Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
stonecircle
2052 Followers
Savvy Wabbit
3456 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
Skateboarding
6163 Followers
Louie Baur
20261 Followers
robq73Oct 16, 2011
A run on the banks is the ultimate doomsday scenario for the multinational corporations and the government. The banking system, governments and currencies are propped up only by collective faith and belief. Once faith in these structures is lost, chaos and meltdowns occur. They will do anything to prop them up...including violating your liberties...
orangebobOct 16, 2011
So, what you're saying is that this is the Achille's heel.
wuggasladyOct 15, 2011
Since when is take your own money out of the bank a crime?
user500Oct 16, 2011
9/11/2001 The day the GOP suspended the constitution.
h8f8kesOct 16, 2011
Seems both parties profit from Citigroup:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000071
dukwbutterOct 16, 2011
Last time I checked, the GOP didn't have a lock on the house, the senate, or the whitehouse. So, how is it that this is the GOP's doings? What did I miss?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dfletcherOct 16, 2011
Heh wow this is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
"In the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party won the majority in the House of Representatives. While the Democrats kept their Senate majority, it was reduced from the previous Congress."
Also note, the flow of bills is supposed to go House -> Senate -> President to become law. If the House is obstructionist, it blocks the whole system from functioning.
If you compare the number of bills passed by the last supposed "do nothing" 111th congress to the number from the current 112th, you will find a massive disconnect.
You REALLY need to not comment on politics.
dukwbutterOct 16, 2011
in 2008, the Dimocrats had the senate, the house, and the presidency. they fvcked things up so bad, that in the mid-term elections in 2010, they lost the house, because people couldn't believe how bad the Dims fvcked things up. How do you figure the GOP "suspended" the constitution, when they only control the house, and the only control the house, because the people voted the Dims out. You really need to not comment on the GOP when your party fvcked the country up so bad that they got voted out and lost the house. ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
celticowboyOct 16, 2011
No, they didn't - they never had a filibuster-proof majority, and unlike the Republicans when they had solid majorities in both houses under Bush II, the Democrats are too ethical to simply change the rules.
dfletcherOct 17, 2011
Heh celticowboy, so true.
It's also really funny how duk thinks this current congress is doing anything / going to do anything about these perceived injustices of the 111th.
House Republicans are doing everything in their power to do *nothing*. They figure that the worse things for everyone the better their chances in 2012. It's not rocket science, it's basic GOP dogma: anyone but them is not fit to lead. The fact that they are the ones who continuously f**k everything up for everyone is their cognitive dissonance at work.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
gaycowboy - i never said they had a "fillibuster proof majority", did I? No. I said that the Dimocrats had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, which they did. They had the presidency, and a majority in both houses. And they got their asses handed to them at the midterm elections. wait to see what happens in 2012, when the worst president in the country's history comes up for re-election, after dragging the country into the deepest recession seen since the ditry thirties.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
dogfletcher - you said "House Republicans are doing everything in their power to do *nothing*"
you wouldn't understand this, because you're a commie, but the government can't create jobs. trying to tax a country into prosperity is stupid beyond belief. Only a true dimocrat would advocate that. "Doing nothing" is exactly what the government needs to do to allow the private sector to create jobs, as only the private sector can. Go live with the commies, instead of trying to drag us down to their level, pinko.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dfletcherOct 17, 2011
Duk, you have resorted to name-calling. This does not help you win arguments.
Also, the fact is, that when taxes are biggest, we have the biggest periods of growth.
It's not rocket science. You have it exactly backwards, a thing that I can understand being slightly left-right dyslexic myself. High taxes spur growth. Roads get built. Regular people have money from working on the roads. Regular people spend money on products and services. It's called supply and demand and it's pretty freaking simple.
The government creates demand by doing infrastructure projects and pumping cash into the economy.
It worked to get us out of the depression. It just works, period.
You will have to show even one instance of an industrialized nation where lowering taxes increased growth. JUST ONE and I'll believe that you might have some kind of point.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
dogflecker - you can't honestly believe that "...when taxes are biggest, we have the biggest periods of growth." So, by logical extension, we should raise the tax rate to 100% and have the government do with the money as it sees fit? Please tell me you don't seriously believe that. You're not that stupid are you? Maybe it was a typo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dfletcherOct 17, 2011
Duk I never said 100% taxes, that's retarded. However, increasing taxes on the richest is certainly a good option.
