No one is identifying with what this has become now. I think at first, yes people could see why this started. But now, it seems like a disgusting rotting pit of people having sex, doing drugs, and sleeping in their own shit. No one wants to identify with that.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:
“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”
Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]
Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.[/quote]
And what are these people accomplishing?
They’re occupying public parks and preventing the citizens around there who pay for those parks with their tax dollars from using said parks (some people in Oakland are even now talking about occupying the public library, yeah, that helps their fellow citizens).
They’re knowingly breaking laws and then calling foul when the police enforce said law. If you want things to remain peaceful, follow the law. If you you want a revolt, than fucking revolt and have some balls about it, don’t throw a bottle and resist police, than get online and cry about police brutality.
At least the Tea Party got people elected into office, just unfortunately not enough. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s accomplishing something. And it was done without breaking any laws and while being peaceful (and not claiming to be peaceful while holding signs saying ‘Kill the Rich!’)[/quote]
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the park etc etc. The Tea Party has done nothing since being co-opted by the mainstream Republicans. Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well worth pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist signs defined the tea party? [/quote]
How do you know that police killed that guy ?
Occupy Oakland protestors were throwing all sorts of stuff at cops, it would not be crazy to suggest that he got hit with something from one of his own cohorts.
Unless there is conclusive proof as to who and what killed that guy, I think it would be foolish to guess as to who did it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
No one is identifying with what this has become now. I think at first, yes people could see why this started. But now, it seems like a disgusting rotting pit of people having sex, doing drugs, and sleeping in their own shit. No one wants to identify with that. [/quote]
Eh sounds like the sixties when the protests were really rough. Just need the police to do a little Kent State and maybe you can get some groups to ratchet up the violence on the protesters side for you.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:
“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”
Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]
Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.[/quote]
And what are these people accomplishing?
They’re occupying public parks and preventing the citizens around there who pay for those parks with their tax dollars from using said parks (some people in Oakland are even now talking about occupying the public library, yeah, that helps their fellow citizens).
They’re knowingly breaking laws and then calling foul when the police enforce said law. If you want things to remain peaceful, follow the law. If you you want a revolt, than fucking revolt and have some balls about it, don’t throw a bottle and resist police, than get online and cry about police brutality.
At least the Tea Party got people elected into office, just unfortunately not enough. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s accomplishing something. And it was done without breaking any laws and while being peaceful (and not claiming to be peaceful while holding signs saying ‘Kill the Rich!’)[/quote]
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the park etc etc. The Tea Party has done nothing since being co-opted by the mainstream Republicans. Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well worth pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist signs defined the tea party? [/quote]
How do you know that police killed that guy ?
Occupy Oakland protestors were throwing all sorts of stuff at cops, it would not be crazy to suggest that he got hit with something from one of his own cohorts.
Unless there is conclusive proof as to who and what killed that guy, I think it would be foolish to guess as to who did it. [/quote]
Even if we call the initial wound self inflicted by his inability to not follow the law, the cop tossing the flash bang into the group going to help him maybe was a bit overzealous no?
[quote]groo wrote:
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy [/quote]
What guy are you talking about? I’ve been following this all day and this is the first I’ve heard of anyone being killed.
[quote]groo wrote:
which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the park etc etc. [/quote]
The park has posted hours. They police routinely make people leave parks after hours. Especially in crime and drug infested areas like Oakland. Just the fact that they’ve allowed them to stay there this long should make them happy.
[quote]groo wrote:
Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. [/quote]
Of course everybody breaks law everyday, but when you get caught breaking the law you get punished. And if you fight the cops while being punished, they will use force. The occupiers were breaking laws. Those laws were finally being enforced. The occupiers attacked the cops. The cops reacted. That’s it.
[quote]groo wrote:
I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well worth pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. [/quote]
Of course, but you still have to follow the law. And if you break said law, you deal with the consequences.
[quote]groo wrote:
Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist signs defined the tea party? [/quote]
No, and if the kill the rich signs were as rare as the racists signs, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But from what I’ve seen, even with the extremely biased coverage in favor of the occupiers, it’s not a rare message.
[quote]groo wrote:
Even if we call the initial wound self inflicted by his inability to not follow the law, the cop tossing the flash bang into the group going to help him maybe was a bit overzealous no?[/quote]
Tear gas canister, not flash bang.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy [/quote]
What guy are you talking about? I’ve been following this all day and this is the first I’ve heard of anyone being killed.
[quote]groo wrote:
which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the park etc etc. [/quote]
The park has posted hours. They police routinely make people leave parks after hours. Especially in crime and drug infested areas like Oakland. Just the fact that they’ve allowed them to stay there this long should make them happy.
[quote]groo wrote:
Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. [/quote]
Of course everybody breaks law everyday, but when you get caught breaking the law you get punished. And if you fight the cops while being punished, they will use force. The occupiers were breaking laws. Those laws were finally being enforced. The occupiers attacked the cops. The cops reacted. That’s it.
