• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Shocking Truth Behind the Crackdown on Occupy

WildCat said:
That is absurd.
Click to expand...

What you find absurd is largely irrelevent.

Over the coming decades we will increasingly see similar situations arising from refugee/migration issues creating such disasters throughout many cities in the US (as well as much of the rest of the world). Though the immediate causes are different, a sudden influx of people into areas requiring increased social and civil services and expenses is a "disaster" by any reasonable interpretation of the term, and in these and future economic conditions, not one that many cities and states can afford.
 
Trakar said:
What you find absurd is largely irrelevent.

Over the coming decades we will increasingly see similar situations arising from refugee/migration issues creating such disasters throughout many cities in the US (as well as much of the rest of the world). Though the immediate causes are different, a sudden influx of people into areas requiring increased social and civil services and expenses is a "disaster" by any reasonable interpretation of the term, and in these and future economic conditions, not one that many cities and states can afford.
Click to expand...
What's absurd is that accomodating protesters is an expense recoverable from the federal government's disaster relief programs.
 
Why are you taking the side of the police? If there is an unjust law, the brave among us can challenge it by breaking it. Hiding behind the law does not absolve you from justifying your beliefs.
At one time, it was against the law for African-Americans and women to vote. The law is not always right.
Click to expand...
The law may not be right, but it is always the duty of the police to uphold the law until it is changed by the government, even a law that they may think is wrong. Can you imagine what would happen if police officers didn't have to uphold laws they felt were unjust?

Furthermore, just breaking the law that you believe to be unjust isn't brave. Breaking the law AND ACCEPTING THAT YOU MAY BE THROWN IN JAIL FOR A WHILE is. I can't cite it, but I know King made that very, very clear in his speeches that just breaking a law you think is bad doesn't mean anything. Heck, thinking it would would validate those Freeman on the Land cranks, among other bad things.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Now, answer my simple question: do you have evidence that OWS is in any way, shape, or form being classified as a terrorist group?
Click to expand...

No. Which is why I asked. I thought it was a possibility, with the involvement of DHS...but if that involvement is completely hearsay, there's no reason to believe it.
 
Kay said:
The law may not be right, but it is always the duty of the police to uphold the law until it is changed by the government, even a law that they may think is wrong. Can you imagine what would happen if police officers didn't have to uphold laws they felt were unjust?
Click to expand...

I don't know what I would do if I were in that situation. Fortunately, I haven't been put in that kind of a moral dilemma. If I were one of those officers, though, I don't see how I could go through it.

Furthermore, just breaking the law that you believe to be unjust isn't brave. Breaking the law AND ACCEPTING THAT YOU MAY BE THROWN IN JAIL FOR A WHILE is. I can't cite it, but I know King made that very, very clear in his speeches that just breaking a law you think is bad doesn't mean anything. Heck, thinking it would would validate those Freeman on the Land cranks, among other bad things.
Click to expand...
So, getting arrested validates the protest?
 
So, getting arrested validates the protest?
Click to expand...
If they're protesting against unjust laws, sure. As far as I'm concerned, they aren't, but that's a different matter from the fact that there's nothing wrong with the police arresting them for breaking the law.
 
Trakar said:
So you are saying that the OWS should only occupy federal property?
Click to expand...

Or DC. Assuming they want anything done about their protests, that would be logical.

None of which is without resolution , merely lacking in funding. most tornados, floods and other disasters are local as well. Truck out porta potties, extra peace officers, clean water and showers, set up a health clinic and file with the federal government for disaster relief.
Click to expand...

Good luck.

Might be more productive for the protestors and the mayors to demand an open meeting with the white house and the leaders of congress. That's a CSPAN moment I'd tune into.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Only problem is that the human microphone might get a little tedious and the "stack" would get rather long.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I don't doubt that OWS is breaking the law. But the law is wrong. We have the right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...
How in the world do you imagine that a city ordinance against camping that was made via the democratic process is unjust and how do you imagine this infringes on the right to peacefully assemble? Here in Portland, 88% of people said they wanted the occupiers kicked out according to an online poll at kgw.com. The Police kicked them out, that's what democracy looks like.
 
000063 said:
I try to contain any remarks about you to things that are actually relevant to the debate, not insinuations about how I don't know about anything outside of the US.

I find it odd that you assume that someone holding views like mine on this forum must be an American, and must hold certain other views. That is an indicator of prejudice and bias.
Click to expand...

You know how sometimes a thought will rumble round the back of your mind for a while, then prod incessantly at the front of it?

The reason I thought you were American had nothing to do with prejudice and bias. Your dictionary of choice was Merriam-Webster and you were happy to spell 'militarisation' with a zee. See?
 
portlandatheist said:
How in the world do you imagine that a city ordinance against camping that was made via the democratic process is unjust and how do you imagine this infringes on the right to peacefully assemble? Here in Portland, 88% of people said they wanted the occupiers kicked out according to an online poll at kgw.com. The Police kicked them out, that's what democracy looks like.
Click to expand...

Which is why the US founding fathers rejected forming the US as a Democracy to avoid the tyranny of the majority and keep them from being able to oppress and vote out the rights and privileges of the minorities.
 
Brainster said:
Or DC. Assuming they want anything done about their protests, that would be logical.

Good luck.

Well, yes. Only problem is that the human microphone might get a little tedious and the "stack" would get rather long.
Click to expand...

That is the nature of politics and the actual job politicians signed up for, I care little if they are inconvenienced by the tedium and endless nature of serving the public they represent.
 
WildCat said:
What's absurd is that accomodating protesters is an expense recoverable from the federal government's disaster relief programs.
Click to expand...

The protest is against federal policies and (in)actions, that accomodating protest expenses should ultimately come from federal coffers seems reasonable to me.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Yes, in the same way that the Civil Rights movement was all about being able to sit in the front of the bus.
Click to expand...
Yes, because buses were segregated as part of institutionalized racial discrimination.

What do rules about camping in public parks have to do with (insert OWS cause du jour here)?
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
The protest is against federal policies and (in)actions, that accomodating protest expenses should ultimately come from federal coffers seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that argument in court.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Maybe it's not an attempt to conceal insider trading. Maybe it's just a good, old-fashioned attempt to silence dissent, and shut down a movement.
Click to expand...

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a good, old-fashioned attempt to please your constituents, who are tired of idiotic hippies destroying their parks.
 
Trakar said:
Which is why the US founding fathers rejected forming the US as a Democracy to avoid the tyranny of the majority and keep them from being able to oppress and vote out the rights and privileges of the minorities.
Click to expand...

We're talking about over night camping in a city park here. The citizens have every right to decide, as a community, to close the parks at night and expect the police to enforce the will and law of the community.
One of the fundamental problems with OWS is they perpetually see themselves as victims suffering from horrible oppression and every turn. They imagine that their right to peacefully assemble is infringed because they can't camp in the parks which is absurd. Their delusions of persecution are so deep that even the folks who cleaned the public bathrooms, took out the trash and provided new toilet paper were harassed to the degree they had to stop going to the park. I guess they were part of the "system" that was oppressing them as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom