Occupy Wall Street protest

[HoustonGM]

Since when does "agitate" mean "terrorize the hell out of"?

[dickay]

Since when does "agitate" mean "terrorize the hell out of"?

ragecage

Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."
^This sounds like not supporting it to me bro. You even quoted this line too, so I am a bit confused.

The term "agitate" can be viewed differently by different people.

Agitate: Make (someone) troubled or nervous.

Terrorize: Create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror:

Those two definitions are different, but each persons view of what "making troubled or nervous" is and what "filling with terror" is can be different. It's easy to take it too far and any organizer saying it's OK to "agitate" is reckless. If the LAD's gave a press release saying that they don't condone their fans being violent towards opposing fans but it's ok to "agitate"....I think its fair to say we'd all see how that would be reckless and how it could lead to violence. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

You guys sound like fan boys. Look, I support Occupy. I support public uprising against the machine right now. I do so however knowing that violence is an extreme possibility and am not going to point solely at the police if and when it arises. There's a reason why bar owners can't hide behind the statement "I don't condone drunk driving". They have a responsibility to cut someone off if they feel they have had too much. I'm not saying those that organize occupy should be legally responsible for violence that takes place, but surely when you get a bunch of protestors together....for long duration....shut down a port which obviously effects the lives of many....and send a message that you want to "agitate", than YES you have blood on your hands if violence takes place.

What Occupy organizers should be saying is:

"We don't condone violence. We want peaceful protests, but we realize that with the tensions of these groups that violence is always a possibility. Protestors should make attempts not to disrupt the daily lives of citizens in the locations they protest but should be loud and make their message heard in a peaceful manner. We also realize the importance and need for a police presence. They are there not only for the protection of non-protestors but also for that of us protesting. Be respectful of the police officers there doing their duty and we ask that the police respect our rights to protest. We want to warn our protestors that any actions of violence can and likely will lead to police involvement, and it's unfair to expect the police to risk their safety by entering a possibly hostile crowd. Therefore its reasonable to expect that riot control tactics such as tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc. may be utilized should these events turn violent. It is unfair to those that are there for peaceful demonstrations that a few malcontents could lead toward these tactics being used on them, but we understand that the police have to do their jobs and maintain safety while not jeopardizing their own first and foremost. To prevent this, be smart, be respectful, and be peaceful."

In all honesty......i don't find it unreasonable to think that organizers of these events should be responsible for funding some of the police presence necessary. At least an argument can be made for it and it's worthy of discussion.

[MichelleWie]

The tea party agitates me all the time.

[filihok]

A bit of chaos currently

http://www.ustream.tv/theother99

[ragecage]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-banks-underm...213618820.html

I think the media has been doing a decent job undermining the Occupy movement, maybe not good enough though as lobbyists want to get in on that.

[HoustonGM]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-banks-underm...213618820.html

I think the media has been doing a decent job undermining the Occupy movement, maybe not good enough though as lobbyists want to get in on that.

But I thought these were just a bunch of no-good hippie losers that had no point and could never change anything?

[filihok]

Went to Zuccotti Park today. Wasn't particularly impressed. I've been to much bigger protests than this

[filihok]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1110985.html

An adult film company is capitalizing on the heat of the U.S. anti-establishment protests by using a tent in the middle of the "Occupy Oakland" encampment as the setting for a new gay porn flick.Billed by The New York Observer as a "homoerotic caper through the tents of Oakland's Occupation," Dirty Boy Video's "Occupy My Throat" is likely to have been inspired by Brandon Watts, an original member of the Wall Street occupation who lost his virginity in Zuccotti Park before being arrested after a gruesome standoff with the police.

Watts does not appear in "Occupy My Throat," which was reportedly filmed in the middle of the Occupy Oakland encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza. The film's tagline reportedly reads as follows: "Police can ban the erection of tents at Occupy Wall Street, but they can't keep us from pitching a tent in our pants!"

[Kobie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1110985.html

i lul'd in rl

[MichelleWie]

This is turning into a joke locally. I liked this quote from the Milwaukee Police Chief after the protesters gathered and forced the closing of a main bridge, in one of the poorest sections of the city.

"They're angry about the economy...go to Wall Street! There's a 35% unemployment rate in this community, who are they disrupting!? Do you see any bankers driving around here? No. You have working people that can't get across their own bridge. They are only hurting the 99%."

[ragecage]

Some Good Insight on what Occupy wants

HGM posted this a couple days ago on his FB feed. Good info.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the **** kicked out of them.

Which I guess anyone with a brain and wants to take the emotion out of it before jumping to conclusions, it seemed pretty obvious to me that this is the type of thing they are about. Not a free check.