Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) Nope. The AP is reporting the story as they were told; the claims of violence appear to come from the police themselves. That's not an independent source. Aww... http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakla...protesters-wer/ Should we dismiss that, too? I mean, I'm sure MSNBC paid off a OWS protestor to rat themselves out.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) Right, there hasn't really been any aspect of civil disobedience in the Tea Party protests/gatherings. I'm not sure about the claim that leftist protesters aren't more likely to be violent is true, either. Mostly because you don't see the radical ultranationalist rightwing elements (secessionist/Aryan nation militia group types) at Tea Party rallies, but also radical leftism doesn't exactly have a non-violent history. Note that you need to start really dissecting apart "the American left" into leftists and liberals to see that granularity. And then there's the rational among us who KNOW there are idiot tea party members at these rallies, spouting racist crap -- just like a few of the OWS people spouting anti-Jew rhetoric... AKA the vast minority amongst them. But be real...does that make all OWS protestors antisemitic? No. It doesn't.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) So many policeman have been killed at protests in this country. I could see why they would feel threatened by mostly college kids. Wow, the willful ignorance on display here is just astounding. ASTOUNDING.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) It sure as hell doesn't look like there's many (if any at all) people assaulting the cops in every video and photo available. It sure as hell does look like a large amount of the police force began firing on the crowd, whether or not it was provoked. So the AP are liars, and all the innocent bloggers without agendas are telling the truth. And internet video is possibly one of the WORST things you can use, since they always show what's happening when the police strike -- not the 5 minutes before hand. Context means everything. The only videos that could mean anything in such a case are unedited ones, which you won't find coming from OWS backers. If that video is in context, the cop will get fired, trust me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) The Tea Party protests were not of the same nature. There are definitely similarities, but none of them tried to "occupy" anything, and that is the key difference here. I can't believe I am defending the Tea Party, but in this case, I am. The idea that somehow lefty protestors are more likely to be violent is a joke, as the opposite is probably true. But it IS true that this particular movement has much more often chosen illegal methods of protest (mostly about trespassing and traffic obstruction and what not), than the Tea Party ones have. Stop being rational. When we make blind comparisons like this, it's obvious they're the EXACT SAME.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Only evidence appears to be police claims, not independent verification, so incredibly skeptical. Has video of self being shoved to ground for the crime of filming, credible. 1% of protesters throwing bottles at police doesn't get the other 99% to jump in; 1% of police firing rubber bullets and teargas into the crowd generally gets the other 99% of the police involved. A forceful response provoked by bottle-throwing can still be a disproportionate response of force. Wrong, it's exactly how riots begin. Not only wrong, but willfully ignorant. It's pretty clear you're anti-cop, which is fine...but it means it's futile to even try having an discussion about this with you. You : The police are guilty and protestors are innocent. Me (and a few others) : 99% of both sides are pretty innocent, but 1% caused problems. That's the difference here.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) Does it even matter? The police could have fired live rounds into the crowd and not one of them would have been fired. Riiiight, because police are never fired. Too bad they are, more often than you know.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Here's a report from an independent journalist at the Occupy Oakland protests, including video of her being assaulted by police for the crime of videotaping them. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/occupy_oakland_open2011/ That's why questioning that tries to absolve police from culpability for their actions in response to non-violent crowds gets met with indignant dismissal. It portrays an ignorance of the history of police action at leftist protest movements. Yes, because we should believe the Salon blogger over the f***ing Associated Press report that says otherwise. AP report : Police were met with violence, later that night the protestors inched closer and closer to the police line prompting gas, etc. Salon report : We did nothing wrong and the police are mean and corrupt and bossed us around and started trouble. In the end, I'm sure 99% of the protestors were peaceful, and 99% of the police were peaceful. Problem is, in a crowd type/mob situation, 1% on both sides is all that's required for some of the other 99% to pay the price.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Except that basically hasn't been said. When the question got asked, it was met with indignant dismissal. As it usually is. Nobody likes police until they need one. Then it's why weren't they there in 0.0035 seconds?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 08:45 AM) Multiple references there to skirmishes and violent actions. Are the protestors right about what happened? Or the police? Probably some of both. Either way, physical violence had occurred, so I'm not overly mad about the use of CS in this case. We will never know for sure of course. I've actually been in a few crowd situations. And I've seen a successful, peaceful protest. They were all sitting down, talking and praying, in that case. We warned them multiple times they'd be arrested, they acknowledged it, some elected to leave, some stayed. Those that stayed, we restrained, and escorted out. None resisted physically, a few went limp for a bit, but that was the worst of it. They elected to protest peacefully. If Occupy wants to be more aggressive, I can actually sympathize with why they may choose to. But they then have to accept the consequences. Then there is the final element here... the larger a crowd like that gets, the higher the likelihood that even if the majority ARE peaceful, there will be one or a few people who turn it into something else. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't really believe that most of the Occupy protestors are violent people, or even want to be violent in this case... just as I don't think that most of the Tea Party people at those rallies are proud KKK members. But in both cases, it just takes a few bad apples, and those are the ones we see on TV... those are the ones who cause a protest to become a riot. Agreed.

