I Wear Pants;977612 wrote:That response should not be "lets use a weapon that the military isn't allowed to use" first. Don't be lazy, attempt to cuff them.

Are you serious? So the greatly outnumbered police should try to cuff and arrest thousands of protesters who won't obey verbal command? Yeah, that would work.

Your method would likely lead to more physical issues than some pepper spray and flash bangs to rectify the situation completely. That's not to say you are wrong, but I don't think it's as simple as you want it to seem.

I Wear Pants;977634 wrote:Some things I think wouldhelp:

Hope this helps:

Make all cops require a minimum BA degree (sorry HS dropouts)

You will be hard pressed to find a department(especiallynorth of the mason dixon line) that doesnt require a degree. A few po-dunktowns dont mainly because they dont have the resources or money to hire peoplewith degrees.

Make all cops go through psyche evaluations (3rd party administrated) ona regular basis (don't know if they do already)

Psych evals (3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party) and polygraphs are thenorm during the hiring process. Dont really think they do them at other timesunless you have a reason to.

Pay cops more. (Because of more strict education/quality rules. Need tomake sure we have quality personel in police work)

SB5 or no SB5, budget issues will always be a problemsince the police are in the business of making money.

No more traffic ticket commissions. Any funds from those things can goto charity or something else. But it should not be part of the police budget.We should have as much police as we need, not as much as the traffic violationsincome can afford.

I dont really know, but i dont think money from ticketsgo directly the police department, but the city in general.

Decriminalize certain drugs (long topic I've discussed before to deathon here but I really feel it would lead to less crime)

Eh, we have different opinions here. You would be rightin a way, the crack head on the street wouldnt be arrested for crack, butinstead of breaking into a car to steal the stereo to sell for crack. I’drather put the crack head in jail before he breaks into the car, but thats justme.

Encourage whistle-blowers, and punish abusive and aggressive cops morethan is done these days

Not saying this a is a bad thing, but how?

Better background checks on potential cop candidates (another categorythat I have no clue what the current requirement is but it better be at leastas strict/should be more so than what we give to teachers. We don't giveteachers guns)

Yeah most credible departments to give pretty goodbackground checks. Most teachers from what i remember just get a criminalhistory check i think.

Enact some policy like "3 strikes and you're out" - 3 badmarks against you and you're kicked off the force. Or something like that, weneed to swiftly get rid of people who dishonor the badge. Then maybe
kids will respect police and perhaps like them instead of fearing and hatingthem and viewing them as an inconvenience.

What would count as a strike?

Traffic wise, more warnings. FFS, what is the definitive law on trafficviolations? Cops can pull you over, let you go if they want even if you broke alaw, sometimes they don't let you go. Sometimes they act harsher. What's thedefinition? There should be no warnings and there should be no attempts fromthe prosecutor to get you to plead down to a lesser charge. If they don't thinkit's deserving/don't have enough evidence to procede with the charge theyshould have to drop it, not try to get you for whatever they can. When I say nowarnings I mean establish a clear cut, legally defined rule that states inspeeding violations for instance, the range of speeds that you're allowed togive warnings for (example: if the person is doing under 5 over you can useyour discretion and give out a warning but absolutely not over that). I thinkthings like that would create more fair enforcement.

Officers are given discretion on most violations, notjust traffic law. Everytime i see someone walking with a beer in his hand down the street i dont arrest him(which is an M4 compared to a traffic ticket whichis a minor misdemeanor). I just tell him to pour it out. I dont have a problemwith people getting let off with a lesser crime, as long as they actuallycommitted the crime. Like if they were speeding and not wearing a seat belt andthe judge just knocked it down the seat belt violation. Sometimes a warning ismore effective than a ticket, it just depends on the driver and the situation(plus,it has a psychological effect on other drivers seeing you pull someone over,most of the time, they assume that person is getting a ticket etc). Someone fromout of town that may go through a right on red because they were focused ontheir directions, might be more deserving of a warning than a ticket as long asthey didnt almost cause an accident or something. Me personally, i would say mostof the time i pull someone over, they get a ticket, just because i dont pullsomeone over unless i plan on giving them a ticket. I do work around a fewmajor hospitals, so you do get the guy driving his pregnant wife to thehospital situations. I tried to look up how much money cities bring in throughtraffic tickets but couldnt really find anything specific other than how manytickets were issued. I am sure its somewhere though.