Also, cut it with the name calling. It just makes you look a fool.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
dogfelcher said "...when taxes are biggest, we have the biggest periods of growth." and "increasing taxes on the richest is certainly a good option", however "100% taxes, that's retarded". So, then, where, pray tell, is this magical line, dogfelcher - the magical line where the government rapes the citizens of the U.S. just enough so that we "have the biggest periods of growth". In all of your brilliant research, this must certainly have occurred to you before just now. That you need to raise taxes, but not quite up to the "absurd" 100% level. I'm waiting, professor Marx.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
m1k3zOct 16, 2011
Since never. NO ONE was arrested for closing their account.
stonecircleOct 16, 2011Submitter
PROVE IT. All evidence points to the contrary of your claim.
dukwbutterOct 16, 2011
delusional paranoid rambling.
stonecircleOct 17, 2011Submitter
(as he gazes into the mirror)
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
(as he stares at a shepard fairey Hopey Changey poster and dreams of all the wealth he'll get once they can finally tax the sh1t out of the rich. he's wrong of course, but that doesn't stop the drool from running down his face like a spigot)
kaytee84Oct 17, 2011
As I said to another poster: m1k3z.....before spewing lies, you might want to do some actual research! I just finished watching a video with the people being hauled out in handcuffs and put in the police wagon. All of the protestors were there, but some of the account holders decided to go in to close their accounts.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
*zing*... right over the head... What he's saying is that no one got arrested for closing their account because they were arrested for trespassing. Bank has the right to tell a big group of people to step outside, especially if half of them are wearing hoods, hats, sunglasses, bandanas over their faces and carrying protest signs and maybe being somewhat loud and disruptive...
All it takes is for the manager to feel uncomfortable with their presence, ask some of them to go outside or remove their head-gear, or stop heckling customers or whatever... Ask them to leave (or even just have half of them wait outside until the first half is done) - ask them to leave, and they REFUSED... That's "trespassing"... cops are summoned, and they arrest them in full according with the law. The bank was right. The cops were right. The protesters were WRONG.
And judging by the level of awareness and common-sense you people are showing in these forums, the scene at the bank makes total sense.
Makes total sense... on one hand, a bunch of twerps with no clue about business, the law, or life, and have been camping out in the park for a month and partying%2Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
(cont) ...Makes total sense... on one hand, a bunch of twerps with no clue about business, the law, or life, and have been camping out in the park for a month and partying, shouting, waving signs, and pretending to be 'revolutionaries'...
And, on the other hand, people just trying to do their jobs and avoid an incident...
Hmmm.. which group was probably the one who crossed the line first? I'd wager it was the protesters..
unclefireOct 16, 2011
Since when is it ok to walk into an establishment (especially a bank) and cause a scene?
If they were smart about it, they could have gone in like 5 at a time and had a steady stream of account closures.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
Are you people serious? With insight like this, no wonder your little movement's a joke... They didn't get arrested for trying to withdraw money or close their accounts. They got arrested because when the owner/manager of that *private property*asked them to leave, they refused. That's trespassing.
NY Penal Code 140.05 defines a trespasser as "A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person."
And why did they owner/manager ask them to leave? Because they walked in with a posse, some holding signs, some wearing hoods, hats, sunglasses, and one even had a MASK on.. In case you've never been to a bank before, you have to take that stuff off when you enter. That's standard at any bank for security reasons. So, they could get ejected just for THAT... and if that didn't do the trick, all it would take is for some idiot to start chanting or being unruly or whatever. Like any private establishment, they reserve the right to ask people to leave... YOU don't have a "right" to be in there... duh.
So, bunch of kids come in, the bankers know about the protests, and they don't want any trouble... the protesers are already breaking the dress/security policy... and then maybe they get a little loud or 'protesty' inside... "I'm sorry guys, but I have to ask you to leave please..."
If they refuse, they are legally trespassing, and the bank calls the cops to have them removed. The cops corral them until backup arrives, then they zip-tie them and cart them away.
The protesters are just a bunch of arrogant spoiled whiny self-righteous little punks... What the hell did they THINK was going to happen when they went in there like that??? Get a friggin grip, kids.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trofsyOct 17, 2011
Yeah, because YOU know what EXACTLY was going on inside that bank. You must of heard something in the video that all of us didn't... or were you there? Because you're making it sound like you were. Could the title be a little misleading? Maybe. Could the protestors have been obnoxious inside the bank? Possibly, but we are all speculating at the the events in this clip and we don't know exactly what happened, including yourself.
Oh and smartass, how about you look up ANYTHING in the NY Penal Code where it states it's legal that a person can randomly PICK UP another person outside said business and force said person inside a building when that person was clearly doing nothing illegal. Battery?
Then point is, you ignoramus, you don't discredit an entire protest (or movement) based off of half the events in this ONE clip -- which we don't even know how it entirely played out. It surprises me that you're so quick to write these protesters off as "just a bunch of arrogant spoiled whiny self-righteous little punks" and defend Citibank, based off of a 2:33 sound bite that leaves many questions.
So, instead of bitching about the people calling out those taking away your rights one by one (whether it be our government or corporations), how about you go display your painful ignorance and blindly support the next Patriot Act, Food Safety Modernization Act, or Cyber Safety and Security Act without actually finding out what it is and think the next person you vote for isn't on the ballot because they weren't placed there for a reason. Please just make sure you put a giant DUNCE cap on your head so I can spot you and avoid you in the streets.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
Right, I don't know exactly what was going on inside. I could seefrom the video, however, that several people in there were violating the banks rules by wearing hoods, hats, etc.. And, like I said, it understandable that when a group that big all walks in at once, the employees and security might get a little wary.. and it seems unlikely that these protesters, who've spent the last month yelling and chanting in the streets, would enter the bank and suddenly be on their best-behavior... Its extremely likely that someone in that crew would start mouthing off or being obnoxious to the employees/security at some point.
Either way, the management still has the right to ask anyone to leave for pretty much any reason. If they refuse, then it's game-on.
As for that dude outside that grabbed the woman - he appeared to be in the wrong. If they can ID the guy from the video, the woman has the option to press charges... unless the guy was a plain-clothes cop. (His behavior was still messed up, but if he was a cop and can sell the notion that he was acting reasonably within the limits of his mandate, then she'll have a harder time pressing charges...)
Anyway, right before you called me an "ignoramus" for discrediting an entire movement based on one event, you were doing something similar regarding the guy outside in the hoodie. One guy.. who did something that appeared messed up... we don't know the whole story about him ether, though, do we? He didn't look like private security, especially with no uniform, and it makes NO sense that he'd be just some random citizen... he kinda LOOKED like a cop, and if you watch, he took a moment to say a few things to that security guy in the white shirt. But whatever, who knows?
That last paragraph of yours doesn't make much sense overall.. kinda grasping at straws there. There's nothing in my post to suggest that I'm either ignorant OR blind - so I figure you're just saying that because I have an opinion that's different from yours...
And by the way, when I said things that "discredited an entire movement", it wasn't based just on this... It's based on hundreds of posts, blogs, tweets, videos, and pics from these people - plus a few minutes of face-to-face interaction with some of them in Boston. And although I agree that not ALL of the OWS people are "arrogant spoiled whiny self-righteous little punks", most of the ones I've come across are... and I've come across quite a lot of them... and very few have actually conducted themselves in a reasonable, respectful, mature fashion.
The overwhelming majority have been unruly, hostile, closed-minded, misinformed (or uninformed) about government, the law, and the economy, and they are prone to exaggeration and inflammatory rhetoric.. saying things like "police state" or "police brutality" or "kidnapping!" or "this is an unlawful arrest" or "protestors arrested for trying to close their accounts" or that government and/or corporations are "taking away your rights one by one"... The funny thing is, most of them are privileged suburban white kids, and most of the ones I talked to down in Boston were college students from Harvard, MIT, and BU. Certainly not destitute, that's for sure, even though many of them have never had a real job in their lives.
trofsyOct 17, 2011
First of all, thank you for your reply to my comment and showing me that you have a little more reasoning behind the statements you made in your first post.
Secondly, regarding the 'guy in the black hoodie', we really didn't need to see anything more beforehand in that situation to realize that whoever he was (whether a citizen or cop) he WAS in the wrong. It was quite obvious what she was doing (collecting names) and that he singled her out because of it -- even though it was completely justified and legal (and definitely necessary for the protestor's rights, which they still have regrdless). As for the actions inside, it's clear that your guess is that the Citibank employees were justified, my guess is that the protestors were justified (as long as they weren't breaking the laws in a bank), BUT neither of us know for sure because neither of us were there.
