Archive for Saturday, October 22, 2011

Occupy Lawrence members ticketed in South Park

October 22, 2011


Occupy Lawrence members ticketed for remaining in park after hours

Occupy Lawrence member Stephen Robinson speaks about receiving a ticket for remaining in South Park after park hours on Saturday, Oct. 22, 2011. Enlarge video

At least eight members of the protest group Occupy Lawrence were ticketed early Saturday morning for remaining in South Park after hours.

Lawrence Police Department officers arrived at South Park at around 2 a.m., where members of the group have been camping for the past week. The citations included a summons to appear in municipal court on Nov. 15.

It appeared that those who wished were given the option to leave the park before being cited. Several members of the group said they left to avoid penalties and then returned after police officers had gone.

A handful of onlookers in a separate part of the park watched as protesters received tickets.

Occupy Lawrence member Jessica Barron said officers targeted members of her group, but failed to ticket anyone who did not appear to be a member.

"Their justification for issuing those tickets is they have to universally apply the law. But they did not universally apply the law."

Protester Stephen Robinson said he was happy to stay and receive a citation, but he would not be willing to be arrested because he could not afford to lose his job.

Protesters remained in the park after police officers left.

Check back to for updates as the story develops.


Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

I would avoid future citations. Instead how about putting that money that may go to fines and court costs back into OWS?

Keep coming back to the park then relocating here and there such 9th and Mass, on 6th at the the Frisbee park etc etc etc.

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

If you believe that, then why aren't you out there. They are using the democratic process. Stand up, be heard.

greenworld 6 years, 4 months ago

What about all the homeless people that float around downtown and after hours??? I would assume because their not protesting that they get a free pass... ha what a joke. So what happens if they move to the sidewalk>> Is there provisions to it also?? Last time I checked anybody can walk on a sidewalk but I guess when they show signs of sitting down or protesting if you would that becomes a crime.. God - go enforce something else and catch some real bad guys, I wonder why there is so much crime in lawrence and people's house's getting broke into cuz the cops are dealing with these people. If you want to protest wall street go to wall street and do it, Nobody in lawrence cares about that stuff. Wall Street has been corrupt for 50 some years and nobody cared about it up unto today. give me a break.

Vaildini 6 years, 4 months ago

If you look at and read the booking report you will see people ticketed for illegal camping.

deec 6 years, 4 months ago

I wasn't able to locate this info, just the arrest report. Where on the website is this info? Thanks,

vuduchyld 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm cheering for them. I would have also been cheering for Rosa Parks if I'd been there. To paraphrase a great man, sometimes civil disobedience is justified in a democracy.

KS 6 years, 4 months ago

"Protester Stephen Robinson said he was happy to stay and receive a citation, but he would not be willing to be arrested because he could not afford to lose his job." I didn't think these folks had a job? Pray for a brutal winter.

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

Steve is an attorney and a member of the Kansas bar.

Sucks to look stupid, doesn't it KS.

Blessed4x 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually it's Steve that looks stupid. A position of responsibility and he's slumming it in the park at an illegal campout for a half-baked protest?

Stuart Evans 6 years, 4 months ago

or maybe standing up for something that you just can't grasp.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

Ah, but you wouldn't say the same thing about those who support the teaparty, would you?

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 4 months ago

..."half-baked"? Really? It's gone global. Get a clue.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 4 months ago

Wake up folks.WE are the 99%. Know what this is all about before you criticize.

parrothead8 6 years, 4 months ago

No, corporate America is the BOSS of you.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 4 months ago

"Corporate America" is millions of Americans who have worked, saved and invested in American businesses. They do so with the expectations of a reasonable return on their investments. American businesses pay taxes to run and build the country. You might Google a few things like "jobs' and "work" and "thrift" and "ambition" .

Without the corporate infrastructure that America has that is supporting the country, we would have the economy and political oppression of Iran and North Korea where the government "runs" the economy and people are starving.

You poeple who are protesting whatever it is you seem to take issue with are ignorant, stupid, and totally out of touch with reality and business operations. Without American businesses, we would be living in sod huts and eating whatever possums and racoons we could catch. Wise up and shut up.

notyourmom 6 years, 4 months ago

"American businesses pay taxes"

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, American businesses do pay taxes. All sorts of taxes. Those corporations that don't pay federal income taxes (which is what I, perhaps incorrectly, assume your remark is about) are the exception, not the rule.

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

I have no problem with our economic system to be capitalism, but I have problem with the greedy part of it, and the part how they actual controls everything from money, job, and government policies. Lets see some numbers:

One company makes sneackers, they pay $6 for a pair to be made in China, they sold for $59 here. They have $53 profit, so they are ok in wallstreet, so they take this profit and invest more factories in China, and they sold their sneackers in Euro, Asia, making the same profit, then they invest more.

We are having almost 45 billions in trade deficit every month, almost 30 billions from China alone. From 2001 to 2010, US lost 2.8 million jobs to the China deficit because this "get rich scheme". And yet, corporations has negative tax contribution for the last few years? each of us still ows 4.4k debt to China? what about the social benefit for the poors, what about unemployment benefits? what we gain in doing these trading?

Pls tell me, how are we going to get our economy up with this so call Corporate America, that in fact not creating jobs at home, but taking your money off shore?

Now should it be my turn to ask you to wise up?

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Corporations are impotent against Americans. Their only recourse is the courts. It just so happens my boss owns a corporation and I can walk into his office and ask for help, shoot the breeze or just have a rest.

You may have imaginary bosses you don't like, but don't even consider including me in your self-imposed slavery.

ceccarp 6 years, 4 months ago

Not born into wealth? Don't have connections to every major finance and business CEO/CFO? Can't buy political connections? Have no say with major lawmakers? Don't own a vast, profit-generating corporation? Are subject to major economic events rather than immune to them? Aren't famous in some news circles? You're in the 99%.

There are plenty of people out there that do just what you do and fail utterly to succeed, whether they try hard or not. And they get no break. There are plenty who have seen moderate success, only to barely cling to that success or to be driven homeless from a $300,000 house.

Work hard, try to succeed, fine. Just don't count yourself out of immunity from and by power over the real world. That's what it means to be in the 99%.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

I was born into utter poverty and now live a nice middle-class life. I'm quite happy in fact. I guess that's why I don't understand the covetous nature of our friends in their tents tonight.

They differ from the fat cats on wall street only in the size of their wallets. They are flip sides of the same greedy coin.

newmedia 6 years, 4 months ago

The only thing I know about this Occupy "Thing" that started about a month ago is that the stock market has gone up 900 points in that time. If I knew that was all it took to help restore everyone's 401K's a little I would have grabbed a sign in April! March On...

