• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Owners of Zuccotti Park Say Conditions Unsanitary From Wall Street Protests

iliveonramen said:
Being arrested does not mean being violent. You can be arrested for not having a permit to protest. You can be arrested for walking on the road. It seems like you're making an assumption that all arrests were violent in nature.
Click to expand...
Perhaps your unaware - but are you saying the NYC police are pepper spraying masses of people and arresting them for no reason? Yes there are passive demonstrations, for example people lying in the middle of the road who do not move who are picked up, moved physically and arrested... but I don't see a lot of that going on in the NYC OWS area.

iliveonramen said:
I was also speaking of reactionary movements compared to radical movements. In your statement basically trying to tar the left you threw in Marxists revolutionaries and every brand of radical movement. The opposite of radical movements is reactionary and they are just as violent.
Click to expand...
I don't have to tar them, they're "tarring themselves" so to speak simply with the messages they are bringing forth. One persons "reactionary" is another's "radical" so the subjective use of terminology and language doesn't quite nail it either.
 
TurtleDude said:
the OWS is actually the reactionary movement.
Click to expand...

As I just stated... one persons "reactionary" is another's "revolutionary". Similar to the "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" comparison.
 
Let them eat cake.

These folks CHOSE to come and engage in this form of protest. Personally, I think it's laughable, but hey it's their choice. What infuriates ME is that on the Greenway in Boston, the CITY is providing these people with electricity, garbage disposal, and portable toilets (from what I hear) AT NO COST TO THEM!!!! These people don't even have the proper permits to be there, and the City is providing them with these things at the TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE. Let the riot police come in and clean them out. If they need some backup, I'm sure I could get some of my medieval recreationist friends to put our armor on and come help clear the streets of this refuse.
 
I don't have to tar them, they're "tarring themselves" so to speak simply with the messages they are bringing forth. One persons "reactionary" is another's "radical" so the subjective use of terminology and language doesn't quite nail it either.
Click to expand...

They aren't tarring themselves. Their message is popular. As of now the protests are are more popular in public opinion polls than the Tea Party. Do you have something that points to them "tarring themselves"?

You're the one making a blanket statement that the occupy wall street crowd is violent and apparently have a view that any sort of protest on the left is inherently violent while the right is inherently not violent. So you're more than willing to use language and terminology to make a blanket statement. You just want to fit that terminology and language to fit a view you have not their definitions.

Perhaps your unaware - but are you saying the NYC police are pepper spraying masses of people and arresting them for no reason? Yes there are passive demonstrations, for example people lying in the middle of the road who do not move who are picked up, moved physically and arrested... but I don't see a lot of that going on in the NYC OWS area.
Click to expand...

They arrested them for walking on the street. That's when the majority of arrests took place. You should be able to point out the violence of the movement then. it should be easy if 700 people were arrested for inciting violence.
 
Tigger said:
Let them eat cake.

These folks CHOSE to come and engage in this form of protest. Personally, I think it's laughable, but hey it's their choice. What infuriates ME is that on the Greenway in Boston, the CITY is providing these people with electricity, garbage disposal, and portable toilets (from what I hear) AT NO COST TO THEM!!!! These people don't even have the proper permits to be there, and the City is providing them with these things at the TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE. Let the riot police come in and clean them out. If they need some backup, I'm sure I could get some of my medieval recreationist friends to put our armor on and come help clear the streets of this refuse.
Click to expand...

That's great, you are definately a fan of liberty.
 
Ockham said:
As I just stated... one persons "reactionary" is another's "revolutionary". Similar to the "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" comparison.
Click to expand...

The freedom fighter vs terrorists is not a the same thing. A terrorists uses terror usually against a civilian population to get what they want. A freedom fighter generally targets the military or infrastructure that supports the military. The French resistence in WWII did not target the general population, they targeted rail lines.

I think it's hard to paint the occupy wall street group as reactionary because their whole movment is focused on the status quo, the 1% controlling the wealth.
 
iliveonramen said:
They aren't tarring themselves. Their message is popular. As of now the protests are are more popular in public opinion polls than the Tea Party. Do you have something that points to them "tarring themselves"?
Click to expand...