I Wear Pants;977124 wrote:http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/mobile/2011/11/17/spd-should-do-their-job-and-arrest-occupy-protesters-not-assault-them

I'm not suggesting the officers' job is easy. It's not. And I freely admit that a small minority of Occupy protesters have occasionally attempted to intentionally provoke a violent response. But just because a force is "nonlethal" does not give the police the right to use it indiscriminately, as they have on several occasions against 84-year-old Rainey and many other peaceful protesters and observers.

Those guys ruin it for everyone. It makes this next part impossible:

If protesters are breaking the law and refuse to desist in response to a lawful order, the police have the right to arrest them. Yes, mass arrests can be time consuming and labor intensive. And yes, calmly surrounding the protesters, cuffing them, and hauling them off one by one sure does take a long time to clear out a blocked intersection. But, you know, it's their job.

The small percerntage of violent rabblerousers make the "calmly cuffing them" part pretty much impossible.

By the way, where's Joe Biden defending the NYC cops and cops in other cities? Dude was the cops best friend a few weeks ago when it came to Obama's jobs bill.

He was on to something though- we do need more cops. We need more cops because his party is encouraging behavior that makes it imperative to have more cops.

Glory Days;977615 wrote:i actually get it now, i think these people are pissed they arent being arrested. they are trying to create a burden on the system by being arrested and the police arent doing that.

Getting arrested is probably a badge of honor for these wannabes. More than a few of these "protestors" seem to be nothing more than just counter-establishment types using this as an excuse to stir shit up.

Being a nuisance isn't effective. And I think a core problem with this "movement" is camping out creates a lot of idle energy that, perhaps predictably, is increasingly being directed at police with no real protest outlet. They listen to a few fellow nutjobs give speeches, but otherwise mull around all day working each other up into a frenzy about how unfair everything is.

gut;978018 wrote:Getting arrested is probably a badge of honor for these wannabes. More than a few of these "protestors" seem to be nothing more than just counter-establishment types using this as an excuse to stir shit up.

Being a nuisance isn't effective. And I think a core problem with this "movement" is camping out creates a lot of idle energy that, perhaps predictably, is increasingly being directed at police with no real protest outlet. They listen to a few fellow nutjobs give speeches, but otherwise mull around all day working each other up into a frenzy about how unfair everything is.

jackpot.

What a bunch of asshats.

In the middle of thousands of protestors yelling and chanting — some kicking and screaming – CBS 2’s Emily Smith found little school kids trying to get to class. Nervous parents led them through the barriers on Wall Street. The NYPD helped funnel the children, anything to ease their fears while some protestors chanted “follow those kids!”

“These guys are terrorists, yelling at little kids,” one father said.

“For them it’s horrible. They’re afraid of all the crowds. We’re not even able to get through. They’re just, he’s … very afraid now,” a mother added.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/17/ows-protesters-chant-follow-those-kids-as-small-children-try-to-go-to-school-on-wall-street/

majorspark;977636 wrote: You need to realize this movement has majorly failed. You might as well call it the American version of the Bolshevik movement. Thats who it has attracted.

It wasn't a massive fail. It started a national conversation about vast income inequality the likes of which is only experienced in Banana Republics. In response to Occupy Wall Street the CBO released its report on income inequality and just yesterday Paul Ryan released a report attempting to debunk its findings (and failing miserably mind you). That, and the multiple media reports on the issue don't happen if it weren't for the Occupy Wall Street movement

Here's Greg Sargent's analysis of Mr. Ryan's half-hearted attempt to say why income inequality is no big deal; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryans-solution-to-inequality-helps-the-rich-does-nothing-for-poor/2011/11/18/gIQAbt1OYN_blog.html

Income mobility across quinitiles is essentially non-existent in America (aside from vary rare outliers) and much lower than "Socialist" European countries. One is more likely to go from Rags to Riches in Europe than in the United States. Yet the GOP continues to tell freedom loving people like yourself that if only the very wealthiest had a lower marginal rate then we would have greater income mobility, faster economic growth and more prosperity.

And, like a typical Tory, you hold contempt for people who would dare point out that such a proposition is nonsense and has been revealed to be so for 30 years. You do so by fixating on the more nefarious elements of the movement getting lost in the forest for the trees.