Oh, and regarding your comment; "the management still has the right to ask anyone to leave for pretty much any reason. If they refuse, then it's game-on." Well yes, the management does have the right to ask them to leave, and yes, the protestors are required to peacefully abide by the request -- assuming that the management asked them to leave. It seemed to me in the clip the 'protestors' were cornered and couldn't leave even if they wanted to--in fact, didn't they do just the opposite and force someone back INSIDE the bank? Hmmm... seems counter-productive if your objective is to get people to LEAVE. Anyway... even if you're conclusion was true--that they were told to leave and refused--It is NOT "game-on" for the Citibank employee's/Citbank-hired security guards. That would be the job of an official police officer (or police department) that is sworn to JUSTLY and FAIRLY serve the people... which I fail to see in this clip whatsoever anyway.
Also, I don't agree with every statement made by all of these protestors either (some have no idea what they're talking about -- they just hate rich people, some don't go far enough), but I still am happy that there is SOME life being shown in this younger generation (peers of my generation) when it come to the corruption going on in our government and world.
By the way -- I hope by your statement above that you're not dismissing the fact that we ARE living in a POLICE STATE and it's only getting worse. We don't have to agree with everything, that's the great thing about this country, but if you're so quick to dismiss that our government (no matter 'D' or 'R') has been deliberately lying to us and taking away our rights from under our feet on purpose, then we might as well stop wasting our breath debating each other, because this has been as clear as day over the last 40+ years, especially since 2001.
The problem I have is not with the rich. That is where a lot of these protestors are unjustified in their anger. Many of them are failing to see the greater picture. Some of these large corporations making money by f**king people over is only a small leaf of the big tree -- it's much bigger than that. Only some of these people have put 2 and 2 together to get the answer; N.W.O. Sounds scary, I know, but we've already been traveling down that road.
Somewhat unrelated: Now that you have somewhat elaborated on your comment, I apologize for calling you an ignoramus. I must reserve that accusation for those who contrive their political and world opinions solely from watching FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or any other mainstream media outlet and don't do their OWN objective research on what's really going on--the bigger picture.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
And I appreciate your reply as well, and likewise apologize if I was disrespectful to you initially.
I'd love to keep this discussion going, especially now that the claws have been retracted...
I'll reply to this post in a bit - I have to take care of some other stuff right now, but II promise I will get back to you.
Respect,
Obis
bopriceOct 16, 2011
I can only hope ANOM gets the guy with hoodies info and blasts his info. He should have been arrested for forcibly snatching someone off the street and the officers standing there watching should lose their jobs and face criminal charges too. @NYC Citibank - SHAME
kmom5Oct 16, 2011
I can't believe this!
medigapplanfOct 16, 2011
Is this what this great country of ours has to look forward to?
stonecircleOct 15, 2011Submitter
Do Not Pass Go. Do No Collect $200. Go Directly To Jail.
stonecircleOct 15, 2011Submitter
Update: Confirmed arrest of 24. http://bit.ly/qvZdEP
digitaldeadstarOct 16, 2011
Yeah, from what I gather it was trespassing. I guess many in there didn't have accounts or something. Though the lady at the end seemed kind of dragged into it? Hard to tell with all the shrieking and stuff going on.
Though I have to say, if this kind of stuff keeps up, things may get a bit out of hand. While I don't want it to, the chaotic part of me is smiling a bit at the thought.
m1k3zOct 16, 2011
Thank you! At least someone here made an effort to find the facts. Yes, they refused to leave after the bank and the police asked. It's one thing to speak your mind in public, and I fully support OWS in that regard, but they have no right to enter and refuse to leave banks.
It's this kind of crap that repulses people from OWS and distracts form the group's legitimate complaints and messages.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stonecircleOct 16, 2011Submitter
I watched as it happened. Sure didn't appear to me that anyone was being "disruptive." When asked to leave, the group attempted, but doors were locked preventing their exit. The cops even pushed people back who had already left the building. They, as customers, had every right to be there, to conduct business, or close their accounts.
fastolfeOct 17, 2011
They had every right to be there until they were asked by the property owner to leave. And then they had no right to be there. If they did indeed turn around and attempt to leave at that point, but the doors kept them (and presumably everyone else in the bank) imprisoned for the time it took for the police to arrive, that sounds like an open-and-shut defense. I suspect there's a little more to it than that, though, yeah?
m1k3zOct 16, 2011
Oh for Pete's sake now even Digg is being overrun by hysterical idiots who can't read.
THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED FOR CLOSING THEIR ACCOUNTS.