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

No way. Keep pushing the market lower. I'm not cashing out for 30 years and I want some bargains.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually, unless you're one of the 1%, they likely do represent your true interests. You've just been too brainwashed by Fox News to know it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

So that means you're just brainwashed (or masochistic, or both.)

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 4 months ago

If you think Soros is funding OWS, yes you are.

deec 6 years, 4 months ago

I believe BAA may have indicated that he/she is an independent contractor for the Defense Dept., so he/she is not worried about their Federal paycheck ending, Building death machines is still a pretty safe racket to be in.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

No, I'm not brainwashed. Those who choose to live off the taxpayers are the brainwashed.

As a former rampat liberal (and I still support things that liberals support, ex: abortion rights) I know that the left is truly brainwashed by what they are taught in schools by liberal teachers and liberal text books, to what they read and see via the mainstream media, to what their "heroes" in Hollywood tell them to think.

Once I "grew up" and faced reality, and started seeing first hand how demanding the entitlement society was, once I saw how my tax money isn't just spent on helping the elderly and the disabled but also Shaniqua and Jasonl who do nothing all day but make babies, do drugs, get their hair and nails done, and eat bag after bag of Doritos, then I realized that all of those people who I voted for, all of those teaches who taught me, and all of the media outlets that existed back then, all deceived us. It has always been class warefare for them, along with making sure their special causes (unions) were taken care of.

But the crazy far right is no better.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, there are people who are lazy, and cost the rest of the taxpaying public a bit of their hard-earned money. But you blow it way out of proportion. These people did not cause the collapse of the economy. That was done by the banksters of Wall Street.

And it's certainly not the fault of teachers, in general, although it's possible you were unlucky enough to have gotten some a particularly bad ones.

In short, scapegoating teachers and/or the rather small percentage of folks who can successfully scam the system in order to live a rather marginal existence ain't going to fix anything.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

Teachers? I'm not talking about teachers. I believe teachers are underpaid, but I don't believe in longevity or tenure. I believe the best should be paid the best. Teachers are grossly underpaid.

And there have been millions of lazy ever since the entitlements started, decades before this economy. Now, as an added "bonus" we have millions of illegals mooching.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago


rtwngr 6 years, 4 months ago

You see, this is the problem. Exactly what is it all about? I see a reference to Rosa Parks and wonder, "Is this about Civil Rights?" Not really. It appears to me that this is civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience. Any action, such as this, has to have a clear and succinct message, not a convoluted conglomeration of rants. I see no specific message other than, "Rich people suck because I'm not rich!"

Stuart Evans 6 years, 4 months ago

this is about very rich people who own our government, and mold the laws to benefit themselves the most.

Getaroom 6 years, 4 months ago

The message being sent, although not in the format of a "Party" is relatively clear if you cared enough to allow it into your awareness. You have obviously and consciously chosen to miss the point rtwnger and proud of it so it would seem. Keep it up, you are going to get it one way or the other and I imagine it is safe to say that you do not rest comfortably in the top 1% of income holders, along with the multi millionaires and billionaires, otherwise none of this would matter to you and you might even be one of the thieves of Wall Street who stole some of our money too. Too bad all this Occupy stuff makes you squirm so much, or maybe not so so bad after all.

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago

This IS about civil disobedience. Just because there isn't a single specific message doesn't mean there is not a reason to protest. Don't you think people, specifically white people, scratched their heads and wondered how a person such as Rosa the housekeeper could be so uppity to sit in the front of the bus? Don't you think all those people who not so long ago stood outside a school and screamed and spit on black children as they walked into a desegregated school wondered why these things were happening? And wondered why exactly people were protesting for change? The protest is not about rich people sucking. It's about the 99% struggling to pay medical bills, buy groceries and raise our families in the face of big business who own our government, thus making policy that is completely one-sided .

Dang, it's comments like most posted here that let me know that I'm in Kansas.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Well, if it's civil disobedience, all sins are forgiven.

How did you like Timothy McVeigh's form of civil disobedience?

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago

You really don't know how to present a logical argument, do you? Because now you're comparing the protesters in the park with the killing of innocent men, women and children? What's next? Accusing them of planning the tragedy of 9/11? I'm sure you will benefit from this show, albeit tame show, of civil disobedience.

somebodynew 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes, I am the 99%, and I still think these people need to be removed from the park and arrested if that is what it takes.

If I didn't hate cold weather so much, and camping out, I would try to organize a "protest against the protest" and set up across the street from them and tell the Police I will leave when you enforce the law against them.

If they really want to accomplish anything they will work to change the laws, not break them.

Stuart Evans 6 years, 4 months ago

how do you go about changing those laws, when the entire system is owned and operated by the 1%. Do you really think your vote counts anymore?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 4 months ago

Normal, you and others that keep bleeting about this 99% crap need some education. The system is owned and managed by that "99%" you keep so fervently keep blowing about. Investors OWN stock, vote on affairs of the stocks they OWN, and expect that they will receive a profit (not a dirty word) on their investment. All this 99% crap is just that, crap. Your twisted logic and imagination is quite amusing, but fatally flawed.

deec 6 years, 4 months ago

Not so much as you might imagine. For example."While Congress has mandated that the Federal Reserve's board of directors consist of experts in labor, consumer protection, agriculture, commerce, and industry, only 11 of the 202 members of the Federal Reserve's board of directors represented labor and consumer interests from 2006-2010." 108...are senior executives of financial institutions." "The GAO identified 18 former and current members of the Federal Reserve's board affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis including General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers."

Jonathan Fox 6 years, 4 months ago

Loans that have all been paid back in full with interest.

Jimo 6 years, 4 months ago

"Yes, I am the 99%, and I still think these people need to be removed from the park and arrested if that is what it takes."

Takes to do what? You left that part out. Do what it takes to ..........? Silence people (even more)? Undermine the Constitution (even more)?

I'll make a deal with you. The day the Department of Justice indicts the CEO of Goldman Sachs, you'll be free to "enforce the law" against the protesters equally. The session of Congress that spends only 1% of its working days debating the cares and concerns of the richest 1% is the year when candy unicorns will play in beds of roses in our parks instead of American citizens patriotically making sacrifices to speak out for our nation.

Of course, if our government would just "enforce the law" there wouldn't be protesters in the park in the first place. Instead, bribery isn't technically bribery, corporations are people too, and money masquerades as speech: all things that have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 4 months ago

Ok, Lawrence Police Department, let's tread on the Constitution. Arrest them, make them go to court and explain why they were there, make them criminals for standing up to the Wall Street Bankers who took $700 Billion from taxpayer money for bonuses and raises for the CEO's. This is the crime, not protesting it. There are no better ways to make a statement in this country than to do this because Congress isn't listening to the people, the President has his own agenda, and we the people have no voice. Where do we go to effect change? Even our state government is deaf to the real needs of Kansans. We are frustrated, we are tired of this, but no government official cares.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 4 months ago

They got ticketed for illegal camping, hardly a Constitutional issue.

ceccarp 6 years, 4 months ago

No, the tickets were not for illegal camping. They got ticketed for being in the park after hours. There was a livestream of the tickets being issued so I was able to watch what was happening. No one was ticketed for camping. However I do wonder why the LPD ONLY ticketed the Occupiers and not the "handful of onlookers". Is it because those onlookers didn't "look" like they were part of Occupy Lawrence??? Inquiring minds what to know!!

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

The cops are handling this nicely. Ticket them, then go away. There is no reason for violence and/or arrests. They will have their day in court and they will likely be convicted.

Then they will either pay the fines, or (hopefully) city leadership will grant them clemency and tear up the tickets as a sign of support.

Either way they are being treated the same way as everyone else.

Good job, LAPD, Toni Wheeler, Dave Corliss & team.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 4 months ago

Would you feel similarly if it was the KKK or another disliked organization breaking the law?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

As long as they are merely protesting, why should we care? If there ideas are just as reprehensible as always, they won't gain any traction, and they'll be ignored.

But is what really concerns you that these people really do have legitimate issues that have been created by our politicians and the business interests who largely set the agenda? Are you concerned that the 99% will take note, and actually do something about the mess we're in?

rtwngr 6 years, 4 months ago

If you mean "do something" as in committing criminal acts in order to "balance" the scales, yes I am concerned. If they want to present a candidate or candidates that represent their points of view and elect them to office, more power to them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Yea, right, like they can overcome the 1 per centers who control who can and can't run for office, and get their message out amongst the din of $multimillion Citizen United media campaigns.

Fact is, taking the message to the streets is the only way to get it out, and that they are successfully doing so is freaking out both the Republican and Democratic ruling elites.

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

A felony conviction can (will?) get you disbarred.

pepper_bar 6 years, 4 months ago

I believe it's a misdemeanor ticket with a max fine of $1000 or 6 months in jail.

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm not a lawyer. I actually kind of hate lawyers.

Every time I interact with one my wallet seems to get lighter.

impska 6 years, 4 months ago

I know people think that misdemeanors aren't a big deal, but you need to be careful. Having a misdemeanor on your record could prevent you from traveling internationally (including to Canada) at the discretion of a single customs/immigration official.

It means checking "yes" in the box on many job applications that ask if you have a criminal record and could bar you from holding certain positions.

It means checking "yes" in that same box on any immigration application if you ever find yourself in a position to want to immigrate to another country (including if you have a spouse who is a citizen of that country) and could be used to deny approval.

I know people think "Oh, no big deal, just pay a fine." But it is a big deal. You never know when it's going to come up and interfere with your life. Anyone who thinks camping in a park in Lawrence, KS is worth it is deluding themselves.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

The "99%" need to be out on the streets because the other"1%" happen to include too many our elected officials who perhaps were concerned about their own investments taking serious hits.

About the first $700 billion under the Bush/Cheney/Paulson plan...

ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?

"Since the onset of the financial crisis and the passage of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street what were the factors in deciding who received bailout funds?

And what happened to all the money? The answer to those two simple questions is: We don’t know.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele tried to find an answer. The problem is, they write, "once the money left the building, the government aka Bush/Cheney/Paulson lost all track of it."

rtwngr 6 years, 4 months ago

Well, Merrill, you can ask our current president those questions. After all, he received more campaign money from the "wall street fat cats" than any politician in history. He appointed several of them to his cabinet or made them some kind of "czar." He was all for bailing out GM under the guise of it being too big to fail. If we had let all of these banks and corporations fail, as the right wing wanted, you and all of your 99% would have received the justice you now clamber for. Barney Frankfurter, just this week, vilified the Wall Street and sided with the OWS crowd and then turned around and attended a fundraiser in the home of a major campaign contributor who heads up one of the largest investment houses on Wall Street. Hypocrites all!

Oh, and save you left wing cut and paste drivel for another time, please.

deec 6 years, 4 months ago

I agree, as do many of the Occupiers, that the bailouts were wrong, including the first one in October 2008. Interestingly, the Tea party movement only began to object to the bailouts when Obama did the second and third ones. They were all wrong. You might also find, if you talked to the protesters or researched online, that some if not many of the protesters initially supported Obama. However, his failure to do anything except mostly continue Bush's policies soured them on traditional 2-party politics.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago

Go to recovery dot gov and find out for yourself where the stimulus money went

ToriFreak13 6 years, 4 months ago

Let's compare how much of "our money" is being stolen by wall street to those lying to get any of the various government assistance offerings, or the millions lost to those lying to pad their tax refunds. I live off $30,000 a year. I have been able to purchase a house in 2009, a used 2008 car also in 2009, take road trips, go back to school, AND still have an appropriate savings for my age. The "99 per centers" that are doing all this whining are the same that run around with their hands out on a regular basis (minus the few political crybabies). There are more than ample opportunities to be better off than you are. Instead you want to throw stones at those better than you. It really blows my mind how the same class of people that can approve remodeling a library at the cost of $18 million, can call a foul on anyone else in their risky financial ventures. Even if that risk trickles down to the taxpayers. How many of those "campers" even pay taxes? The economy has taken a hit on everyone. Most of you got the gut check you needed to show you were living above and beyond your means. Blame it on the millions of dollars put into marketing schemes. Whatever. You fell for it. You signed the dotted line. You voted for the crooks in office. Stop whining. Get a job. Fix your credit. Educate yourself. Enjoy the rest of your existence.

parrothead8 6 years, 4 months ago

"You voted for the crooks in office."

Here's where you reveal your true disconnect between your line of thinking and the thinking of OWS. You think they're protesting against politicians, but they're not. They're protesting against people who weren't elected, but still managed to bring down our economy by breaking laws and aren't paying a penalty for doing so. They're protesting against those "risky financial ventures" you speak of...except they weren't merely "risky." They were illegal. Building a public library that increases the value of the entire community (and, therefore, your home value) is not illegal.

ToriFreak13 6 years, 4 months ago

One sentence in a statement doesn't make it the topic. You seriously went through all of that trouble to explain to me what the occupation is about? As I could manipulate your words and correct you in the fact that they are not "building" a library. They are renovating the existing structure for the cost of $18 million dollars. Politicians do play a role in all of this. As far as the direct relation of the protest, not everyone on Wall Street is a criminal. Criminals have nothing to do with the fact 1% have more than the 99%. The economy would not be suffering like it is had governments and people in general maintained their own fiscal responsibilities. As I stated, I was able to still buy a house during one of the most difficult times to buy. The banks did not say no you can't because the crooks on wall street screwed it up for everyone else. They said YES you have maintained good credit, YES you can afford this, YES you deserve to be rewarded for making good decisions.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"They're protesting against people who weren't elected, but still managed to bring down our economy by breaking laws and aren't paying a penalty for doing so."

