Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admits Cities Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy Movement - Polidicks

[b]Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admits Cities Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy Movement[/B] [release]Embattled Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, speaking in an interview with the BBC (excerpted on The Takeaway radio program–audio of Quan starts at the 5:30 mark), casually mentioned that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. “I was recently on a conference call with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation. . . .” Mayor Quan then rambles about how she “spoke with protestors in my city” who professed an interest in “separating from anarchists,” implying that her police action was helping this somehow. Interestingly, Quan then essentially advocates that occupiers move to private spaces, and specifically cites Zuccotti Park as an example: In New York City, it’s interesting that the Wall Street movement is actually on a private park, so they’re not, again, in the public domain, and they’re not infringing on the public’s right to use a public park. Many witnesses to the wave of government crackdowns on numerous #occupy encampments have been wondering aloud if the rapid succession was more than a coincidence; Jean Quan’s casual remark seems to clearly imply that it was. Might it also be more than a coincidence that this succession of police raids started after President Obama left the US for an extended tour of the Pacific Rim?[/release] Source: [url]http://capitoilette.com/2011/11/15/oakland-mayor-jean-quan-admits-cities-coordinated-crackdown-on-occupy-movement/[/url] a blog but does site sources and isn't being reported elsewhere, thus far.

The President doesn't have any say in what these local level people do with the protests. A.) the Governors of those states wouldn't have it B.) The protestors are the demographic that got him elected, and if he plays his cards right, reelected.

Since this conspiracy turned out to be true, it's not unreasonable to assume that the protests are being co-opted by the lizard people.

[QUOTE=macerator;33288581]The President doesn't have any say in what these local level people do with the protests. A.) the Governors of those states wouldn't have it B.) The protestors are the demographic that got him elected, and if he plays his cards right, reelected.[/QUOTE] at this point it's irresponsible of the president to not at least condemn what's happening

[QUOTE=Lazor;33288928]at this point it's irresponsible of the president to not at least condemn what's happening[/QUOTE] It makes me pretty mad that all the president has had to say about all this is "People are understandably upset", which neither addresses the protests themselves really (people were upset BEFORE the protests) and at the same time he's pretty much turned a blind eye to the bullshit methods used to disperse these protests.

If Obama got involved with this he'd open up a whole new can of worms and most likely not help in any way. The officials handling this will brush it off and continue with what their doing.

Just in: Judge rules against 'Occupy' protesters, upholds New York City's move to rid Zuccotti Park of tents, sleeping bags - AP, Reuters

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;33289400]It makes me pretty mad that all the president has had to say about all this is "People are understandably upset", which neither addresses the protests themselves really (people were upset BEFORE the protests) and at the same time he's pretty much turned a blind eye to the bullshit methods used to disperse these protests.[/QUOTE] I can't really blame the guy, when you're president can't really say anything without offending someone, so he just has to say what offends the least amount for the time being. I think the Occupy organizers would prefer it if he didn't officially endorse them anyways.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;33289400]It makes me pretty mad that all the president has had to say about all this is "People are understandably upset", which neither addresses the protests themselves really (people were upset BEFORE the protests) and at the same time he's pretty much turned a blind eye to the bullshit methods used to disperse these protests.[/QUOTE] It's really not his call. He can say 'We shouldn't shoot veterans in the face with tear gas'; He can also say that these protests are just, and that trickle down economics favors the big guy at the cost of the little guy. But he CAN'T order the local or state police to stay away from them. Either way if he acts, it'll be a bullshit political 'action' that doesn't help the protestors or the wealth disparity in this great nation. The systems that create the conditions that they are protesting were built and controlled by congress, something that only congress can change, the president's just a giant patsy for congress and the special interest in this case.

Figures. These same cities roll out the red carpet for Tea Party events, but coordinate to greet the Occupy protesters with tear gas, batons and bulldozers.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33288593]Since this conspiracy turned out to be true, it's not unreasonable to assume that the protests are being co-opted by the lizard people.[/QUOTE] To be honest I'm not sure if calling it a conspiracy is correct. It was a casual remark, which points at it being no secret. And in a number of ways a coordinated crackdown makes sense. As it's quite likely that protesters from one city would potentially move to another major site after being pushed out. Coordination sort of works to prevent this. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;33289400]It makes me pretty mad that all the president has had to say about all this is "People are understandably upset", which neither addresses the protests themselves really (people were upset BEFORE the protests) and at the same time he's pretty much turned a blind eye to the bullshit methods used to disperse these protests.[/QUOTE] Because in a majority of the cases he's got no say in the whole thing. IN a sense the final instance agaisnt the acts of the local authorities are courts. Not the head of the federal government.

[IMG]http://www.execumama.com/life/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2902643161_b32c32b070.jpg[/IMG] The levels of bullshit involved in this are off the meter. Refer to above meter.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33295188]Figures. These same cities roll out the red carpet for Tea Party events, but coordinate to greet the Occupy protesters with tear gas, batons and bulldozers.[/QUOTE] Because Tea Party events were legal, planned, and finite Wow what the fuck im defending the tea baggers whats happened

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33295823]Because Tea Party events were [B]legal, planned, and finite[/B][/QUOTE] As in not disruptive of anything and presenting a message consistent with Conservative ideology?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33295878]As in not disruptive of anything and presenting a message consistent with Conservative ideology?[/QUOTE] What's so zinggy about that? It was in deed effective. Go look at the 2010 US Midterm election results if you don't believe me (And I'm sure plenty of you do). Heck it's because of that, that the Democrats LOST the super majority.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33297443]What's so zinggy about that? It was in deed effective. Go look at the 2010 US Midterm election results if you don't believe me (And I'm sure plenty of you do). Heck it's because of that, that the Democrats LOST the super majority.[/QUOTE] yes i'm sure democrats lost the super majority solely because of the tea party and absolutely nothing else had any effect whatsoever

[QUOTE=Glaber;33297443]What's so zinggy about that? It was in deed effective. Go look at the 2010 US Midterm election results if you don't believe me (And I'm sure plenty of you do).[/QUOTE]It got more people who will continue to support the current system elected? It got more people who are so deep in the pockets of the corporations that they have gone passed the stitching elected? It got more people who had a high likelihood of being elected anyway elected? What's so "zinggy" is the fact that he is entirely correct and is just shows exactly what the problem is. They did everything the 1% wanted. They did all the legwork for the people running this country in to the ground.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33297443]What's so zinggy about that? It was in deed effective. Go look at the 2010 US Midterm election results if you don't believe me (And I'm sure plenty of you do). Heck it's because of that, that the Democrats LOST the super majority.[/QUOTE] wow yes it was surely them who singularly drove that! go back to wanking over sonic and mlp

[QUOTE=Glaber;33297443]Heck it's because of that, that the Democrats LOST the super majority.[/QUOTE]You say this as if the Republicans having more influence is a good thing. Is a de facto one party system a good system? Hardly. But you have to take the lesser of two evils.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33295878]As in not disruptive of anything and presenting a message consistent with Conservative ideology?[/QUOTE] As in they could not be kicked out legally. OWS can and was

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;33289400]It makes me pretty mad that all the president has had to say about all this is "People are understandably upset", which neither addresses the protests themselves really (people were upset BEFORE the protests) and at the same time he's pretty much turned a blind eye to the bullshit methods used to disperse these protests.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be any surprise that the President of the United States doesn't give a shit about any of us.