the fist that has been prepared over the past decade to deal with civil unrest that has been anticipated in response to a public backlash of the corporate privatization of the public sector. That fist not only includes local and state, militarized police forces but also federal security agencies and the Pentagon.

[graywarrior]

118. !

:thumbsup:

[valerief]

119. I don't hold much allegiance to politicians anyway. It should always be the values, not the person.

[myrna minx]

120. I choose my brothers and sisters over any political party or politician.

We're on our own and I'll link arms with my fellow 99ers to change the world for the better. :grouphug:

[genna]

125. This is some of the displacement policies of civil liberties under Bush ratified by Obama

I think the thing speaks for itself.

The CIA operating within the U.S. shredding Posse Comitatus. The CIA furnishing the NYPD with anti-terror policies so they are prepared for a terrorist threat. Now, we find out what a pretext that was. If this is a trial run, then we are in for some bloody days, weeks, months, and years.

[graywarrior]

128. I'm seeing the same thing and it makes me think there's a secret % between

the 1% and the 99% and they are out to kill us or keep us enslaved.

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. Two things: a) This government is supposed to require the consent of the governed.

b) civil disobedience isn't disobedient if it requires the government's support.

[inna]

129. i knew you weren't hopeless after all

well, you'll have plenty of opportunity to make up your mind

[dotymed]

131. I feel the same way.

There is another post that is calling on President Obama to "do something" to help OWS protestors. I voted for it. There are dozens of responses, many are pro-Obama, and excuse him for not helping. The post has 0 rec's, even after I voted for it. It seems that many put party before people.

[certainot]

135. this is local bush homeland security shit, and a lot of it because left ignored RW radio and still

does.

from local RW stations all over the country the message is the same:

Here's what Limbaugh said just in first hour yesterday morning to enable and intimidate and excuse local politicians and police:
Limbaugh sets the tone for all 1000+ radio stations and their national and local blowhards and they're all doing the same thing and will be as long as OWS goes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2322293

praphrasing Limbaugh:

xxxxxx'
Bloomberg liberated Zuccotti Park.
lousy hippies thieves rapists purse snatchers
sexually transmitted diseases, murder, filth, gunfire, scabies
The protestors are so used to urinating and defecating in the streets so when they go back home to their parents they might need to be housebroken again. They’re going to have to put some newspaper down.
endless parade of human debris,
whining little wimps
looking for free meals free drugs free sex
it was never big, never any public support, not the backbone of America
white house wanted bloomberg to get them out because it was one big ad for the dem party.
'xxxxxx

WABC is a parent, or the parent station for Rush Limbaugh, and it is located near Penn Station, NYC. Maybe it needs some protests too. T

[Aleric]

137. Wow is this thread on its way to getting locked?

Does DU stand with the Pres, the DLC and the 1% or does it stand with the 99%? OWS is NOT Democratic Party. If we stand with them, we no longer stand with the Democratic Party.

[tbartlett2]

145. Police State

And here we are. We thought we where the pillars of human
right here in this country when we ridiculed other for there
lack of compassion or there military actions against a
peaceful movement. I would say the mirror has been turned
around to face us. It is quite learn now that we as a country
can talk the talk but do not have the ability to walk the
walk. I would also be you all that other countries are
thinking the same thing. We have become the bully to the rest
of the world but we can't even solve our own problems. Now we
have out of control police and state officials. They are not
us to having there ideas challenged. Guess what the sleeping
giant has been awakened and it is going to take one hell of
the change to but it back to sleep if ever. Things must shift
in this country or we will be the next militarized 3rd world
country.

[DaveJ]

146. Police brutality, especially against protesters, has been around since forever.

We're just now noticing it. I do not know how these scoundrel leaders keep getting elected, and how scoundrels in business keep getting promoted into high places. That is some deep sociological and psychological problem, not something Obama caused, and not something Obama can fix. For Obama to do something unprecedented and intervene in troubling social conflict, which has always existed, would go beyond his normal duties. Moreover, it would not help to address the problems the 99% are attempting to solve, economic corruption. This corruption stems from thousands of individuals that make up the 1% and they cannot be redressed by military force.

[graywarrior]

148. Wow, great post.

The 1% is very nervous because OWS seems to be creating a separate society. If we start to govern ourselves, they will have no power over us---this they are shitting their pants.

[noiretextatique]

159. we are not just noticing police brutality now

perhaps younger people are, but many of use are aware that police brutality has been with us for a long, long time.

[jwirr]

150. Yesterday I almost posted that I feel like voting in 2012 and leaving

the presidential vote empty. However, the last time I almost did that was in the 70s. What I am doing is refusing to work, donate to his cause. I want to let him know how angry we are without handing the WH and congress over to the rethugs. I am afraid we are all between a rock and a hard place for this election. I will support the movement also. I am lucky though I have two good Democratic senators Amy Klobachar and Al Franken. And we are pretty sure to get rid of craavack in the house.

[graywarrior]

152. What an amazing turn of events since 2008

[krabigirl]

154. Yeah, I definitely choose the movement over our "government." and I don't support the administration

[bread_and_roses]

156. I stand with Occupy. K&R (n/t)

[julian09]

182. Gop are sermonizing OWS just to keep Obama from endorsing OWS

They Repugs know that obamas fight is for fairness and democratic values, jobs, upward mobility and justice for the masses.
GOP are for tax advantages for rich, govt for corporations, anti vote for minorities, poor, and older population.
The OWS movement is not supporting Obama, though he is much closer to their positions. Repugs are so afraid OWS supporting Obama, they are sermonizing OWS before they do.
If O endorsed OWS fully, the Gop would infiltrate OWS with provocateurs to get public opinion against them.
It's time for O to endorse OWS, many say but it's also time for OWS to stand for the politic ans who represent them, regardless of party and oppose and name those who don't.
The time for occupying parks overnight and disrupting people from earning a living, will not make many friends. It is time to go after those who stand in the way of the middle class, by exposing their records and oaths to protect the rich. The corporations who keep profit in overseas tax shelters, ship jobs there because of lower labor costs and no insurance costs due to govt provided insurance.

[onpatrol98]

157. I believe he is sympathetic with OWS

I believe the President is sympathetic with OWS. However, I think he's worried about whether problems associated with OWS will be tied to him like an anchor when he runs for re-election. If you think about it, the first notion of a 99% versus a 1% came from him. It was a constant theme. The 1% do nothing, but get richer. The 99% suffer. You could hear it in his speeches, etc. I think at some point, Americans decided..."Hey, he's right! We are being messed over. But, I don't think he anticipated Americans taking things into their hands. The movement...moved on with him in a sense.

I think the impetus for OWS came from the President. Nothing quite like this has ever happened before. And, it didn't happen before he made it a constant political drumbeat. Now, that OWS is happening, I think he's nervous. There will always be some bad eggs in any movement this large. Will the few bad eggs causing problems within the movement...since that's mostly what the media shows these days, be considered his fault IF he openly supports the movement?

They won't give him credit for whatever good comes from this movement. And, it hasn't escaped me (unless I've missed a speech) that he has now dropped the us versus them theme with the 1% talk. I think he wants the movement to succeed, but he also wants to be re-elected. If he believes he can do more for Americans from the White House, then he wouldn't do anything to mess up his potential for a 2nd term. The alternative to him in the White House is pretty grim, after all. There are no primary challengers, there is no real independent candidate. He would like to keep his job. I think he would do more in a 2nd term than he has done in the 1st.

But, at some point, he recognizes...although OWS has many supporters. There are going to be some local communities that are going to wonder...hey, who's running things around here. If people start feeling like there is chaos associated with OWS and no real direction, local mayors will take a hit. Governors will take a hit. And, the President will take a hit, if he's seen as fully supportive of a movement that may not seem to have a theme beyond, we're mad and we're going to take over parks.

Even though the police are definitely mistreating movement members...they have families and belong to communities as well that will be supportive of them and may eventually blame the victims and not the power structure.

I think the only thing the President can do to help OWS is to visibly work toward helping Congress work on their list of demands (if anything tangible currently exists). If OWS has a "Things to get done list". And, the President champions those real demands to the rest of America and to Congress AND we see the connection between their voice and his action. That will help OWS.

I think the real power of OWS is not in these tent cities, which local communities will eventually come to despise, if I know human nature. It's in planning a list of grievances that our government must address and sharing it with the rest of the country and world and challenging our current power structure to address.

[davidthegnome]

160. I am with you, graywarrior

Though it has been some time since I truly supported the President beyond being willing to vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I find him inept and without courage. Nonetheless, I'd vote for him over the clowns of the GOP.

I too, choose OWS. I choose the 99%, I choose the people of the world. Politicians be damned.

[Mosaic]

169. Yes

It's time to take sides. :patriot:

[caseymoz]

172. OWS no doubt.

[defendandprotect]

177. Obama has scared me since immediately after the election --- !!! But I'm also pro-OWS -- !!!

[AntiFascist]

186. It also happens the other way around...

those who are defending Obama also tend to belittle the OWS movement.