And, in actuality, it's probably better for the message overall that the camp-outs were removed forcibly rather than have them die slowly as the winter months approach.

If you're a smart, industrious person I don't see how you can't earn a good living. You probably won't make the 1%, but there's no lack of mobility for those types to be confined to the bottom 20%. It's a simple fact that not everyone can be in the top1%, and if you aren't particularly smart of hard-working I doubt there's anyway to improve mobility to take someone out of the bottom 20% who probably, based on talent and effort, IS a bottom 20%er.

To be in the top 1-2% you generally have to be running your own business. I don't see great barriers to doing that, but it does involve much more risk than most people are willing to take on. You can certainly do very well without founding a business, but again most are unwilling to make the sacrifices with regard to investing in education and chasing opportunities to do that. People always ignore the sacrifices many of the 1-2% have made to get there - often when you look at their personal lives it's not all it's cracked-up to be unless you value money over everything else.

There's not going to be massive mobility between the 95% and 5% or however you want to slice it. Basic math says this isn't possible. Some people are lucky, but that's generally the difference between a 10% and 2% or whatever. There's really nothing the govt can do that enables a person with mediocre talent to rise well above the average. The top-5% is always going to command much more salary because, quite simply, they are capable of creating much more value for my business than the guy who puts screws in a car door and is easily replaceable. I guess I should hire the mediocre plant manager and spread the $50k I save to the 200 factory workers, until ultimately everyone is out of a job because the plant is poorly run.

This debate is not and should not be about the wealth gap. The issue is the standard of living and wealth of the median person, and also the bottom 15% or so. And I think redistributive tax policies are just a very ineffective way to do that. Always seek to cut-out the middle man (govt). Increasing the minimum wage is more effective, but the problem is most people employing such are not the 1% but small business owners who make a good living but generally aren't "wealthy".

If my company makes a boatload of money and I pay my employees well, why should I (and my employees) have to subsidize less talented people working at bad businesses? Which exactly do you want more of - good businesses paying employees well or bad business paying employees poorly? Socialism favors the latter and it's why those economies usually suck on the tailpipe.

BoatShoes;978070 wrote:It wasn't a massive fail. It started a national conversation about vast income inequality the likes of which is only experienced in Banana Republics. In response to Occupy Wall Street the CBO released its report on income inequality and just yesterday Paul Ryan released a report attempting to debunk its findings (and failing miserably mind you). That, and the multiple media reports on the issue don't happen if it weren't for the Occupy Wall Street movement

Here's Greg Sargent's analysis of Mr. Ryan's half-hearted attempt to say why income inequality is no big deal; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryans-solution-to-inequality-helps-the-rich-does-nothing-for-poor/2011/11/18/gIQAbt1OYN_blog.html

Income mobility across quinitiles is essentially non-existent in America (aside from vary rare outliers) and much lower than "Socialist" European countries. One is more likely to go from Rags to Riches in Europe than in the United States. Yet the GOP continues to tell freedom loving people like yourself that if only the very wealthiest had a lower marginal rate then we would have greater income mobility, faster economic growth and more prosperity.

And, like a typical Tory, you hold contempt for people who would dare point out that such a proposition is nonsense and has been revealed to be so for 30 years. You do so by fixating on the more nefarious elements of the movement getting lost in the forest for the trees.

And, in actuality, it's probably better for the message overall that the camp-outs were removed forcibly rather than have them die slowly as the winter months approach.

Great. So let's assume there is in fact massive income inequality- what should be done about it? I haven't heard one single solution from one single person in the OWS movement. I haven't really heard any clamor about unfair tax rates. I have seen quite a few millionaires and billionaires associating themselves with the movement, none of whom appear to be redistributing their own wealth to lower income types in the movement to even things out.

We should probably start arranging marriages, too. Some sort of lottery system. It isn't fair that ugly people have to settle for similarly ugly people because they weren't lucky enough to be born with superior genetics. Nor should really ugly people have to take the risk of paying for sex. These people should get welfare fukk tickets that they can redeem with any hottie they see walking down the street.

jhay78;978294 wrote:Great. So let's assume there is in fact massive income inequality- what should be done about it? I haven't heard one single solution from one single person in the OWS movement. I haven't really heard any clamor about unfair tax rates. I have seen quite a few millionaires and billionaires associating themselves with the movement, none of whom appear to be redistributing their own wealth to lower income types in the movement to even things out.