[quote]groo wrote:
I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well worth pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. [/quote]
Of course, but you still have to follow the law. And if you break said law, you deal with the consequences.
[quote]groo wrote:
Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist signs defined the tea party? [/quote]
No, and if the kill the rich signs were as rare as the racists signs, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But from what I’ve seen, even with the extremely biased coverage in favor of the occupiers, it’s not a rare message.[/quote]
The video I posted is showing an Iraqi war vet that is in critical condition, likely from a flash bang.
And we all know the Oakland cops have a history of this shit. They lost 2 million in 2003 from similar shit against antiwar protests.
And I’d argue you are obligated to break unjust or unconstitutional laws not follow them. And certainly there will be consequences. And one of the consequences of making a martyr may be to strengthen the protester’s resolve.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Even if we call the initial wound self inflicted by his inability to not follow the law, the cop tossing the flash bang into the group going to help him maybe was a bit overzealous no?[/quote]
Tear gas canister, not flash bang.[/quote]
Looked more like a flash bang to me, but indeed seems a minor nit to pick since either exploding on you can hurt you severely or even kill.
[quote]groo wrote:
The video I posted is showing an Iraqi war vet that is in critical condition, likely from a flash bang.
And we all know the Oakland cops have a history of this shit. They lost 2 million in 2003 from similar shit against antiwar protests.
And I’d argue you are obligated to break unjust or unconstitutional laws not follow them. And certainly there will be consequences. And one of the consequences of making a martyr may be to strengthen the protester’s resolve.[/quote]
Exactly, critical condition, not killed.
And we all know that Oakland protests have a history of becoming violent. I’d rather see the cops break it up early with tear gas than wait til the anarchists come and group mentality starts a riot that destroys local businesses and private property and then have to break it up then afterafter damage is done.
And, like I said, if you want to break a law you feel in unjust, than break it. But don’t then go and cry about police brutality. They knew what would happen. They wanted it to happen. That’s why they went back tonight and tore down the fence. They want to cause problems. And that’s fine, but don’t go crying about police brutality when you throw bottles and rocks and feces at police.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
The video I posted is showing an Iraqi war vet that is in critical condition, likely from a flash bang.
And we all know the Oakland cops have a history of this shit. They lost 2 million in 2003 from similar shit against antiwar protests.
And I’d argue you are obligated to break unjust or unconstitutional laws not follow them. And certainly there will be consequences. And one of the consequences of making a martyr may be to strengthen the protester’s resolve.[/quote]
Exactly, critical condition, not killed.
And we all know that Oakland protests have a history of becoming violent. I’d rather see the cops break it up early with tear gas than wait til the anarchists come and group mentality starts a riot that destroys local businesses and private property and then have to break it up then afterafter damage is done.
And, like I said, if you want to break a law you feel in unjust, than break it. But don’t then go and cry about police brutality. They knew what would happen. They wanted it to happen. That’s why they went back tonight and tore down the fence. They want to cause problems. And that’s fine, but don’t go crying about police brutality when you throw bottles and rocks and feces at police.[/quote]
I’d say this will have the opposite effect of ending the protest early. Of course the protesters wanted this to happen. And of course they get to call police brutality. And of course a lot of them will win eventual lawsuits. But more than that a lot of people will see the police shooting flash bangs and tear gas into the crowd and think that sure seems a disproportionate response to a relatively peaceful assembly. I know you keep alleging bottles rocks and feces, but even if we grant that I am not so peaceful as the protesters and if someone opened up on me for standing in the park I’d likely not just throw a few rocks. The government in Oakland chose to escalate and hopefully they’ll reap what they sow.
Take Irvine as the other option. Seems to be working out a bit better there.
[quote]groo wrote:
I know you keep alleging bottles rocks and feces, but even if we grant that I am not so peaceful as the protesters and if someone opened up on me for standing in the park I’d likely not just throw a few rocks. The government in Oakland chose to escalate and hopefully they’ll reap what they sow.[/quote]
I don’t keep alleging bottles, and rocks, and feces, it’s in the news. And not only are police saying it, protesters have admitted to seeing those things thrown. I just saw a guy on the evening news not long ago telling the camera that he saw people throwing bottles before the police used non-lethal methods.
They weren’t just peacefully standing in the park. They had been ordered to disperse. When they refused, the police went in to disperse them. Protesters attacked police. Police used beanbags and tear gas. But you’re right, unreasonable. The police should wait til those bottles have gas and a flaming rag before they get to defend themselves…silly me.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
No one is identifying with what this has become now. I think at first, yes people could see why this started. But now, it seems like a disgusting rotting pit of people having sex, doing drugs, and sleeping in their own shit. No one wants to identify with that. [/quote]
Eh sounds like the sixties when the protests were really rough. Just need the police to do a little Kent State and maybe you can get some groups to ratchet up the violence on the protesters side for you.[/quote]
Do you honestly think anyone looks at these people with any degree of seriousness ? Do you think politicians care ? Obama has taken more campaign money from Wall Street than any other president in history, but your beloved unwashed protestors seemed to miss that.