I've listed in another thread, the 4 different demands of the various people calling themselves OWS.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...t-occupiers-mass-rally-13.html#post1059860264


iliveonramen said:
You're the one making a blanket statement that the occupy wall street crowd is violent and apparently have a view that any sort of protest on the left is inherently violent while the right is inherently not violent. So you're more than willing to use language and terminology to make a blanket statement. You just want to fit that terminology and language to fit a view you have not their definitions.
Click to expand...
I'm stating that, when comparing the OWS to the Tea Party rallies of the past, the OWS are more violent (not I did NOT say they are all violent). I have also stated multiple times that OWS needs to focus their message and make it coherent and organized if they are to be taken seriously.

iliveonramen said:
They arrested them for walking on the street. That's when the majority of arrests took place. You should be able to point out the violence of the movement then. it should be easy if 700 people were arrested for inciting violence.
Click to expand...
I see, so you're claiming the arrests were bogus, and were simply for "walking on the street". Can you provide evidence of these bogus arrests and use of pepper spray? And can I assume that there will be legal suits brought against the NYC Police Department because of them?
 
iliveonramen said:
The freedom fighter vs terrorists is not a the same thing. A terrorists uses terror usually against a civilian population to get what they want. A freedom fighter generally targets the military or infrastructure that supports the military. The French resistence in WWII did not target the general population, they targeted rail lines.
Click to expand...
You missed the meaning ... "one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist". It means different people have different views of the same action. I'm hoping I don't have to explain this concept.

iliveonramen said:
I think it's hard to paint the occupy wall street group as reactionary because their whole movment is focused on the status quo, the 1% controlling the wealth.
Click to expand...
I agree, it would be hard to paint the occupy wall street group as reactionary.
 
I see, so you're claiming the arrests were bogus, and were simply for "walking on the street". Can you provide evidence of these bogus arrests and use of pepper spray? And can I assume that there will be legal suits brought against the NYC Police Department because of them?
Click to expand...
Hundreds of 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters arrested - Oct. 2, 2011
"Over 700 summonses and desk appearance tickets have been issued in connection with the demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge ... after multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the pedestrian walkway," said Paul J. Browne, deputy commissioner for the New York City Police Department.

Browne said authorities had warned protesters they would be arrested if they occupied the roadway.

"Some complied and took the walkway without being arrested," he said.

I'm stating that, when comparing the OWS to the Tea Party rallies of the past, the OWS are more violent (not I did NOT say they are all violent). I have also stated multiple times that OWS needs to focus their message and make it coherent and organized if they are to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that statement. Maybe not the specific goals part. The whole point is anger at inequality and anger at our corporate/financial powers that be that have bought Washington and profited greatly while Americans have been suffering in the current economy.

I've listed in another thread, the 4 different demands of the various people calling themselves OWS.

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally')
Click to expand...

Of course it's new still. It takes time to come up with an actual list of goals.
 
A question for Ramen.....Do you believe that this country should, or needs to abolish our current form of government?

j-mac
 
iliveonramen said:
The freedom fighter vs terrorists is not a the same thing. A terrorists uses terror usually against a civilian population to get what they want. A freedom fighter generally targets the military or infrastructure that supports the military. The French resistence in WWII did not target the general population, they targeted rail lines.

I think it's hard to paint the occupy wall street group as reactionary because their whole movment is focused on the status quo, the 1% controlling the wealth.
Click to expand...

taxing the rich more and whining about corporations is reactionary. It has its roots in those who whined about "Papist immigrants" and Jewish "bankers" more than a century ago.

its losers blaming their failures on idiotic conspiracy theories perpetrated by the winners
 
You missed the meaning ... "one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist". It means different people have different views of the same action. I'm hoping I don't have to explain this concept.
Click to expand...

I agree...I understand completely. My point the mis-use of the terms is wrong and is used to paint some side with a word that can have a positive connotation or negative connotation is just propaganda. Which is exactly what's happening now, you can't watch a conservative politician or pundit that doesn't seem to call the wall street protests a "mob" in order to target them by associating them with a "mob" rather than a protest.

In Iraq, there were groups that were strictly insurgents...people that targeted military personel overseas. Now freedom fighter is really nothing than a resistence to occupation and the US government and Iraq government actually worked with these groups to bring them in to the decision making process. They were not terrorists and naming them so would be incorrect. Al Qaeda in Iraq were bombing civilian populations in Iraq and using terror as a means for political change. They are terrorists.
 
A terrorist, just as the name implies, is someone or some group that uses actions intended to strike fear and terror into it's intended target, in order to accomplish it's usually political or religious goals. A freedom fighter can be a terrorist, and a terrorist can be a freedom fighter, but the two are not the same.
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree...I understand completely. My point the mis-use of the terms is wrong and is used to paint some side with a word that can have a positive connotation or negative connotation is just propaganda. Which is exactly what's happening now, you can't watch a conservative politician or pundit that doesn't seem to call the wall street protests a "mob" in order to target them by associating them with a "mob" rather than a protest.
Click to expand...
That's just the way partisan politics and media works. The same was true of the Tea Party being called racist 10 ways to Sunday by Congressional Democrats, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Media, the Liberal pundits, etc. I think this group knows that, but they cannot counter it.... and what I meant by they are taring and feathering themselves is, that there are many signs and people who fall right into the criticisms and gladly do - which does not help their cause but detracts from it. The majority of America's middle class, lower middle class and upper middle class politically and ideologically do not resonate with the message in NYC by the OWS crowd While this may be garnering media coverage and comment by politicians, it's not yet focused or tempered for the main stream masses. The OWS groups are appealing to others who share their various and differing philosophy's.