This has been my quandary on the "hate the rich" class warfare schtick. If there are less of a quantity of millionaires+, then should we endeavor to wipe them off the economic map with punitive taxes and redistribute their wealth for them in order to make life more "fair" for the non-millionaires? Or, should we map out strategies to create more millionaires+?

Simple questions, really. Create more rich folks or take them down so as to equalize outcomes for everyone? We know where Obama and his Occupiers stand.

BoatShoes;978070 wrote:It wasn't a massive fail. It started a national conversation about vast income inequality the likes of which is only experienced in Banana Republics. In response to Occupy Wall Street the CBO released its report on income inequality and just yesterday Paul Ryan released a report attempting to debunk its findings (and failing miserably mind you). That, and the multiple media reports on the issue don't happen if it weren't for the Occupy Wall Street movement

Here's Greg Sargent's analysis of Mr. Ryan's half-hearted attempt to say why income inequality is no big deal; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryans-solution-to-inequality-helps-the-rich-does-nothing-for-poor/2011/11/18/gIQAbt1OYN_blog.html

Income mobility across quinitiles is essentially non-existent in America (aside from vary rare outliers) and much lower than "Socialist" European countries. One is more likely to go from Rags to Riches in Europe than in the United States. Yet the GOP continues to tell freedom loving people like yourself that if only the very wealthiest had a lower marginal rate then we would have greater income mobility, faster economic growth and more prosperity.

And, like a typical Tory, you hold contempt for people who would dare point out that such a proposition is nonsense and has been revealed to be so for 30 years. You do so by fixating on the more nefarious elements of the movement getting lost in the forest for the trees.

And, in actuality, it's probably better for the message overall that the camp-outs were removed forcibly rather than have them die slowly as the winter months approach.

And....my lulz quota for today is hereby filled. Thanks! :laugh:

BGFalcons82;978338 wrote:This has been my quandary on the "hate the rich" class warfare schtick. If there are less of a quantity of millionaires+, then should we endeavor to wipe them off the economic map with punitive taxes and redistribute their wealth for them in order to make life more "fair" for the non-millionaires? Or, should we map out strategies to create more millionaires+?

Simple questions, really. Create more rich folks or take them down so as to equalize outcomes for everyone? We know where Obama and his Occupiers stand.

But the middle class and poor don't pay their "fair share" already. That's the quandary isn't it? They hate the rich but the rich pay all the taxes. How do you redistribute the wealth and keep the tax base not paying anything? After all, if the rich have less money they pay less taxes, they aren't going to raise taxes on the poor.

According to the gini coefficient, only Manibia and Denmark have a wider distribution of wealth above the US. This entails about 165 countries. Even stock gurus such as Aden agree that the OWS people have a legitimate reason for complaining. The misery index hasn't been this high for many, many decades,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

how exactly will taxing the rich more make the poor have more money? Isn't that what the OWS crowd want, more money? Or is the goal to just bring the higher level down to the bottom?

tk421;978478 wrote:Or is the goal to just bring the higher level down to the bottom?

Misery loves company. I think a core belief is if I can't be rich, then no one deserves to be.

majorspark;977636 wrote:Thats the problem with this movement. It lacked leadership. Its message was lost. It became "occupy". The term does not relate well with liberty. " Occupy" attracted malcontents. They could not be controlled. It turned into a massive clusterfuck.

A far right wing nutbag like me has issues with the bailouts, crony capitalism, and lobbyists. An opportunity lost. You need to realize this movement has majorly failed. You might as well call it the American version of the Bolshevik movement. Thats who it has attracted.

The movement has not failed, it's sparked and is still sparking a national discussion about the inequality of wealth growth in this country as well as the unfair bias towards corporations and against individuals. If from these conversations we get any real limitations on lobbying or can get people to not support bailouts then it's been a success. Do you consider the Tea Party to have failed? Because though it didn't achieve all the things it aimed to it did spark a renewed and more serious national discourse on government spending.

tk421;978478 wrote:how exactly will taxing the rich more make the poor have more money? Isn't that what the OWS crowd want, more money? Or is the goal to just bring the higher level down to the bottom?