It isn't like America has anything about "due process" as part of it's laws, right? They have been declared guilty by the mob and must be punished.

Your ilk makes me ashamed to be American because you should be protesting the government. Instead you are ignoring the government because your man is president and going instead after civilians with virtual pitchforks.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"It isn't like America has anything about "due process" as part of it's laws, right? They have been declared guilty by the mob and must be punished."

Are you honestly trying to insinuate that there was no criminal behavior in scams that took down of the economy? I'm all for due process, but if no one ever starts that process because of the undue influence on the government by the perps of these crimes, what's left to do? It's obvious-- take it to the streets.

BTW, no one is ignoring the government. The simple fact it's that is the collusion and corruption between Wall Street and the government that have caused the problems.

Until Wall Street is cleaned up, and its stranglehold on fiscal policy is loosened, government won't be able to do what it should for the 99%

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"Are you honestly trying to insinuate that there was no criminal behavior in scams that took down of the economy?"

No criminal act has occurred until the Judge or Jury has made such a determination. Period. If you think differently, your America doesn't look anything like mine.

If you have information on any crime committed, I suggest you contact the prosecutor of jurisdiction and inform him. If you think the current Attorney General of The United States is shirking his duty then you might want to consider voting for a president that will appoint a prosecutor to go after the criminals.

Or you can go sit in the park and complain. Either way is OK with me.

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

That's just not true - criminal acts are committed all of the time, and never prosecuted.

Also, guilty people are acquitted.

The clear crime that occurred in the meltdown was fraud, both on the part of securities issuers, and credit rating agencies, who both knowingly issued risky securities that got AAA ratings.

There are a variety of investigations underway - we'll see how they conclude.

Cynically, I'd say it's rather unlikely that there will be any significant negative consequences for those involved.

This is the sort of problem that occurs with the infiltration of money and corporate influence in politics.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

OMG Jafs! Stop it!!! Who are you to deem an act illegal? Are you our new dictator?

"No person... shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

No verdict, no crime.

"There are a variety of investigations underway - we'll see how they conclude."

That's good. At least somebody is doing more about the problem than just camping.

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

OMG Liberty!!!

I have as much right to my view as you do to yours!

You really think that criminal acts are never committed until after somebody's been convicted of them??

Where did I advocate for any sort of violation of due process!?

Based on clear evidence, and common sense, I say that the agencies and issuers committed fraud.

I also say that it's very unlikely they'll face appropriate consequences, due to the connections between them and our government.

For one thing, it's the same rating agencies that are responsible for rating government debt that participated in the fraud.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 4 months ago

Not just OUR economy, but the entire World's.

CreatureComforts 6 years, 4 months ago

You need to get around the world more if you think the LPD is really all that corrupt. Go see what real corruption is around the world (and even the US), come back, and see if your opinion is the same. I've been to some very, very corrupt places and...well the LPD doesn't even come close to the top of corrupt local law enforcement

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

One can believe in the cause big time yet see the need to remain employed and out on the streets as more effective than sitting in jail briefly and spending money on the court system. This is just one way of showing their belief in the cause.

Quite practical thinking.

While others making a statement through the court system is just one way of showing their belief in the cause.

There are many ways to demonstrate one's belief in a cause. It could be said that those protesting the protesters are demonstrating their belief in crime,fraud and serving the special interests that in fact perpetrated the fraud on the American people.

It could be said that those protesting the protesters are demonstrating their belief in that it is okay that 11 million more were put out of work as a result of the fraudulent home loan industry in spite of the trillions upon trillions dollars of economic growth being being lost daily as the end result.

jesse499 6 years, 4 months ago

At any other time if I went to the park and set up a tent they would run me out in 5 minutes.They give these people 2 weeks and their being picked on?

Cai 6 years, 4 months ago

They originally had the proper permits to camp there. They just overstayed their camping permit.

Jimo 6 years, 4 months ago

Were you exercising a constitutional right?

Gee, anytime I refuse to pay taxes to the King I'd be sent to jail. Who do those Boston Tea Party rebels think they are?

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

"How many of those "campers" even pay taxes?"

Each time they make purchases and each time they make a purchase that somehow supports the protest. Each time they buy gasoline = big time taxes.

If they are paying rent they are in fact paying personal property taxes. Utility bills and phone bills include taxes.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 4 months ago

Funny how you go through the list of taxes these people may or may not be paying but then you complain about how a temporarily empty building isn't paying taxes. Inaccurate much? It's also quite amusing that you hold up as an example their purchase of gasoline. I thought these people were pro-environment or are they simply faux pro-environment like those who use gasoline lawnmowers in their businesses. Big time.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if he'll show his support by mowing with scissors?

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Each time they buy gasoline = big time taxes.

No kidding. At 10 MPG (8 if I'm having fun) I pay lots of gas tax when I drive the Vette.

jesse499 6 years, 4 months ago

That's a good idea let them stay but charge them rent.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 4 months ago

Not a bad idea, jesse. I think the occupy lawrence would be happy to pay rent for maintaining their venue.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

The fact that they pay taxes provides them the right to use our city parks just like anyone else.

BTW the Wall Street Fraud crews are the enablers and should pay for the crimes they committed.

Sharon Aikins 6 years, 4 months ago

Does this mean that all of us that pay taxes can ignore the rules, laws, ordinances?
I don't disagree about Wall Street but does that give anyone the right to break the laws in return? If so, we don't need a government that we elect or police forces. Let's all just do what we want! After all, why should the rules apply to the rest of us if not to these people? If anyone else commits a crime, we are entitled to do the same with no repercussions while screaming for punishment for the original law breakers?

There is a city ordinance (law, rule, etc.) stating that the park is closed at certain times. Does that mean just for some of us?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

This is very mild civil disobedience, not a major crime syndicate.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

"It really blows my mind how the same class of people that can approve remodeling a library at the cost of $18 million, can call a foul on anyone else in their risky financial ventures"

The nice thing about this is taxpaying voters were given the opportunity of VOTE on the matter. Taxpaying voters were not given an opportunity to vote for or against the Bush/Cheney home loan fraud nor for or against the Reagan/Bush home loan scam.