If you knew half the shit I have seen, you would know not to fuck with cops. Keep fucking around like this Groo, it’s going to ugly for your people, and the law will not be on your side. Wall Street will move forward as usual, so will Obama, so will everyone else. But your pot smoking yoga master protesting in the street is gonna have a hard time doing downward dog with a baton stuck in his ass.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
The video I posted is showing an Iraqi war vet that is in critical condition, likely from a flash bang.
And we all know the Oakland cops have a history of this shit. They lost 2 million in 2003 from similar shit against antiwar protests.
And I’d argue you are obligated to break unjust or unconstitutional laws not follow them. And certainly there will be consequences. And one of the consequences of making a martyr may be to strengthen the protester’s resolve.[/quote]
Exactly, critical condition, not killed.
And we all know that Oakland protests have a history of becoming violent. I’d rather see the cops break it up early with tear gas than wait til the anarchists come and group mentality starts a riot that destroys local businesses and private property and then have to break it up then afterafter damage is done.
And, like I said, if you want to break a law you feel in unjust, than break it. But don’t then go and cry about police brutality. They knew what would happen. They wanted it to happen. That’s why they went back tonight and tore down the fence. They want to cause problems. And that’s fine, but don’t go crying about police brutality when you throw bottles and rocks and feces at police.[/quote]
I’d say this will have the opposite effect of ending the protest early. Of course the protesters wanted this to happen. And of course they get to call police brutality. And of course a lot of them will win eventual lawsuits. But more than that a lot of people will see the police shooting flash bangs and tear gas into the crowd and think that sure seems a disproportionate response to a relatively peaceful assembly. I know you keep alleging bottles rocks and feces, but even if we grant that I am not so peaceful as the protesters and if someone opened up on me for standing in the park I’d likely not just throw a few rocks. The government in Oakland chose to escalate and hopefully they’ll reap what they sow.
Take Irvine as the other option. Seems to be working out a bit better there.[/quote]
Not a single lawsuit will win, I will call this out right now. They were warned to disperse, they were given warnings by the mayor, they stayed anyway. Too bad, buy some Motrin and grab an icepack.
Irvine ? LOL you fucking kidding me ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.
The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.
Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.[/quote]
Nailed it.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
A comment from the Occupy Oakland website:
“Did you see ?TEA PARTY? rallies getting tear-gassed? Did the ?TEA PARTY? get evicted from their ?protests?? Because the ?Tea Party? represents the top 1%, it was allowed to continue unimpeded. But the second a liberal-minded cause starts to gather public support, the full force of the police, dogs of the 1%, is brought out upon them. This is a clear, indefensible violation of our 1st amendment right to public protest.”
Is it because we represent the 1% or is it because we got permits, didn’t campout in parks that had curfews, and never threw bottles and feces at police? Hmmm, such a difficult question…[/quote]
Seems a bit of a worthless protest if you submit to all government regulation if you are protesting said government. Reminds me a lot of some of the guys Patrick Henry looked upon with scorn.[/quote]
And what are these people accomplishing?
They’re occupying public parks and preventing the citizens around there who pay for those parks with their tax dollars from using said parks (some people in Oakland are even now talking about occupying the public library, yeah, that helps their fellow citizens).
They’re knowingly breaking laws and then calling foul when the police enforce said law. If you want things to remain peaceful, follow the law. If you you want a revolt, than fucking revolt and have some balls about it, don’t throw a bottle and resist police, than get online and cry about police brutality.
At least the Tea Party got people elected into office, just unfortunately not enough. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s accomplishing something. And it was done without breaking any laws and while being peaceful (and not claiming to be peaceful while holding signs saying ‘Kill the Rich!’)[/quote]
Well likely it was the police that killed that guy which seems a little harsh for exercising the constitutional right to free assembly…not the right to assemble when the government sees fit or issues a permit or doesn’t need to clean the park etc etc. The Tea Party has done nothing since being co-opted by the mainstream Republicans. Everyone knowingly breaks laws everyday so that hardly seems reasonable to kill some guy over especially if that law might be constitutionally protected. I think some of their goals are stupid as hell, some not so bad and some well worth pursuing, but I’d never say they shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Does the guy with the “Kill the Rich” sign define the movement in the same way the rascist signs defined the tea party? [/quote]
How do you know that police killed that guy ?
Occupy Oakland protestors were throwing all sorts of stuff at cops, it would not be crazy to suggest that he got hit with something from one of his own cohorts.