After reading up on this on a report posted by the Associated Press, sounds to me like the police/city were pressed to take the action they took. "In Oakland, officials initially supported the protests, with Mayor Jean Quan saying that sometimes "democracy is messy." But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination. Demonstrators disputed the city's claims, saying that volunteers collect garbage and recycling every six hours, that water is boiled before being used to wash dishes and that rats have long infested the park. When riot gear-clad police moved in early Tuesday, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area. They emptied the camp near city hall of people, and barricaded the plaza. Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging. Demonstrators returned later in the day to march and retake the plaza. They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas. The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza. Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas." After this all occurred -- on Tuesday -- the protestors planned to return to the scene on Wednesday (tonight). I have no problems with exercising their right to protest peacefully and within the law, but this doesn't sound very peaceful to me. It sounds like some of these protestors were looking for a fight, and when they got one, they cried foul. Full article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT So according to the AP, when the police arrived they were greeted by being pelted with rocks, bottles and various utensils? Far be it for me to say this, but just because police are waring riot gear, it doesn't make it ok to react like this, and then pretend it didn't happen while playing the innocent victim card. In the end, I'm sure there will be proper investigation of any police doing more than they were supposed to do or instructed to do -- I'm sure there are endless amounts of footage on Youtube showing how evil the police were in this situation...and any officer doing anything illegal will undoubtedly be on tape doing it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:04 PM) Warnings to leave? Because those were out 6 hours in advance. Warnings that they were about to open fire? I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't issue pretty clear warnings about that since that's standard procedure in such cirumstances. I'm dubious about the report as after the reporter clearly says they issued warnings, she immediately backtracks and claims "well, we couldn't hear them on the megaphone...and we don't know if issued warnings about the tear gas...but they still issued warnings"...that just reeks of a reporter trying to make something out of nothing. I'm going to go with her first reaction to the question posed -- and that's that warnings were issued pretty clearly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:46 PM) The fact that there is a clear gap between the police line and the protestors, the fact that there's no obvious activity near the police line , and the fact that everyone else is just milling around (and a substantial portion arent either flocking to or away from the confrontation) argues pretty strongly that they fired without warning. If the police even threatened force, a decent chunk of that crowd would have moved quick, the other would have been pushed towards the threatening line. There are also plenty of anecdotes saying the shots came from no where without warning, but those are admittedly anecdotes and I think the crowd behavior is much more conclusive. I think it's probably very likely that they decided hours beforehand that they weren't going to go through the trouble of dispersing the crowd and arresting people who refused, and the weapons were easier and quicker. Except for the FACT that the newscaster, around the 2:10 mark, SAY the police issued repeated warnings. Also, to edit -- using such tactics isn't something a single cop would make, this had to come from someone more powerful in City in question.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) Well, I watched the video. First thing worth noting is, they were "standing" in the middle of a large intersection. So certainly they needed to be dispersed. And apparently, the police used verbal and bullhorn warnings for quite a while beforehand. So as far as I am concerned, they all should have had the expectation they'd be arrested. But now, the question is, what police tactics do you use? It would seem like the best thing to do, at least to start with, is to have the police move in a tight group to one area of the crowd, and start cuffing people and taking them away. Ideally, you just keep doing this repeatedly until everyone is gone. If things go relatively smoothly, there is no need to do much else. My question is, was that sort of thing already tried? To me, that is the key here. If they tried that, and were met with physical resistance by a large crowd, then I am totally Ok with them backing off and firing gas cannisters into the crowd to disperse them. But if they skipped that step, and went straight from verbal warnings to gas cannisters, then I agree it was too much force escalation too quickly. Does anyone know the answer to that key question? Of course they don't. The police are the bad guys, they always use brutal unsafe tactics and the protestors are innocent victims that never do anything wrong. Never-mind the fact that they were clearly breaking the law by standing in the middle of an intersection, which is a huge safety issue in and of itself. Never-mind the fact they were disrupting other peoples lives via traffic issues and creating a chaotic environment despite "standing there". I'm sorry, but when I see a huge crowd "standing there", it makes me not want to be there, which is a personal disruption on what would otherwise be publicly accessible property I may wish to use for it's intended purpose, such as crossing the street. How am I supposed to know what they will or will not do if I attempt to walk around the area? Answer is I don't. Let me be the first to say I'm not against you protesting, but do it legally, and do