iliveonramen said:
In Iraq, there were groups that were strictly insurgents...people that targeted military personel overseas. Now freedom fighter is really nothing than a resistence to occupation and the US government and Iraq government actually worked with these groups to bring them in to the decision making process. They were not terrorists and naming them so would be incorrect. Al Qaeda in Iraq were bombing civilian populations in Iraq and using terror as a means for political change. They are terrorists.
Click to expand...
According to you. Others may see an insurgent as nothing more than a terrorist. Iraqi's may have the opinion that what American's called "insurgents" were actually "freedom fighters". I understand your view and opinion - but do not think for a moment that there is consensus as to the definitions - there are not. As was pointed out by others in various different threads, George Washington was seen by Britain as a radical and treasonous. To the American's he was fighting for, he was fighting for independence and liberty for a new country.... you see the differences I expect.
 
j-mac said:
The face of OWS...



j-mac
Click to expand...


Yeah, that certainly doesn't help their cause --- especially when a dumbass like this knows he's being recorded. *facepalm*
 
A question for Ramen.....Do you believe that this country should, or needs to abolish our current form of government?
Click to expand...

Of course not, what would it be replaced by? If anything I would like major reforms, I think a lot of Americans are upset with the two party system and would like a more multiparty system but no, I would never want to get rid of Democracy, I don't care how much I agree with a message (say equality for example).
 
I disagree j-mac, posting a video of one individual and trying to pretend that represents the whole movement is no different than saying the Tea partier that spit on the black Democratic Congressman and called him a ni--- represents the whole Tea Party.
 
iliveonramen said:
I disagree j-mac, posting a video of one individual and trying to pretend that represents the whole movement is no different than saying the Tea partier that spit on the black Democratic Congressman and called him a ni--- represents the whole Tea Party.
Click to expand...

It's not representative (at least not that I'm aware of) but it also doesn't help. I don't think anyone is saying this idiot depicted is indicative of the OWS group or that the OWS majority holds such anti-semitic views. It just goes to show that where there are masses of people, the whack-o's are inevitably included.
 
Ockham said:
That's just the way partisan politics and media works. The same was true of the Tea Party being called racist 10 ways to Sunday by Congressional Democrats, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Media, the Liberal pundits, etc. I think this group knows that, but they cannot counter it.... and what I meant by they are taring and feathering themselves is, that there are many signs and people who fall right into the criticisms and gladly do - which does not help their cause but detracts from it. The majority of America's middle class, lower middle class and upper middle class politically and ideologically do not resonate with the message in NYC by the OWS crowd While this may be garnering media coverage and comment by politicians, it's not yet focused or tempered for the main stream masses. The OWS groups are appealing to others who share their various and differing philosophy's.
Click to expand...

rasmussen reports said:
Americans are divided on the protestors themselves. Thirty-three percent (33%) have a favorable opinion, 27% hold an unfavorable view, and a plurality of 40% have no opinion one way or the other. Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats have a favorable opinion while a plurality of Republicans (43%) say the opposite. Among those not affiliated with either major party, a solid plurality (45%) have no opinion. Most unaffiliateds are not following the story.
Click to expand...

The only polling I have seen so far is from Rasmussen, and right now the OWS guys are about as popular as the Tea Party people. This intuitively makes sense to me since both groups represent the extremes of the liberals or conservatives and the us is a pretty centrist country, going slightly right in terms of economic policy and slightly left in terms of social policy.

I expect though, in terms of popularity, the OWS guys will grow in popularity as more people become interested in the story and then popularity will plummet, following the same trend as the tea party does. This is because our population likes new and shiny things and then are less in awe as they learn sordid details.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
Hundreds of 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters arrested - Oct. 2, 2011
"Over 700 summonses and desk appearance tickets have been issued in connection with the demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge ... after multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the pedestrian walkway," said Paul J. Browne, deputy commissioner for the New York City Police Department.

Browne said authorities had warned protesters they would be arrested if they occupied the roadway.

"Some complied and took the walkway without being arrested," he said.


I would agree with that statement. Maybe not the specific goals part. The whole point is anger at inequality and anger at our corporate/financial powers that be that have bought Washington and profited greatly while Americans have been suffering in the current economy.



Of course it's new still. It takes time to come up with an actual list of goals.
Click to expand...

I'll axiously wait for them to come up with something beside more slogans exaggerated dramatizations. The so-called 99% movement is just another example of their lack of substance.
 
jambalaya said:
I'll axiously wait for them to come up with something beside more slogans exaggerated dramatizations. The so-called 99% movement is just another example of their lack of substance.
Click to expand...

I'm part of their alleged 99% and I'm not resonating with anything I've seen so far with the exception of the bail outs being a bad move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom