<h1>39 You were fortunate. You are one of many.</h1>
<p>LOL, my daughter was annoyed by “occupy Amherst” all 15 of them. They impeded her access to the dining hall and shot a few of them nasty looks. UMass Amherst actually had BofA shut down that same day. Now that is riduculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not about luck or fortune. It’s about wanting to relax today and decorate my house for the holidays, but instead I put in 11 hours seeing customers. (Something that was not necessary 5 years ago) I do it because my customers expect the service and I have so much gratitude for the customers that we have cultivated and appreciated all these years. I also do it because the people that work for me are in the trenches too, doing everything we can to grow a business in this economy. Telling a customer “no” just because it’s Saturday in NOT an option. But I know for some people “no” would have rolled right out of their mouths. Enough “no” in a business plan and you will be out of business. But that’s cool. There is always “occupy whatever” to complain to the world that some how the 1% have screwed you. The differnce is the majority of the 1% (and the top 10% for that matter) simply have taken “no” out of their business plans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So Ghandi, Martin Luther King and John Lewis are just idiots?</p>
<p>I’m glad I don’t live in your version of Amerika.</p>
<h1>43 The Occupy movement is not protesting against you. The protest is against the deregulation of the industries that have destroyed the economy worldwide.</h1>
<p>^^^^Then maybe before you throw the “rich” under the bus, you should classify correctly what you mean by who is stealing from who (post 24) There are massive amounts of hard working one percenters who are clumped with these “occupy targets”. But that’s okay, because I clump all the occupiers together too…entitled, “oh poor me”, banding together in their self created misery people. Sounds fair to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These and similar quotes…hard to believe they are coming from Americans. Sounds more like something that Chinese officials would be writing.</p>
<p>Since when was protesting supposed to be convenient? Or just take place when the powers-that-be get tired of it? </p>
<p>Funny how the same folks on the right end of the political spectrum fight for gun rights under one pretense of civil liberties and freedom from govt…then want protesters squelched by govt. when the cause seems like it’s already had enough air time and is just now annoying. </p>
<p>Hop_Scout: So you feel “these people” have already been given enough time, yet you claim to not know what they are protesting about? Huh?</p>
<p>starbright: best post I have seen in a long time.</p>
<p>Another vote for Starbright’s post. Between the police behaving badly and that phenomenal hypocrite Newt getting belly laughs as he said the OWS protestors ought to “take a bath and get a job”, I felt like I had stepped back into the late sixties. I’m comfortably middle class, but I realize that “there but for fortune go I” and hope that I never feel so fat and happy that I can look with disdain at those who speak up to highlight the gross inequities that result when big business lobbies control public policy and the Supreme Court aids and abets their efforts.</p>
<p>If the college wanted those kids removed, the campus police should have cuffed and removed them. Pepper spraying them in the face was punitive, and as I recall, no police in this country have the right to exact punishment. It was a disgusting display, and you just know those cops were enjoying every minute of “putting those smart-ass college kids in their place.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A former supervisor/friend I had in a small technology startup would cite this as the result of the elimination of civics education in US K-12 education not too long after he graduated from high school in the mid-late 1970’s. </p>
<p>In reality, much of the anti-protest rhetoric is nothing really new. Rather…it is just a variant of the same old theme throughout history…especially US history. After all, only around 1/3* of the entire population of the 13 colonies actively supported the American Revolution while the rest were either apathetic fencesitters complaining about the inconvenience of the protests/war or loyalists allying themselves with the British to put it down. </p>
<p>By the same token, abolitionism in the antebellum period(Before the Civil War) was considered an extremely radical political movement even in the northern states. Most of the political elite and people whose beliefs were conventional for that time saw them as impractical idealists at best and treasonous radicals who needed to be punished to the fullest extent of the law…or even beyond it. </p>
<ul>
<li>Some historians have argued this may be an overestimate.</li>
</ul>
<p>MommaJ - that’s exactly the point that is being missed. The police have no authority, none, to shoot pepper spray (or bullets or anything) if there is no risk to them or others. They can cuff them and carry them away to the courts where punishment will be exacted. These students were simply sitting there. That’s what civil disobedience is all about. I still remember the pictures of the police using water hoses and dogs against African Americans in the south. They were wrong too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently you didn’t see the video I saw. I saw a large crowd yelling and screaming and surrounding the police. If you watch the video I saw (on youtube) you’ll see the police backing away in a pack.</p>
<p>Zero risk?</p>
<p>Yes, zero risk. Using pepper spray should be a last resort, and only if there is a reasonable perception of harm. The video I saw was of students sitting on the ground with arms linked being sprayed directly in the face. What risk did they pose to the police? The police wanted them to move and they practiced civil disobedience by sitting there, willing to be arrested. They weren’t throwing things or rioting, which would be a reasonable perception of harm. Remember Rodney King? Police have been known to overreact, and this is one such occasion. Arrest them by all means, remove them forcibly if need be, but there is no reason to shoot pepper spray in the face of students merely sitting on the ground.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No violence? No risk? It will be interesting to see how far the Occupy protesters will go…</p>
<p>[Defiant</a> Occupy Oakland protesters seize ‘new home’ - US news - Life - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45374977/ns/us_news-life/]Defiant”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45374977/ns/us_news-life/)</p>
<p>So hop-scout, which video did you watch then besides the two posted that started this thread?! Kids sitting on ground, locked arms, heads down and hoods to cover themselves…sprayed directly in the face. what threat?! </p>
<p>It amazes me how people just make sh–t up, post hoc, to win an argument. </p>
<p>What if the protesters were middle age folks like yourself, protesting an increase of a new 60% tax or govt confiscation of firearms or election fraud that favored democrats?</p>
<p>Why is it so hard to put your personal bias aside about what issues you believe in, and recognize wrongful actions by authorities that resembles a police state - regardless of the reason for the protest? I thought right wingers were into super small govt?! </p>
<p>Xiggi, I especially expected a more intelligent and reasoned response from you. One doesn’t have to support the Occupy movement - or any movement- to see wrongful actions by police that violate basic civil liberties.</p>
<p>[Police</a> pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM&feature=related]Police”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM&feature=related)</p>
<p>It is on the side of the original video. It is a longer video that shows more of the scene than just the police spraying the protesters. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The police have a job to do. But if you’d rather your government just be overthrown, you can head to the Middle East where it seems to be happening lately… I think I’ll stick to restoring order here in America.</p>
<p>I’d prefer my government not to shoot pepper spray into the faces of unarmed citizens exercising their rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. I suppose you think that the Chinese military were justified at Tiananmen Square too.</p>
<p>ah, the either/or logical fallacy–Protests must expect to be suppressed by any means no matter how extreme, OR their actions will lead to the overthrow of the government.</p>
<p>Completely leaving out the choice for the representatives of the government to affirm its responsibilities and the rights of the people ( the kind of government that is not authoritarian, but democratic–you know, our kind.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand, are you saying that income and wealth are directly correlated with how hard you work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you looked at the history of many revolutions…including the American Revolution there’s one common theme. The unjustly disproportionate and brutal use of force by the ruling authorities to suppress protests ended up radicalizing protesters into Revolution and thus, overthrowing the then status quo/ruling governments in question. </p>
<p>Anyone remember the Boston Massacre? Bull Connor’s and George Wallace’s actions during the Civil Rights marches? More recently, many current Mideast regimes in the wake of the Arab spring like what was formerly Gaddafi’s Libya?</p>