Nor were 11 million voting taxpayers allowed to vote for or against unemployment.

newmedia 6 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps in a moment of fairness and levity we should also add the dynamic duo of Frank/Dodd in this enlightening home loan conversation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

You mean the bill that was just passed last year, and therefore is mostly irrelevant as a cause of the economic collapse?

But it if is relevant, please gives us explicit reasons why you believe that. You know, engage in something like a real discussion, rather than just repeating phrases just because you heard Hannity or Rush say them.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

Incorrect. He's talking about years ago,when Frank/Dodd pushed for banks to make high-risk home loans to people at levels that traditionally the people would never qualify for.

It was just giving money to poor people, which was the Frank/Dodd mission, but they went further, giving out loans for $300,000 houses to people who could barely afford a $200.000 house.

These loans where bought up by the big banks, and then when the people who received the loans couldn't keep up with the payments, we have part of the anchor that tanked our economy account for.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

There was absolutely no requirement for banks to loan to any unqualified buyer. As a matter of fact, FHA-backed loans, with much more stringent requirements, and better terms for borrowers, were available for any qualified buyer.

It was the lenders who chose to give sub-prime loans with really bad terms to qualified buyers, and liar loans to unqualified buyers-- not Dodd or Frank.

independent_rebel 6 years, 4 months ago

Clueless, and changing history. Dodd/Frank was the main drive. Sure, the banks were part of it, but clearly, it was Dodd/Frank, especially Frank, who spear-headed the programs that led to the trouble.

ToriFreak13 6 years, 4 months ago

I understand that in written forums like this it is easy to misread, misunderstand, or just blatantly redirect someone's comments to influence their own. I said nothing about being against the library. I made a statement that called attention to the fact that one groups' rant about someone else's overspending is less legit when they are also guilty of approving such a grotesque financial misstep. Because one is on a local level, it shouldn't be relative? The library too was voted on by many temporary residents that will enjoy absolutely no impact of the cost or benefits of that structure.

huero_stevo 6 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kernal 6 years, 4 months ago

"the big banks of Lawrence" ? Hahahaha! Yeah, right.

cozborn 6 years, 4 months ago

They are using computers, which mean they support unethical material sourcing that most corporations use to build them.

They are have been killing the grass at the park,

Those signs tied to the trees are hurting the cambium layer of the trees.

They are using city electricity for free.

These free loading nature hating hypocrites should just pay what they owe and rise above,

I tell you what, I will pay for anyone of them a trip to Somalia , that way they no longer have to worry about rich people giving people jobs. They can camp wherever they want,

Though I fear that they will become the 1% of Somalia, Those tents are pretty nice, and that's just not fair to all those people living in cardboard boxes.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 4 months ago

And their internet is coming from Freenet... something that the city ought to remember next time Freenet comes begging for freemoney.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Translation: Actually listening to what they have to say, and considering the issues would require thinking, which could hurt my brain. Therefore, I'll just make stupid, irrelevant, derogatory comments about them.

cozborn 6 years, 4 months ago

Listened to what they had to say, Most of them did not know why they were at the park. Or have any sense of economics. i just dont like entitled people that have never had a real problem ever, If you live in america, even homeless you are 99% richer than the average person on the earth. So these people are angry that they are the 99% of the top 1% of the world. Seriously its a global economy be happy you own a tent and shoes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Listened to what they had to say,"

I doubt it.

"Or have any sense of economics."

They have a different sense. That doesn't mean your sense is right.

"So these people are angry that they are the 99% of the top 1% of the world. Seriously its a global economy be happy you own a tent and shoes."

I'm sure that the top 1% would be happy to take your advice, and give away everything but a tent and some shoes, right?

cozborn 6 years, 4 months ago

My advice was look at where you are at. You dont have it that bad, no matter how much people want to bitch and moan about how banks got bailed out and people are richer, no amount of protesting can do anything about it. So do something other than squat at a park and look dumb. Just take your laptops to a ghetto in mexico city and start telling them your poor

Shane Garrett 6 years, 4 months ago

I watched the 1% last night, a documentary by Jamie Johnson, heir to Johnson & Johnson fortune. He did an interview with Friedman, economist who come up trickle down economy. I think that there is some changes that could take place. I realize that really rich people are totally out of touch with the rest of the world. All I am trying to say is give this documentary a view then make your own decisions.

lunacydetector 6 years, 4 months ago

have they decided what they're protesting? since they make up .009% of the population, what does this 99% supposed to mean?

kernal 6 years, 4 months ago

For LJW's next "On the Street" question, they could ask people who they think they 1% are.

From some of the postings on this particular article, it appears some have misconceptions that they are part of the 1%. Sorry, folks, but the 1% does not live in Lawrence, KS.

Hudson Luce 6 years, 4 months ago

At least two members of the One Percent live in Lawrence.

ljwhirled 6 years, 4 months ago

More than that.

Off the top of my head: Dolph Simons Jr., Dan Simons, Dolph Simons III., Bill Self, Bonnie Henrickson, Doug Compton, Gene Fritzel, Steve Swada, Greg Devilbiss, Beverly Billings.

There are likely several more, but these are the multimillionaires I am aware of.

What should alarm you about this list is how many of these 1%ers have received tax abatements and other corporate welfare from the City of Lawrence.

impska 6 years, 4 months ago

My understanding of trying to find out who qualifies as the 1% is that it means that you have $5M in assets and an income of around $300k a year. Am I wrong? People like that live in Lawrence, KS.

Or are you going by the definition of having political, as well as financial power? In which case, you're really talking about the 0.25% - 0.10%.

Certainly people with large incomes, as well as state and local political influence live in Lawrence. Not sure about federal influence.

Anyway - just curious who YOU mean when talking about the 1%.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

To quote a recent poster--

"trolling is an art form"

Mark Currie 6 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if they would still want to stay there if the city put a fence up around the park and called it Gitmo North? Of course they would be allowed to come and go except when the park "closes" at whatever time. Then the gates would be shut. Just kidding around here, I could really care less what they do as long as no one gets hurt. They could go to Wells Overlook park, one of the area's big time protesters lives out there, and I am sure he would welcome them. Have a great day.

Jimo 6 years, 4 months ago

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” ― Stephen Colbert

pepper_bar 6 years, 4 months ago

Lame. But go ahead and post something from Bill Maher next.

kansasfire911 6 years, 4 months ago

1%? So we're protesting biker gangs. I'm so confused. Guess I'll just go to work.

ccp 6 years, 4 months ago

Why are people so offended at a group that is only trying to make a statement about what they believe to be injustices in our society. Are we really so polarized that we wish harm on those who make statements we disagree with? Regardless of what you feel about the whole "Occupy" thing, how about we just say, "Hell yeah. America really is awesome. Look at what we're allowed to do and how we're allowed to express ourselves." Come on, guys. Let's embrace our differences whether those differences are in the form of race, religion, or beliefs. I'm so tired of this my-way or no-way attitude.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 4 months ago

Cite them for littering, if they litter. Cite them for having a open fire, if they have such a fire and if it is illegal. But just for being there, participating in what is clearly political speech, no, that's exactly what's protected by the first amendment.

pepper_bar 6 years, 4 months ago

You can't just break any law you want to, call your actions political speech, and have them protected. There has to be some nexus between the speech and the protest; silently remaining in a park after hours in violation of a reasonable public safety ordinance isn't gonna cut it.