it right. That means NOT in the middle of a street, or in front of a business other people may wish to use. Unlike in the past, the Internet exists...organize yourself, advertise the protest, and do it peacefully without going out of your way to interrupt everything around you. As the brother of a cop, this is again a situation where it's easy to armchair quarterback, but it's never easy when you have to make the spot decision on your own. What if it was you? While I know many of you wish the best of everyone, and feel you'd be ready for anything, the fact is when you tell someone to move, repeatedly, and they don't/outright refuse to do so -- it's obvious that they asking for confrontation. Now, as the cop standing face to face with them, what do you do? Do you attempt to move them in a peaceful manner, such as with handcuffs, not knowing what the surrounding (and imposing) crowds reaction will be? Far be it for me to say this to you, but these "evil pigs" have families they want to see again. They already live a life of acceptable risk every single day on that job, which is a thankless job because when 0.5% of them break the law or use brutal tactics, most of the country lump the other 99.5% of them in with the bad. Thus when police decide it's not worth the risk, after repeatedly asking people to stop breaking the law, and someone gets hurt... Well...this is what you get. An outpouring of typical anti-police rhetoric combined with nothing but second-guess armchair quarterbacking at it's worst.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:44 PM) Awww, how precious. So Barackus the Great gets to profit off of tax payer money on book royalties? What a f***tard. See, and this is the cascading issue I spoke about when it comes to Chicago politics and the waste/fraud therein. While it's easy to dismiss this sort of thing as a drop in the bucket...I mean, when we normally talk in Millions/Billions/Trillions, a few thousand measly dollars doesn't really matter in comparison. But when you take all of these miniscule purchases, payments, etc., and add them up, it comes out to a LOT more than people would expect. In relation to my point in another thread about how much waste exists in Chicago alone, and how deeply engrained it is to the point it's almost impossible to uncover so long as those doing it don't "get greedy", a few thousand here and there spread across thousands of people spread across decades adds up to a LOT of theft/fraud/waste. And while I'd love to believe it's just hundreds or thousands we're talking about, there are cases where the theft is a lot more than just that. The point is, when in debt, and I don't care if it's 100$ or 14 trillion$, you shouldn't be wasting money on frivolous anything. But most learn from their masters -- borrow and spend -- and when you can't pay it back, borrow more. But whatever you do, don't stop consuming. I see friends of mine who are buried in debt, yet somehow are always eating out. I know this because they love posting pictures of everything on Facebook. Meanwhile, I'm living happily debt free and they wonder why I don't go out more often. Maybe that's why.

A lot of people preach about re-financing, and in some respects it CAN be a good idea. But what I've observed, most people do it wrong or do it for the wrong reasons. First and foremost, unless your interest rate is dropping by MORE than 1 full percentage point, don't bother. Example: you are going from 5.25% to 4.15%. If it's less than that, it's really not worth doing. Now, add in the fact that you have to have your home re-assessed (this is a few hundred $), you will have to usually pay 1% of the loan amount up front (probably 1000$ more), and then closing costs, which they sometimes hide by rolling them into the loan (but you're still paying them). All told, you'll probably end up spending close to 2000-2500$ out of pocket to re-fi in addition to all the time you'll spend doing it, which is never fun. Also, if you only had 25 years left on your loan you have 30 again albeit at lower monthly payments. Something important to keep in mind about this is it's all based on a bet. Do you really believe the dollar is collapsing or moving toward hyper inflation? If so, is the re-fi really worth it long term? Additionally, why try to pay off your loan early? Reason I ask this is because you're paying to do this with 2011 dollars...which they love. If those things happen, you'll probably notice that in 10 years, you'd be paying them off with money that's worth far less, and much easier to get. If those things don't happen, and the dollars value skyrockets, and money becomes increasingly hard to get, well -- you still didn't lose anything. Always keep in mind that when they tout re-financing, they'll show you a "total dollar savings" in one up-front lump sum, which is disingenuous because the money is actually spread out over a 30 year curve. Will it save you money over time? Yes...but at what up front cost versus what will those dollars end up being worth in 10 years, or even 20? The problem with "home equity" is it's dead money. Why? Huh? Think about it...if you want that money back, YOU HAVE TO BORROW IT FROM YOURSELF. Ever hear of or take out a "home equity loan", which is the biggest fool loan in the history of the world? Funny thing, they're loaning you YOUR OWN MONEY and you're paying them to do it. The only time you need to care about home equity is when you're SELLING. Otherwise, don't worry about where you loan stands so long as you have a good interest rate and the stability to make the payments. Whatever the case may be, so long as you planned on living there for the foreseeable future, in 10-15 years, odds are the housing market will have stabilized and at the very least, you won't sell into a market where you'd take a loss.