How do these lies make it to top news?
falstaffOct 16, 2011
Now, now...don't let the truth get in the way of the narrative.
stonecircleOct 16, 2011Submitter
Everything I find shows they were arrested. Show us the proof of your claim.
phalaceeOct 17, 2011
No doubt they were arrested, but I doubt it was for closing their accounts ... there must have been another reason
onepercentunacceptableOct 17, 2011
it is LEGAL to protest??, and LEGAL to take your own money out of your OWN account??, Corporate greed is disgusting and needs to end! The Government has lobbyists that get money from huge corps like citibank and Exxon ...those companies and their special interests are what run this country!!! believe that, unfortunately that is the truth! and that is why THEY got bailed out while we lose our 401K homes and savings!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fastolfeOct 17, 2011
Sure it's legal to protest, and it's legal to stop doing business with someone. But it's not legal to trespass, even if it's to accomplish something that's legal. If you're on private property, and asked to leave, and you don't, you're breaking the law. Go protest out on the street with everyone else. The "but I'm just here to close my account" is just misdirection to try and score headlines (like this).
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
Hehe, sometimes I wonder if posts like that are generated by "rhetoric bots" or something - designed to spit out a series of pre-programmed catch-phrases in random order.
dktrnimrodOct 16, 2011
Wow. I'll bet Citybank is wondering how they're going to cover the losses of accounts totaling in the tens of dollars.
wuggasladyOct 17, 2011
Well, I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. You can always take your piggy bank of pennies to them as compensation.
johnnysoftwareOct 16, 2011
Here are two web sites' take on the subject.
Free Republic just isn't buying the story.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2793382/posts
Daily KOS is eating it up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/15/1026740/-Breaking:-30-Citibank-customers-arrested-for-closing-their-account
If they called 911 for people not doing anything dangerous or harmful to any people or property, I would say it was a waste of public funds.
Nobody is saying anything on that angle, though.
cjsmarineOct 17, 2011
This is just too convenient camera, people all wanting to close thier accounts? How many of those arrested acually had accounts to close? Or could it be that they were just there to create choas? If any were there that did not have accounts,maybe they should have been arrested. After all it is not public property, oh let me guess you all think that you have the right to disrupt a nations weak and faltering economy by trying to manufacture a run on the banks. Well morons that can lead to a deppression. I do not think you have any idea what that would lead too. Especially those of you that are city dwellers. Rule of law flys out of the , survival of the fittest. Rampant mob rule.Go ahead, bring it down. I do not need the laws, after all they are only in place to protect you as the perp.
trofsyOct 17, 2011
Because I don't know EXACTLY what happened inside the bank by just what I see here--were the protestors causing a disturbance on private property? I don't know--I DO want to know how the man in the black sweatshirt was able to commit BATTERY to the woman in the black coat by grabbing her, picking her up, and FORCING her into the building. While the police officers just stood there and did nothing about it.
IF it was an undercover police officer, who didn't seem to identify himself (strike one), his act of randomly selecting the person trying to collect information from the people being arrested behind the window is not justified. Seems like this man was dead set on making it as difficult as possible to interfere with her ability to collect these people's names and birth dates to pass along to the National Lawyers Guild -- which she has the right to do. If this was the case, I would contact the NLG (and/or the ACLU) immediately.
Whether you agree with ANY protestor's cause or not, it is UNACCEPTABLE when we have police officers that act this way. This type of treatment from police should be under a 'zero tolerance' policy and the NYC police officers involved in this should be immediately fired. They are a disgrace to the police officers that follow the law and serve the people.
By the way... You cops are ONE layoff away from joining them.
onepercentunacceptableOct 17, 2011
the police would not disclose any information that would make them look BAD! they are aggressive and out of line! they are here to serve the people and they need to realize their place and stop spreading lies and giving excuses on arrests! its cowardly and disgusting! CORPORATE GREED HAS TO END!
bopriceOct 17, 2011
I hate they were arrested. I think it was wrong. I don't know all the facts but I do know better than to think they walked in, waited in line and then were arrested one by one because they stated they wanted to close their accounts in a civilized manner. They wanted to close accounts but they also had an agenda.
I really hope they get off and out of all this. If there's a positive side to this, when they do get out of jail, the ones that did actually have accounts, are going to be even more pissed now, are without a doubt, without the support of 25 other people motivating them, without any group, without anything other than being angry customers, are really going to go back and close their accounts without any type of scene. When they get arrested then, then we have some serious concerns.
magicstuffOct 17, 2011
Why isn't this the top story on all the news channels?
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
because it didn't happen. this was a demonstration by all of the OWS protestors. they weren't trying to close their accounts. they could do that from home over the internet. they were trying to be j@ck@asses and they got punked.
diggumsmack83Oct 17, 2011
How can you close an account from home over the internet? are they going to send you digital cash that you can print out? offer to transfer it to another account in their bank?