Ticket these derelicts every night, LPD.

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

What if they are remaining silently but have signs up?

And, what public safety is being compromised by their continuing to stay there overnight?

pepper_bar 6 years, 4 months ago

Any derelict could put a cardboard sign next to themselves saying "This is an economic injustice" before bedding down in the park at night. Won't fly.

If you don't intuitively understand the public safety issues attached to having public parks full of indigent people in the middle of the city, I won't be able to help you here.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 4 months ago

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, I may not be able to define political speech, but I know it when I see it. This is political speech. If you can cite a compelling reason to limit their free speech, with the emphasis on the word compelling, I'd be happy to listen. But just some local ordinance against camping out in a park compared with the First Amendment to the Constitution, I'll side with the Constitution every time. One more paraphrase, I may not agree with what you say (and in this case I don't agree with some of the things being said), but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago

I had the same thought that you did, and wondered how many of these folks supporting the protesters were against the proposed homeless tent city down by the river. As you say, would simply posting protest signs have changed their minds?

jafs 6 years, 4 months ago

I take it you have no good answer to the question, since you didn't furnish one.

And, there's no evidence that the majority of these protesters are "indigent".

Eugehne Normandin 6 years, 4 months ago

Maybe they could occupy Walmart. I think they allow overnight camping and they make money selling foreign crap for huge profits

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

Let's clear the air and end this discussion once and for all. What is the law? City Ordinance 15-208?

(What say you? I dare anyone to provide an argument against these patriots. When do you stand for something? The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court say:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.: 1st Amendment

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Seems to me that includes Lawrence, KS

The Supreme Court stated "[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action"Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Where is the "imminent lawless action"?

The police and the prosecutors need to re-evaluate their position.

The mayor first said they can stay as long as they want then the prosecutors say we need consistent application of the law. The ordinance was established to keep the homeless from "squatting" in the park. (The original intent) This is not what was intended and they need to all back off or they will be the fools.

This is the Civil Rights movement for the masses in the 21st Century. Pay attention or their will be dire consequences. The 99% may not always vote but if they do exercise that right, as zeluosly as these young patriots, there will be some city fathers looking for other things to do with their time.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"This is the Civil Rights movement for the masses in the 21st Century."


cozborn 6 years, 4 months ago

Tell me what civil rights are they wanting. Please, I would really like to know.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

I assume you will be as adamant regarding limitations placed on the phelps clan next time they walk around with signs next to a cemetery where a fallen soldier is being buried, informing us of the opinion their god holds concerning homosexuality.

I won't be holding my breath.

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago


I find it interesting that most who post here are adamantly opposed to the Occupy Lawrence contingent. Opposed to standing up for our rights as US citizens to protest the kowtowing of our government to big business. Opposed to US citizens peacefully protesting and exercising the right to free speech (the same right many here have taken to blast Occupy Lawrence). I guess the difference between to two is that the Occupy Lawrence protesters are doing it out in public when most here do it from the safety of their own homes.

For those of you who think this protest will just fade away-it is here to stay and will only grow in strength. And yes, this is the "civil rights movement for the masses of the 21st century." The best sign from Occupy Wall Street states it well: Dear 1%, We fell asleep for awhile. Just woke up. Sincerely, the 99%.

Carry on.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago

I believe the "imminent lawless action" is chosing to be in the park after hours, which breaks the law against being in the park after hours. After all, there's nothing that says the "imminent lawless action" has to be a major action...just an imminent one.

The thing is...what this ruling is saying is that people can TALK about breaking the law all they want thanks to freedom of speech but, when they actually set out to genuinely break it, then it's not a matter of free speech anymore but, rather, a matter of breaking the law.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

Cozborn: It was an analogy. When you have the 99% having 11 of the 12 cookies and the rest of us being robbed to support them all chasing one cookie that is left it is just plain wrong. The highest paid CEO in America according to a recent article recieved compensation of $131,000,000 dollars for the last 12 months while the stock holders suffered lossses and employees 401K's in the last quarter went down 23% something is terribly wrong. Change is immenent.

cozborn 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes I understand your arguement, though I dont agree with it, It still does not answer my question. What civil rights do they want.

The stock market is a gamble and so are 401ks its not anyones fault but yours if you work for or invest in a company like that.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Why can't we see of we can bake 50 cookies?

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

Li berty275: I do not agree with what the Phelps do but I do agree with their right to say it. This group is standing up for you. Perhaps you should consider standing up for them.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

You're new, so I'll be nice.

First: they aren't qualified nor capable of standing up for me. If I need to be stood up for, I'll do it myself. Any presumption otherwise is wrong.

The following bits are posted up-thread or in one of the other zillion threads regarding our occupiers.

Second: they are (in Lawrence a proxy) hypocrites for occupying Wall Street and not Washington because the cognitive dissonance inside their heads has them badly cowed. They can't protest their own guy, so they lash out at impotent civilians instead.

Third: The city should be ashamed to have such an ordinance, and society should be ashamed such laws are necessary to prevent the homeless from scaring people by sleeping.

The protestors are wasting time. I'm no fan of the government/corporation orgy, but the protests are poorly aimed and as cogent as a two year old. However I am all for leaving them unmolested to protest, even though the form of the protest is technically illegal in South Park.

That's a freebie. The next time I won't be so nice.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

I am still waiting for an argument against my original post. The City of Lawrence has no justification to stop the protests of those who peaceably assemble.

pepper_bar 6 years, 4 months ago

If you're referring to your incoherent rant just a few posts above this, the way you wrote it makes it sort of response-proof. Better to get to your point quickly if you want to promote dialogue.

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago

The park does not belong to the protestors - it belongs to all of us. In that spirit the city has made rules for its use that apply to all of us. The courts have generally sided with municipalities who make such rules if they can be shown to exist to protect the property and are uniformly enforced

You right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Simple.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"I am still waiting for an argument against my original post."

OK. I'll go with this these:

"That said, “ ‘[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.’ ” Frisby v. Schultz , 487 U. S. 474 . Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 ."


"Held: The challenged application of the Park Service regulations does not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 293-299.