Unless there is conclusive proof as to who and what killed that guy, I think it would be foolish to guess as to who did it. [/quote]
Even if we call the initial wound self inflicted by his inability to not follow the law, the cop tossing the flash bang into the group going to help him maybe was a bit overzealous no?[/quote]
Nope, not overzealous. They told you to leave, you didn’t listen. Too bad, be wiser next time, and it’s perfectly legal.
Bunch of fucking Human Debris if you ask me. Lazy bastards that just want more and more. I’ll bet none of the feces flock of hippies paid a cent in federal income taxes last year.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
The video I posted is showing an Iraqi war vet that is in critical condition, likely from a flash bang.
And we all know the Oakland cops have a history of this shit. They lost 2 million in 2003 from similar shit against antiwar protests.
And I’d argue you are obligated to break unjust or unconstitutional laws not follow them. And certainly there will be consequences. And one of the consequences of making a martyr may be to strengthen the protester’s resolve.[/quote]
Exactly, critical condition, not killed.
And we all know that Oakland protests have a history of becoming violent. I’d rather see the cops break it up early with tear gas than wait til the anarchists come and group mentality starts a riot that destroys local businesses and private property and then have to break it up then afterafter damage is done.
And, like I said, if you want to break a law you feel in unjust, than break it. But don’t then go and cry about police brutality. They knew what would happen. They wanted it to happen. That’s why they went back tonight and tore down the fence. They want to cause problems. And that’s fine, but don’t go crying about police brutality when you throw bottles and rocks and feces at police.[/quote]
I’d say this will have the opposite effect of ending the protest early. Of course the protesters wanted this to happen. And of course they get to call police brutality. And of course a lot of them will win eventual lawsuits. But more than that a lot of people will see the police shooting flash bangs and tear gas into the crowd and think that sure seems a disproportionate response to a relatively peaceful assembly. I know you keep alleging bottles rocks and feces, but even if we grant that I am not so peaceful as the protesters and if someone opened up on me for standing in the park I’d likely not just throw a few rocks. The government in Oakland chose to escalate and hopefully they’ll reap what they sow.
Take Irvine as the other option. Seems to be working out a bit better there.[/quote]
Not a single lawsuit will win, I will call this out right now. They were warned to disperse, they were given warnings by the mayor, they stayed anyway. Too bad, buy some Motrin and grab an icepack.
Irvine ? LOL you fucking kidding me ?[/quote]
I wish we could make a wager on this. Be pretty open and shut Oakland will settle cases. They have a recent history of using excessive force against protesters and lost the case.
Yah Irvine where they issued provisional permits to the protesters instead of using a police prescence to escalate.
They aren’t my hippies at all to be honest. If I were to be part of an anti government movement it would never be non violent. Its completely clear all politicians from each party are bought and sold every day and protests will get nowhere. And that the media is a lock for helping the chosen candidates rise.
Really I know people that are pro establishment will never be convinced until forced to by circumstance, but I’d say you should consider exactly what you think the police’s purpose is. And how far the argument that they were just following the mayor’s orders should go. And that in an attempt to restore public safety they put a chunk of the public at risk. Perhaps a confused surly unwashed bit of the public, but a bit of the public nonetheless.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Bunch of fucking Human Debris if you ask me. Lazy bastards that just want more and more. I’ll bet none of the feces flock of hippies paid a cent in federal income taxes last year.[/quote]
They assuredly paid more income tax than the top .1 percent of Americans who paid none since you know they don’t draw income through payroll. They want more and more too since the capital gains tax is at a lower rate than all the marginal income tax rates and yet they’d like that to go away entirely in maniac bits of policy like Cain’s 7,7,7.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Bunch of fucking Human Debris if you ask me. Lazy bastards that just want more and more. I’ll bet none of the feces flock of hippies paid a cent in federal income taxes last year.[/quote]
They assuredly paid more income tax than the top .1 percent of Americans who paid none since you know they don’t draw income through payroll. They want more and more too since the capital gains tax is at a lower rate than all the marginal income tax rates and yet they’d like that to go away entirely in maniac bits of policy like Cain’s 9,9,9.[/quote]
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Bunch of fucking Human Debris if you ask me. Lazy bastards that just want more and more. I’ll bet none of the feces flock of hippies paid a cent in federal income taxes last year.[/quote]
They assuredly paid more income tax than the top .1 percent of Americans who paid none since you know they don’t draw income through payroll. They want more and more too since the capital gains tax is at a lower rate than all the marginal income tax rates and yet they’d like that to go away entirely in maniac bits of policy like Cain’s 7,7,7.[/quote]
So then your problem is that the rich (who pay more than half the taxes) are using the existing tax code to their advantage ? Sounds smart to me. Maybe these smelly Occupy people should go protest at the WH, where that tax code is written and lobbied ? Makes more sense to me.