For anyone to actually CLOSE their bank account and get the money out of it (I would assume you want that), you have to go to the bank.
fastolfeOct 17, 2011
Banks can mail you a check, or you can have the money transferred at closing time (or before). They could also have chosen to come in and request that their account be closed independently of the protest/"occupation". You have no right to be on the bank's property, regardless of what you're trying to do, if they ask you to leave. (But you do have the right to your money.)
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
You would be wrong in that assumption. You can actually CLOSE {NOTICE I CAN USE CAPS LOCK ALSO} your account and they MAIL you what's called a...um...what's the word...it's a brand new invention...let me think...oh yes...a "CHECK" is what it's called. You might never have heard of a CHECK before, but you can google it to learn how a CHECK works. And before you start saying that a CHECK is worthless, no bank on earth is going to hand you a wheelbarrow full of cash when you show up unannounced at the desk to close your account. That's not how it works. Trust me. I know. I hate banks also. I use a credit union. I'm just not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I see capitalism as a good thing.
jeworldOct 17, 2011
One day these f**king pigs are gonna have to pick which side they are really on or get trampled by the stampede.
bopriceOct 16, 2011
Theres obv more to this however the guy in the hoodie should be charged with kidnapping.
phalaceeOct 17, 2011
Kidnapping? Really? At worst, it was assault, he didn't take her to a different location at all
bopriceOct 17, 2011
By law forcibly taking someone anywhere without their consent would be kidnapping. It's the same as a Walmart security guard wrongfully holding someone in a backroom being held for wrongful imprisonment.
I guess my point was what he did was wrong so assault, kidnapping being a dick wouldn't matter to me as long as he was held accountable. Felony assault can sometimes equal the same punishment.
phalaceeOct 17, 2011
I'd say it was a misdemeanor, as there was no malicious intent involved really ...
bopriceOct 17, 2011
How would anyone know there was no malicious intent?
An individual I don't know, that is not wearing anything that identifies himself as an officer of the law has placed his hands on me and not just in a, he touched me, kind of way, but has restrained me and is snatching me to go somewhere I don't know.
You can say what you want. But that was some Stranger Danger type s**t.
No malicious intent? I guess you'd wait til the burglar had your family tied up hostage before you decided to defend them.
I mean there was no malicious intent. All he wanted was a sandwich.
phalaceeOct 17, 2011
You're a lil fired up over this aint ya?
And by malicious (syn: vicious) intent I mean he wasn't trying to injure her, or wound her. Just because it wasn't malicious doesn't mean it was right...
bopriceOct 17, 2011
Please don't think with you. Comments, email, etc etc always seem to lose tone. Especially on subjects like this.
But yes fired up over the individual outside more than the individuals inside. I'll be the first to tell you I wasn't there, don't know the facts, and don't think they were arrested for closing their accounts. I think we prob agree it was because maybe just maybe since they are in an area that's been protesting that it was how they made the request to close their accounts?
Just been watching and don't necessarily agree with how things are necessarily being handled.
On both sides for the record.
phalaceeOct 17, 2011
Yeah, the arrests are probably bogus. For most of those arrested, they were probably doing the right thing, and got caught up with people who had been doing the wrong thing.
richardboreanOct 16, 2011
Things are starting to get ugly.
duraidenOct 16, 2011
It seems they were arrested for trespassing after a large group of like fifty protestors came into the bank to close the accounts. Jesus, the police and city are going to start a riot in NYC at this rate.
bopriceOct 17, 2011
agreed
orangebobOct 16, 2011
What. The. f**k?
onepercentunacceptableOct 17, 2011
CORPORATE GREED NEEDS TO END! if we really want the economy to thrive, then lets END the FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) and start taxing foreign countries for imports and exports! get jobs started here! or better yet, mail the US citizens a "bailout" check so we can spend it in the economy, instead of giving it to their BANK and OIL buddies to squander and hand bonuses to themselves as they lay people off!! DISGUSTING, UNETHICAL AND PATHETIC!
mortimerjonesOct 17, 2011
dukwbutter - you misquote dflectcher when you quoted them as saying there is a need to raise taxes to the " "absurd" 100% tax level". You both have a right to your opinions but you should never put words in someone else's mouth. If you go back and read the thread you will see they never suggest this 100% increase you quoted.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
i never misquoted him. I said:
"you can't honestly believe that "...when taxes are biggest, we have the biggest periods of growth."