No and no. Again...for the umpteenth time....the gap has increased 6 to 10 fold over the past 30 years. For the majority of these protesters, this is what they are unhappy about. It's really not that hard to figure out.

tk421;978478 wrote:how exactly will taxing the rich more make the poor have more money? Isn't that what the OWS crowd want, more money? Or is the goal to just bring the higher level down to the bottom?

You and many others have no clue, none at all, about this if you really think people just want the rich taxed to give the money to other people.

Footwedge says it well. It isn't about people wanting the rich to be poor. It's that the rich have been getting richer, massively so, while everyone else has stagnated at best. If you don't see a problem with that I don't know what to tell you. There is a problem with that. The only debate there should be is how to solve the problem, not that it is one.

I Wear Pants;978801 wrote:The movement has not failed, it's sparked and is still sparking a national discussion about the inequality of wealth growth in this country as well as the unfair bias towards corporations and against individuals. If from these conversations we get any real limitations on lobbying or can get people to not support bailouts then it's been a success. Do you consider the Tea Party to have failed? Because though it didn't achieve all the things it aimed to it did spark a renewed and more serious national discourse on government spending.

The movement is nothing more than smelly hippies who don't have jobs and have nothing else better to do.

If they are upset about the economy, they should occupy Washington and their parents/grandparents homes. It is a media fail, an occupying fail and an American fail.

"There is a problem with that. The only debate there should be is how to solve the problem, not that it is one. "

Stop charging $45,000 tuition/year for someone taking courses in Angry Studies, so that Dr. Moonbeam can live off his tenured $100,000+ salary plus pension for useless degrees.

If you can't stop that, stop the feds from subsidizing the madness.

Manhattan Buckeye;978806 wrote:The movement is nothing more than smelly hippies who don't have jobs and have nothing else better to do.

If they are upset about the economy, they should occupy Washington and their parents/grandparents homes. It is a media fail, an occupying fail and an American fail.

Yes, because the Democrats and the liberal media are responsible for every problem in the country. There is no other problem.

Your post is beyond lazy. It's far more than "smelly hippies". The only media failure is that the media has displayed everyone at OWS as insane/homeless/dirty/jobless. It's not true. Hell, Fox News even made up a bunch of shit to try to link the White House shooter the other day to OWS when he was really a crazy conservative Christian. That's the fail.

Manhattan Buckeye;978807 wrote:"There is a problem with that. The only debate there should be is how to solve the problem, not that it is one. "

Stop charging $45,000 tuition/year for someone taking courses in Angry Studies, so that Dr. Moonbeam can live off his tenured $100,000+ salary plus pension for useless degrees.

If you can't stop that, stop the feds from subsidizing the madness.

Ah I see, another "it's the damned academics who ruin everything". Stupid fuckers and their learning, why can't everyone just work in a steel mill like they used to?

I don't know where you went to school but I can probably count on one hand the number of people making that sort of money at my school. The bigger problem at schools, which I know is shocking, is the administration/executives. At my old school we were having the tuition raised and the faculty was cut by like 50 or more members, others taking paycuts. While the president continued to make $800,000. Eight hundred fucking thousand dollars. This was not a big school either, believe with everyone included there were maybe 8000 students. Insanity.

But you probably think it's just the jealous poor people thinking he should take a pay cut as well just like you think it's only the lazy jealous poor that think corporations and the rich should pay taxes.

I Wear Pants;978818 wrote:Ah I see, another "it's the damned academics who ruin everything". Stupid ****ers and their learning, why can't everyone just work in a steel mill like they used to?

I don't know where you went to school but I can probably count on one hand the number of people making that sort of money at my school.

Vanderbilt BE
UVA JD

There isn't a law professor at UVA that makes under $150,000. There are administrative assistants that make over $90,000.

All with gold-plated health benefits and state pensions.

I put my money where my mouth is and stopped donating two years ago because I didn't think it is fair that current employees are making so much when they are putting current students in debt that is backbreaking.

My wife and I have paid off our student loans, yet we are still outraged by this economic nonsense, for reasons altruistic and personal. These young people aren't paying off their loans, how are they going to buy real estate or keep the economy growing (or in Obama's term, destroying)?