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 08:43 PM) Now wait, I am not 100% sure it works that way. Doing that would require the banks to re-value homes regularly, and they don't do that. Furthermore, the bank does not own the asset - they have a lien against it. As I understand it - and I admit this is more from the investment side of the world, not retail loans - loans are assessed by risk level and assigned a projected % of loss. The bank then has to maintain assets to protect against that level of anticipated loss, plus some degree of margin as specified by banking regulations. They got in trouble before by building the math based on the assumption that home values were always at least what they were at the time of loan origination. When that ceased being true, it all fell apart (this is the mortgage aspect of the fall-apart). Now, one way to address that COULD be to force revaluation of homes and look at LTV ratios in assessing capital requirements... but I didn't think that was actually being done, at least not yet. I think you're right in that they only re-value homes that need to be re-valued -- such as those people suddenly stop sending payments on. Because that asset gets red-flagged, they re-value/re-evaluate it's worth and would then begin the write down process. However, if there is nothing wrong with the property, and the person is sending in regular payments, there would be no reason to re-value it...because despite what market value might say, the person in question is STILL paying the original amount, thus the asset is worth that amount. My loan, for example, is through US Bank, but they don't actually "own" it, as Freddie Mac bought the loan shortly after it was made. I still send payments to US Bank, but I guess some shady back-alley dealing was done and they send most of the money off to FM. Then again, they may not send any to FM, with how shoddily run that place is, I doubt they'd even know.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) Sonofa...we've created a Keynesian! I'm just angry that these politicians are endlessly nickle and diming people to the point that they're becoming a large part of the reason why people are broke or falling to pieces financially. And meanwhile, things get worse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) the city has to raise revenues at the most inopportune time. And no matter how much they raise it won't be enough, because all they're doing is hurting people that cannot afford to be hurt right now...and creating a snowball effect in the process.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) nobody is saying that there is none. But if you are talking about solving the deficit and all you are coming up with is slashing politicians pay and that friend of yours who doesn'ts how up to work some days, then it's not a serious discussion about solving the deficit. It's not a friend of mine... Problem with this type of fix is I don't think the way to solve this deficit by hurting people that can least afford to be hurt right now. Targeted tax increases COULD help, but you can't just keep hurting those that are barely making it by without FURTHER escalating the issue with poor people needing help. All that will do is CREATE even more poor people who then need even MORE help. Did I just advocate somehow raising taxes on the rich? Yes, I did. As i said, I can afford these nickel and dime raises (for now at least), but a LOT of people can't. In addition to the cuts that they need to make and the corruption they need to CONTINUE targeting, such as the administrators of the Police/Fire pensions LOSING money on real estate bets yet keeping their jobs... And what's this I read the other day about people being allowed to collect teachers pensions because they worked on a board for teachers or something? s*** like that HAS TO STOP. Maybe it had something to do with the police board...not sure, but I know I just read it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) IIRC that's turning out to mostly be eliminating desk jobs and moving those officers back on to the streets. No, I think these are actual new hires. I know they're actually doing a few upcoming academy classes..

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) Vaguely, sure. It gets mentioned on NPR from time to time. As I said, though, I don't live in Chicago or Cook county so I don't actually follow it. When bmags pointed out that cutting $625M means cutting police teachers, etc. you asked "but why does it have to be that?" If you have to do across-the-board cuts, it has to be. You've argued that, politically, there's really no other choice. So, to balance the budget with cuts, you necessarily have to cut teachers, police etc. It's not a talking point but a simple illustration of the problems, both for real people and politically, of just cutting your way to balance. I'm just saying these tax increases are hurting regular people at this point...that's all. I know they have some very tough decisions to make, and even tougher cuts...I get that. I know EVERYONE in every City across this country has their hard times ahead...and it sucks. Doesn't mean I can't b**** about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) ...so we're back to cutting teachers, police and firefighters. Actually, we ARE cutting police and firefighters, RIGHT now. Of course, you don't even know it, do you? So...now that I've killed that talking point on you, now what do you have to say? Before you ask how, I'll tell you -- attrition. Chicago police and firefighters are retiring...and since they're NOT hiring new ones, you get what they call cuts. Every month officers and fighters retire, and every month 0 are hired. These "cuts" are a politicians best friend, because they're invisible and they don't have to announce it. Nonetheless, every month that goes by, there are less police and firefighters than there were the month before. Even with Rahm's promise to hire 200 more officers, the attrition rate FAR exceeds that. And now we're talking about officers with 20 years of experience (and pay scale) vs new hires, which is still a cost savings.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) At one point you flipped out on me for saying that untargeted budget cuts are a dumb idea, but this is exactly why. They CAN be a dumb idea, yes. But when something has grown out of control, it's nearly impossible to do targeted cuts without costing yourself your elected position.