(a) Assuming that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment, the regulation forbidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct."

You lieks??

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"OK. I'll go with this these:"

And I mean "this" group of "these". I can say that because I'm from the trashy part of the South, and that's how weuns learnt to talks. I know it looks I like a forgot to delete "this" when I added the second SCOTUS ruling, but that is just an insignificant grammatic illusion and can be safely ignored. Have another Gargle Blaster and you'll see it more clearly.

For an encore, I might say... "that there doodad"

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago

waynesworld- your "ran" t was not incoherent. it was spot on.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

Incoherant rant??

Here is the Cliff Notes version:

1st Ammendment to the Constitution protects your rights to Freedom of Speech and Assembly. The Supreme Court of the US says that the police and goverment can not quash it by using a violation of some other law or ordinance unless there is a danger of "immenent lawless action. The demonstartors have shown no such intent.

Therfore, the City of Lawrence has no right to intercede using a Parks and Recreation Ordinace to quash the demonstration.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago apparently don't understand what "immenent lawless action" means. Or just what is protected as freedom of speech in the ruling you cited. I explained it all in a post to you earlier.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

I do want to say this the police are just following orders. But like Paul Newman said in Cool Hand Luke "Just because you are following orders don't make it right."

uncleandyt 6 years, 4 months ago

Power is in a panic. Red-Righties are starting to explore the possibility that they have been lied to by their radio-Gods. Avoid the Rush, start thinking for yourself today !

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

don't know much about laws, just a few thought of my common senses.

What is law? whose law? Isn't law suppose to protect people's interest? Isn't it suppose to be people's law? What law is it otherwise? should people obey laws that work against people's interest? What is wrong with those who are protesting in people's interest? Aren't those statements they made indeed the legitimate concerns from the general public? or they are just a bunch of law beakers defending their own personal interest?

Politics is alway about taking side. What side the city or Lawrence is on?

Speaking of law, what about constitution? what about the spirit of our fight for freedom?

For those who emphasis in obeying laws, I can't diagree with you, but using it as an argument, I would think you better be a citizen of a totalitarian state like China (where I grew up), where you can enjoy the Harmony of nobody have to say anythings, but to obey whatever "laws".

I share concerns from the general public, and support those who exercise their rights speek up in people's interest.

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago

Which people? You? How do you know we agree with the protestors? Laws are made by our representatives who in our system represent us all. The law can be changed. We can fire the lawmakers. If you get to decide what law you follow then so do I. You might not like my choices.

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago

So with that logic in mind, Browndownhisback represents us all? The hell you say.

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago

Well he does - like it or not. He was elected by a majority of Kansans. Just what have they been teaching you?

justme2 6 years, 4 months ago

He wasn't elected by the"majority" of Kansans. He was elected by a very small group of people who unfortunately got off their a**es to vote. I do admit that part of the problem going on right now is very few people exercise their right to vote and now we are living the results of that right, on-going poverty for the middle class (the working poor), people in positions of power who unfortunately do not have our best interests in mind, etc. But the great thing about this country is that we have rights...that includes the right be civil disobedient when we believe there needs to be a change.

So Mr. Lippencott, what have they been teaching you lately? Or are you an old dog who refuses to learn new tricks?

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

Thanks Moderate. People is people, meaning you, me, everybody. You don't have agree on me, or on the protesters, but this does not change the fact that we are people. this does not change the fact that any laws should be people's law, this does not change the fact that people's law should be for the interest of people, and this does not change the fact that people (however percentage) have the right to keep an eye on, and to raise questions about this so call laws. You don't have to agree on those who are doing so, but you can not take right from others (again, however percentage) to express opinions or to raise questions, not even by law, that is our 1st amendment right, it is not intent to protect the majority, it is intent to protect the minority, to the individual level.

Pls think hard on this, how often we are on the wrong side of the law, meaning using laws to do wrong things? how often we do not get decide on how law is made, and people have no control of it? In reality, money can buy law today, that is one of the questions raised by these protesters, wouldn't that be your concern? Not to talk far, just this permit thing the protesters have been have trouble with: KC said, protesters can have a permit, but it cost $3750 a month, without a permit, either you stop, or you under arrest. Is this about law, or money? You have any control on any of these, on how the laws apply or not apply? NO, Is this right thing to do? I don't think so, you may disagree, fine, then lets talk about it, why the city has to shut people up? Isn't it the kind of problems that we are facing now?

At the end, it is just an argument, law is not alway on the right side, so are the people.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"What is law?"

Law is what lawyers do. Think about that real hard and never forget it.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

Moderate......We do not need to change any laws we just need equal protection under the law. The First Ammendment was written long before the City Ordinance. It is Federal Law.

This is without doubt the first time the City Ordinance has been challenged. Just because they put it in the code does not make it constitutional under these circumstances. When they try to apply their ordinance in this circumstance it does not apply.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

........and just exactly how do you quantify that assertion?

wade4444 6 years, 4 months ago

Atiopatioo, as someone who personally received a citations last night this is what i have to say in response. I have been supporting myself for the last year completely independent of my parents/ family. I have been working at least one full time job during that time frame. I find it insulting when people drive by screaming out "Get a job you dirty f@#$ing hippies". Now i am looking at going back to going to school. My tuition for being a full time student is looking at being about $5000 per semester. Books are going to cost about another 500 per semester. To live in the dorms is going to be about another $10,000 per year. Then there are other living expenses. Grand total for me to go to one year of schooling at KU comes out to about $23,000. Let me ask you this. Do you personally think that you can work full time, go to school, and still have some time to yourself to maintain your sanity all at the same time? Tuition rates in the last 5 years have raised %300. minimum wage has raised $2. How would you go about it when you have no options left? My parents cant afford to help me out with schooling. Now maybe i am out of line and you are just a better person than I who is able to handle 15 credit hours while working a full time night job. Though somehow i do not see how it is out of line for us to stand up and say this is not right. The children of the middle class are getting screwed out of life. Our parents do not make enough money to support us through school like the children of the wealthy and they make to much money for us to be able to apply for financial aid. I am welcome to suggestions on how to fix this problem but with me looking at $100,000 in dept before the age of 25 just for an education, something doesn't seem right about that.