Then, I said "So, by logical extension, we should raise the tax rate to 100% and have the government do with the money as it sees fit?"
My point being that, if you truly believe that, when taxes are biggest, we have the biggest periods of growth, then it only makes sense to allow the government to tax all of our earnings at 100%. If you don't believe that, then it's sort of incumbent on you to explain what the ideal tax rate is. If you truly believe that increasing taxes will increase growth, then (a) why would raising them to 100% not be optimum and (b) what would the optimum rate be.
This is a legitimate question that you won't touch with a 10 foot pole because you know that it destroys the absurd notion that raising taxes increases growth. Next.
mortimerjonesOct 17, 2011
"This is a legitimate question that you won't touch with a 10 foot pole because you know that it destroys the absurd notion that raising taxes increases growth. Next."
I am not looking to argue with either of your points. I just didn't want anyone to be misquoted. I did not see that part of your response. All you had to say was I said " "So, by logical extension, we should raise the tax rate to 100% and have the government do with the money as it sees fit?""
fastolfeOct 17, 2011
Assuming the OP is correct (which I have no reason to believe), unless "when taxes are biggest" means "when taxes were last seen at 100%", your reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply, because the OP was not suggesting the relationship was linear, or that it could be extrapolated to 100%. It's entirely possible that there's a correlation between higher taxes and higher growth rates, but that the correlation fits a curve with a maximum at or above "when taxes are biggest", but below 100%.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
I don't believe for a second the basic premise which is that higher taxes are associated with times of economic growth. My point - the point that I made - was that if you believe that absurd assumption...if you profess to believe that...then I think it makes sense to extrapolate from that. (You may disagree with this premise - you may think..."ugh...higher taxes = economic growth...ugh...this is all my little brain can handle....pass the donuts."
But I chose to pursue the issue further. If one believes (I don't, but plenty of OWS nuts do)...If one believes that higher taxes lead to economic growth...then the next question then is what is the optimum tax rate? My suggestion is that, if you truly believe higher taxes translate into greater economic growth, then the higher the better. Hence the 100% taxation rate = maximum economic growth. If you don't believe this, then it's incumbent on you to say "no, actually, there is a point of diminishing returns that occurs once the marginal tax rate gets past x%. I don't expect you to be able to follow this logic, understand the rationale behind it, or do anything beyond spouting the traditional communist slogans. But I do wish you the best.
fastolfeOct 17, 2011
No, you completely missed my point. Consider a curve that correlates tax rates and growth rates, and that curve hits a maximum at 60% tax rate, and then *declines* as it approaches 100%. Let's assume that, historically, tax rates have never reached 60%. In this situation, your "historical data" will show an increase in growth rates correlating to an increase in tax rates, and you would be correct pointing this out. But that does not mean that that you can meaningfully extrapolate to 100%, because your picture of the curve is incomplete. I agree with you: the 100% conclusion is absurd. But the absurdity of the reduction has more to do with your reasoning than the truthfulness of the premise.
dukwbutterOct 17, 2011
Look, we can start talking graphs and Laffer curves all you want, but you still haven't answered the question. No one has. If you believe that increased taxes = increased growth in the economy, then what is the optimum tax rate. Logically, I say it's 100%. You say it isn't, then what is it genius? Exactly. You don't have an answer. Just that it needs to be higher. Eat the rich. You're just another victim of society. The world owes me a living. Woe is me. I wish people weren't rich. We should tax the sh1t out of them. It will help the economy. Pass me the bong dude.
retasueOct 17, 2011
A LADY GETS OUT OF THE BANK AND POLICE SURROUND HER AND TAKE HER BACK IN. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON AMERICA!
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
"Shame, shame, shame, on America"? Really? .. Casting "shame" on the whole nation, just because you object to the actions of a handful of people? That seems a bit unfair... Especially since we don't even know EXACTLY what was really going on there...
Now, I'm not DEFENDING the actions of those guys, and I can understand why the video was shocking and upsetting to people... I agree, it looked and sounded pretty messed up...
BUT, what bothers me most about this video is actually the girl's behavior... Totally over-the-top and childish... all that frantic screaming, sounded like she was getting gang-raped, or dismembered,...or both.
Overblown, over-dramatized grandstanding like that might be a good way to fire-up fellow protesters and give them something to post on-line and rally around - but to non-indoctrinated outsiders, it just looks like a bunch of spoiled snotty maladaptive children.. The ones that will throw a bratty little tantrum about something they don't like - and when that little tantrum earns them a harmless little slap on the wrist, Uh oh... they get this shocked look on their face for a couple seconds, and then - watch out, it's the "Tantrum Supernova"...