[graywarrior]

196. Really? I noticed a different trend.

[AntiFascist]

215. I'm not sure what the general trend is...

it seems that whenever there is the slightest bit of criticism of Obama, then the forces come out to push back. The meme now seems to be: we need to work within the status quo political process. The problem is: this has been failing us.

[graywarrior]

217. Let's just say we're in the middle of a massive transformation

We're being led like moths to a flame and thats OWS because we've been in the dark and treated like shit for so long. Strength in numbers works. We just got lazy and the pols took advantage of that. We're not lazy anymore.

[MisterP]

207. they're the same ones who say that the only way to get liberal policies is to blindly vote Dem

and that it's okay if the Dems elected don't pass those liberal policies, because they're better than the Pubs (just like the Arrow Cross was "better than" Hitler...) I would say they don't realize what sort of a poltical system such thinking ends up with, but then I realize they're either a) only in it for the personalities, not the policies, or b) block and attack liberals at every turn, so there's nothing unintentional going on here

[Vanje]

187. yes

nt

[Xtraneous]

205. Give me a break! He's only been in office about 3 years! nt

[Vattel]

208. The President takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

His duties as chief executive extend to enforcing the federal Constitution. That constitution contains rights that are being violate in the crackdown on OWS. But he can't even muster upo the courage to condem those violations.

[graywarrior]

211. Maybe when there is more bloodshed.

It's happening now.

[Laelth]

218. Wise choice. I am with you. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[DeSwiss]

221. ''There is nothing to fear but fear itself.''

- Hang in there Graywarrior. We've come too far to stop now......


K&R

[graywarrior]

232. LOVE IT!

[graywarrior]

225. Man, I am so happy I am on the side of OWS right now

[Hubert Flottz]

228. Our Government can't handle the truth.

The people can handle it, but the government can't.

[IdolHans]

233. Citizens Pledge Allegiance to Nation, not the Government!

Like duh! The people are sovereign, not the temporary occupants of office!

[eilen]

236. When it comes to the OWS movement,

Ultimately Obama is irrelevant. He is a relic of a system that is broken. He is the latest in the parade of empty suits who kneel at the feet of the 1% . He has installed their representatives closely around him. The democratic party better take a good long look at itself and take a picture. It will be entertaining to see both parties scramble to protect their fiefdoms and monopoly of the electoral machine. The tea party is but a footnote, like the Nativists. OWS is mobilizing and will demand their communities and government work for the people. Those who stand in the way will find that everything has changed.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

239. While i support both the president and OWS i must admit posts like this amuses me greatly

Mainly since i recall back when the movement first started some Obama supporters talked about how Obama should support it and such, the reaction of the OWS supporters at the time was to recoil more or less.

The general view was that Obama should NOT have anything to do with the movement in the slightest since he would just 'co-opt' it and as such they wanted him as far away as possible. more or less a reversal compared to the 'demands' made these days

[graywarrior]

242. Amuse is such a belittling little word

But I agree with you....somewhat.

Confused? Me, too.

[Major Hogwash]

243. What the h-e-double hockey sticks!! What happened to the duck!! Is it running amok!

Oh, the humanity of it all, the duck has escaped from the duct tape!!

I'm going quackers!!!

[graywarrior]

246. He's occupying

[lonestarnot]

250. Yes.

[Arkana]

253. What the hell does Obama have to do with any of it?

He can't overrule the state governors or the local municipalities. We do have a Constitution, remember?

[TwilightGardener]

255. I am not getting the connection either. Unless the OP is suspicious

that somehow orders are coming down from a federal level to break up the encampments.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

258. A lot of people focus on Obama since 'the buck' stops with him

due to him being the main honcho, the big cheese, the yadiyadiya, What a lot of people seem to forget tho is that 'the buck' can stop a lot of places before it arrives at his desk.

some 'bucks' stop with the mayors(city/local), some with the govners(state), heads of different department(different issues), not only do many of them stop in different places but they also tend to have rules that define the route the 'buck' takes and it can stop many places along the road.

Should be a fairly common sense thing to know in my eyes but sadly enough many seems to be of the view that since Obama is the President then all fault lands at his feet since the 'buck' supposedly stops with him with no stops along the way.

[ismnotwasm]

254. yes

In my neck of the woods having an 84 year woman---someone with years and years of standing up for what she believes in---pepper sprayed, no contest--It's OWS baby