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago


Maybe you should make up with your parents and get some help. The system offers loans, grants and other funding sources to help. The tax payers contribute a lot toward your potential education already

Just where do you think you earned the right as implied by your note to demand that a portion of us tax ourselves even more so you can go to school and just study? Exactly why should I be willing to do that? We have plenty of college graduates already – in fact they may be turning into a glut in some fields for which there is little demand.

xclusive85 6 years, 4 months ago

I just finished my master's degree. I paid for all of my school at KU for 6 years by myself(excepting the subsidy paid by the tax payers). I worked hard to be able to do that. I graduated with no debt. My parents couldn't really afford to help me either, not because they don't make decent money, but because they have other children as well. Now I am employed with a great job. I am helping my brother out with his education at KU. He also works, has scholarships, and plays in the band. I guess my question to you is why don't you think it is possible to pay your way through college. Why do you have to live in the dorms at $10,000 a year when you could find a cheap place to live and pay about $3600? See, I just saved you $6,400 per year.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 4 months ago

And why do you have to go full time? Is juco for the first couple of years not an option? And, if you've been living independently for a year, why on earth does it matter what your parents make? You're an independent adult now. Try for financial aid an independent adult. (I assume you parents don't claim you on their taxes...if they did this year and you've been living completely independently...hmmm.)

Seems to me as though you're tossing obstacles into your own path...and something doesn't seem right about THAT!!

wade4444 6 years, 4 months ago

As far as the university is concerned no matter if you are supporting yourself you are not considered an independent student until the age of 23 unless you where emancipated before the age of 18. There for the fact that my parents joint income is over 100,000 a year means i am not eligible for said financial aid.

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

Don't be silly about the 99%, it is not an scientific number, it just defined by income level, and I don't think this classification has any implication of 99% are on the same page, or they all agree on one thing, that is impossible.

However, we can not neglect the fact that, there is 1% in this country indeed control the faith of the remaining 99%, by their fiscal power, and influence in the political power. We lost millions of jobs in the past 10 years or so, simply because the greedy guys make money at home, then invest elsewhere, and the government has been silent on it. We have never vote for unemployment, we have never vote for business lobbying, we have never say it is ok to have outrageous trade deficit, that not just hurt the US economy, it also hurts our living. Why these business can be so greedy? because there is no regulation from the government.

So the 99% is symbolic, but it reflect the actual concerns of the general public. Again, we may not have to agree on everything these protester said, but we have no right to shut them up.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

"However, we can not neglect the fact that, there is 1% in this country indeed control the faith of the remaining 99%"

Wow, 3,000,000 huh? I'd say less than 50,000 at the federal level and 100,000 in states and cities have any control beyond their run-of-the-mill right to vote. If any of you tent occupiers or their supporters have more accurate information on how "1" was calculated, please fill us in.

Using my numbers, pulled from my assorted opinions related to the issue, it seems to me our tent dwellers must be protesting some innocent people without regard for validity. Sure, 1 is nice and poetic, but 0.000488588924242821529377793405385% seems more accurate.

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

I don't think the 1% means government officials, it means the top 1% wealth holders in this country (by income, net asset and or wealth growth and etc). It might sound crazy to say that the top 1% controls the faith of the remaining 99%, but it is true. Those people are usually from giant companies, decide on employment, salary rate, and they have the fiscal power to choice who to lobby in Washington, who to donate, and what policies they support. Politicians have a nasty habit of hang around with wealthy people, so the top 1% is actually having a lot more influence on our politics than any one can even imaging.

Again, I am not to crazy about the number.

waynelsworld 6 years, 4 months ago

We live in a society of entitlements. When we subsidize the oil companies who make record profits, provide tax shelters to the wealthy, send jobs overseas and get a tax break for doing it we allow foreign interests to dictate policy as we borrow more and more from them. We have become a society that taxes the people to the point of a future without a middle class. But for the government and the corporations robbing our paychecks and 401K's, we as a people would be provided the opportunity to decide for ourselves how the fruits of our labor are spent and we could invest in our children, the future of our society.

(New Paragraph) "It is the eternal struggle between these two principles----right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle." ......Abe Lincoln

(Another new Paragraph) What they are doing is wrong. We have the right to demonstrate against what is wrong. If a stand is not taken now are we prepared for the consequences of our inaction?

KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

Exactly, for almost 1 billion per day in trade deficit to China, it accounts for almost 2.5% of US GDP (what was our GDP growth last year?), in fact if these merchandises are made domestically, it can account a few times more because the production costs are different, China is now holding 1.3 trillions US debts, that is 10% of our national debt, approx 4.4k per head. We paid for our merchandises a few times more than these importers paid, why we still have to end up with 4.4k debt? Where the money go? where the jobs go? How this happened? thanks to lobbying from big corps who wanted to trade with China because this country has been so oppress in labor rate and so ignore in environmental concerns, and thanks to the top lobbying firms in Washington who is paid by China.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

Americans priced themselves out of the market. You thought you were better than the yellow people over yonder, then found out you weren't. Is your labor worth more than a Chinese person's?

Armored_One 6 years, 4 months ago

So if the "1%" have such an iron grip on the government, is there a line that the protestors are unwilling to cross to acheive their goals?

If the elections are rigged, then there is no point in voting.

To change anything at that point, you are going to have to consider violence. Are you willing to commit violence against someone, since that is very possibly what might be required?

Mob mentality rules, as always.

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago


KCHunter 6 years, 4 months ago

Yes and no, I think.

It is true that, as a result of China's economic reform, we see some people get rich, and the youth are getting more open minded to the western values. However, given the political system that China has, 70 years of communism propagandas, and the mentality of Chinese nationalism, it is hard to say people there will or will not meet up the western expectation, specifically from those so call globalists.

For China to keep up the pace of their economic growth, they have to act very aggressively in search resources, and in improve their arm force to meet global challenges. In fact, recent development in South China Sea and East China Sea are good indication of potential regional conflict seem more likely.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 4 months ago

I wish the LJW would do a better job explaining what the City's rationale is for ticketing peaceful protesters who are on public property. I understand that the city has passed an ordinance that officially closes city parks during the night. However, the City chooses not to enforce a lot of city ordinances like property maintenance ordinances except on a complaint basis. Did someone comlain? This group is seeking to exercise First Amendment Rights so it seems to me that some wide latitude should be granted as long as real laws are not broken. By real laws I mean things like property crimes or crimes against people. Our city claims to be progressive, but doesn't act like it...

George Lippencott 6 years, 4 months ago

All first amendment rights? How about those pesky critters in Topeka?

ThePilgrim 6 years, 4 months ago

Camping in a park in the middle of the night is not about First Amendment rights. And it is not about protesting. I drove by the other night, and I saw people camping in the park. Not a protest. What the heck is the message? True protesting would be truly "occupying". Go camp on the State House in Topeka. Go camp on Koch's grounds in Wichita. Or, if you really want to "occupy Lawrence", disrupt city government, which you say is also in bed with business. Or disrupt business on Mass Street in civil disobedience. Otherwise this is just a campout or a "love in".

Using Rosa Park's name in the same sentence as any of this is a disgrace to her and all the civil disobedience of the '60's.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.