You know what I'm talking about... we ALL did that at some point when we were kids, right? Before we out-grew it?
Well, some people never out-grew it, apparently.
gkiltzOct 17, 2011
Like to see them sustain charges on that!!
Coffins4TerroristsOct 17, 2011
NYC's Police Commissioner Kelly was given a HUGE donation for his police departments a couple of weeks ago. Notice please people it's the "WHITE" shirts directing the men and women in BLUE and those same "WHITE" shirted bosses are always now working the streets!
specimen7Oct 16, 2011
No, they just removed a bunch of hysterical idiots from their property.
stonecircleOct 16, 2011Submitter
I watched as it happened. The only "hysterics" I saw was when the police were carting off the customer in the suit. Honestly, I think I would have responded similarly. "Their" property? Don't account holders have any rights?
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
Account-holders actually have very few "rights" that pertain to this situation. Since the building is private property, the owner has the right to ask anyone to leave, for whatever reason (or for no reason). Even though someone is an account-holder, they have no "right" to enter or remain on that private property, without permission. It's just like your house... no one has the right to enter your property unless you allow them to. And, they have to leave if you ask them to, otherwise you could call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing.
So, does the account-holder have any rights? Absolutely... There are dozens of various rights and protections afforded to the customer through Federal and State law - pertaining to just about every facet of the bank's operation and services. deposits, lending, credit, privacy, equal-opportunity assurance and fair-housing, investments, leasing, insurance, mortgage settlement, debt-collection, electronic funds transfer, disclosure, etc etc..
The bank customer has more federally protected rights than a customer of pretty much any other establishment, institution, retailer, or service-provider.
Unfortunately for the protesters, however, there's nothing that grants the customer the right to enter the bank property without permission... But then again, it's pretty rare for a bank (or any other privately-owned / open-to-the-public establishment) to have to exercise it's right to deny access or service to someone... And when they do, it's usually a matter of the customer's appearance or dress, abusive or disruptive behavior, or unwanted solicitation, and even personal hygiene problems. But if the customer addresses whatever problem the management objected to, they can then come back, usually no issue. (Some retailers have been known to "ban" shoplifters from coming back for a period of time, or permanently - and its totally within their rights to do so)..
You've all seen the signs "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" right? Same thing. There's no LAW that says you need to wear a shirt in a convenience store... it's just a policy set by that store.... if you don't obey, they can ask you to leave - i.e. you don't have permission to remain in (or enter) that person's private property.... if you refuse to leave when asked, or enter without permission, then you're breaking the law and can be arrested and charged with trespassing..
Citibank didn't need a "good reason" to ask those protesters to leave... all that matters is that they DID ask them to leave. Property owners don't even NEED a reason at all.
"Get off my property." is all that is required. Some people might add a "please".. or "I'll call the cops.".. but it's not necessary.
Always keep in mind, the invitation/permission to come onto someone's private property can be revoked at any time and for any reason by the property owner, leaseholder, or operator - and chanting things like "I can do what I want - This is a Free Country! Nyah nyah!" won't help... That only works in grade school.
battmannOct 16, 2011
I do believe this is going to lead us quick to the downfall of our banking system, so in order to fight back we will close all the banks by pulling all our money out and keeping for ourselves since These corporates want to play a s**tty game of cards against the dealer , while the dealer is "We the people.." in order to fight against gas companies , stop driving or putting in so much gas, i've been buying only two gallons every other day or so or when i see it dropping, Keep your money in a safe or in a fund instead of a bank where they will charge you an arm and a leg for everything plus fees, fines and everything in thr fine print! whats up with this fine print s**t too. what you corporates dont have the balls to show us the fine print, f**king pussies! I'm not the one pouring money into my pockets all greedy like, honestly , i f**kin hate money and can't stand the f**king dirty ass s**t thats been up or in many asses. Change is coming, we better be prepared and a nation of one or we will lose!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diasna86Oct 16, 2011
Bad luck !!
retasueOct 17, 2011
NAZI GERMANY IN THE MAKING. THEY HAVE LOCKED THE DOORS AND ARE ARRESTING CUSTOMERS.
obiscygmaOct 17, 2011
/facepalm
There are a lot of intelligent, informed, educated people in the OWS movement... and I bet they HATE when the idiots in the group post embarrassing ignorant crap like that...