And thankfully, the government is as lenient with student loan defaults as they are with credit default swap contracts which default. Therefore, this criticism is entirely valid.

And thankfully, the government is as lenient with student loan defaults as they are with credit default swap contracts which default. Therefore, this criticism is entirely valid.

 

I can see how those are similar in no way, shape, or form. But nice spin job.

Different subject...my only real comment on this is that although the Senate would clearly be correct in calling China a currency manipulator...i'm somewhat impressed to see this bill getting to this point. The House has previously passed something similar...there's an outside chance this could actually get to the President's desk in the middle of an election season.

 

I'm personally a fan of how the NYPD had called in the buses yesterday to prepare for arrests hours before the first arrests actually happened.

Why is that a problem? Far as I am concerned, that was the smart move.

 

Why is that a problem? Far as I am concerned, that was the smart move.

 

Because there was no reason to suspect that they'd need to arrest literal busloads of peaceful protesters?

Because there was no reason to suspect that they'd need to arrest literal busloads of peaceful protesters?

Any large scale protest, you can and should assume that you may need to arrest busloads of people. That's exactly what the police should be doing, is being prepared for the worst contingencies. I applaud them for doing so.

 

Any large scale protest, you can and should assume that you may need to arrest busloads of people. That's exactly what the police should be doing, is being prepared for the worst contingencies. I applaud them for doing so.

 

Eh I'm not going to trust their intentions after some of the stuff that's already gone down there and long histories of police running false-flag operations at protests to justify retaliation and arrests.

 

edit: there's also a lot of allegations that the police intentionally rounded up a bunch of protesters on the bridge after escorting them there.

Edited October 3, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Eh I'm not going to trust their intentions after some of the stuff that's already gone down there and long histories of police running false-flag operations at protests to justify retaliation and arrests.

 

edit: there's also a lot of allegations that the police intentionally rounded up a bunch of protesters on the bridge after escorting them there.

Intentions? Let me get this straight. Because there is evidence (if even that) that some cops acted badly - which I am sure happens, I've seen it - that means the NYPD should stop planning for contingencies? How is that logical in any way, shape or form?

 

Intentions? Let me get this straight. Because there is evidence (if even that) that some cops acted badly

 

There's actually pretty clear evidence in the form of video of a cop walking up to a protester standing there, macing them, and then walking away. And another video of a cop slamming a videographer into a car/the ground for filming them arresting someone else.

 

 

- which I am sure happens, I've seen it - that means the NYPD should stop planning for contingencies? How is that logical in any way, shape or form?

 

They should plan for contingencies. Too often, they create said contingencies.

There's actually pretty clear evidence in the form of video of a cop walking up to a protester standing there, macing them, and then walking away. And another video of a cop slamming a videographer into a car/the ground for filming them arresting someone else.

 

 

 

 

They should plan for contingencies. Too often, they create said contingencies.

 

Still not a reason not to plan for them. You can't give me a reason why NYPD shouldn't have been prepared.

 

Eh I'm not going to trust their intentions after some of the stuff that's already gone down there and long histories of police running false-flag operations at protests to justify retaliation and arrests.

 

edit: there's also a lot of allegations that the police intentionally rounded up a bunch of protesters on the bridge after escorting them there.

 

That's actually supposed to be a common tactic of crowd control and dispersal of crowds.

Still not a reason not to plan for them. You can't give me a reason why NYPD shouldn't have been prepared.

 

Because it is a militant left wing protest, and not a tea party one.

That's actually supposed to be a common tactic of crowd control and dispersal of crowds.

 

I don't like suppression of peaceful protests.

Because it is a militant left wing protest, and not a tea party one.

 

Yep, militant:

 

I don't like suppression of peaceful protests.

I don't either, unless they create a problem for the public. I can create a "peaceful" protest in the middle of the Kennedy during rush hour, but I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested, and should be. There is more to determining a course of action with a crowd problem than just whether or not they are committing acts of violence.

 

Because it is a militant left wing protest, and not a tea party one.

 

Peaceful protesters of any stripe should be allowed to congregate and demonstrate without fear of backlash or suppression by police.

I don't either, unless they create a problem for the public. I can create a "peaceful" protest in the middle of the Kennedy during rush hour, but I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested, and should be. There is more to determining a course of action with a crowd problem than just whether or not they are committing acts of violence.

 

Exactly. The right to swing your arms ends at my nose.

Peaceful protesters of any stripe should be allowed to congregate and demonstrate without fear of backlash or suppression by police.

See my post above. There is more to it than that.

 

I don't either, unless they create a problem for the public. I can create a "peaceful" protest in the middle of the Kennedy during rush hour, but I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested, and should be. There is more to determining a course of action with a crowd problem than just whether or not they are committing acts of violence.

 

Protests that that inconvenience people aren't de facto illegal. The whole point is to cause disruption of the status quo.

Protests that that inconvenience people aren't de facto illegal. The whole point is to cause disruption of the status quo.

Nor are they de facto legal. That's my whole point. Just because it is peaceful in a sense of lacking physical violence, doesn't mean it is fully protected.

 

To be clear here, I don't know all the arrest situations that came up either. If a protest was occurring in a park away from traffic and not doing any damage or causing problems for the public, then in the very general sense, I'd agree with you. What I am taking issue with is your blanket statement about peaceful protests, which is not supported by law or jurisprudence.

 

The big arrest came as a large group was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters claimed that they were led into the traffic lanes by the police and then arrested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/...s?newsfeed=true

Awesome interview at #occupywallstreet with Chris Hedges

 

The big arrest came as a large group was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters claimed that they were led into the traffic lanes by the police and then arrested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/...s?newsfeed=true

I got the same impression. Maybe I'm wrong and they were just monitoring twitter feeds where somenoe else had planned to move the thing to the Bridge, but everything I've seen suggests that it turned from a march into a move onto the Bridge when the police directed them onto the Bridge. And that that same day was the first day the police had brought in the buses to be able to move people out...not that they were planning for a contingency, but that they were instead planning on how to end this protest.

 

I mean, I certainly wasn't there and you're right that i can't prove anything, but "Police bring in buses", "Police reportedly direct march into place where marchers can be arrested", "Police arrest 700" seems like a pretty convenient set of steps.

I'm sure Bloomberg gave the orders to fill those buses, no matter what.

I got the same impression. Maybe I'm wrong and they were just monitoring twitter feeds where somenoe else had planned to move the thing to the Bridge, but everything I've seen suggests that it turned from a march into a move onto the Bridge when the police directed them onto the Bridge. And that that same day was the first day the police had brought in the buses to be able to move people out...not that they were planning for a contingency, but that they were instead planning on how to end this protest.

 

I mean, I certainly wasn't there and you're right that i can't prove anything, but "Police bring in buses", "Police reportedly direct march into place where marchers can be arrested", "Police arrest 700" seems like a pretty convenient set of steps.

 

And if those 700 people turned NYC into Vancouver, post Cup, we would be hearing them get taken to the woodshed for not protecting people.