• 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!

Injured Iraq veteran is face of Occupy movement

Unbelievable. Who owns public land? The government?

Or... wait for it... the public? :thinking

precisely. us, the public. if you want to use our land, you need to take that up with our authorized agent - the government :).
 
Okay, let's get this on record then: the public an individual group has no right to public land... or at the very best, a limited right, as determined by the government the sovereign people via their representatives. Correct?

that is correct. :)
 
Yes, after the police invaded the original encampment, violently throwing the protesters out, critically hospitalizing at least one, the protesters came back to re-take the park. Does not one (police) invasion beget another?

no. because one is legal, and the other is not. having been legally evicted from the park, the protestors should have taken the same steps that everyone else has to take to use the publics' land for protest.

mind you, that's not exactly something that naturally occurs to these people - that they have any kind of personal responsibility, or should have to actually go to any effort to get what they want. So i understand the mentality that fed their decision - I just can't condone its' allowance.
 
ah. so you stand with racist neo-nazis, then.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, I said I stand with the statement on the injured Iraq Vet by The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA):

"IAVA is the country's first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 200,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide.

We are a 21st Century veterans’ organization dedicated to standing with the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan from their first day home through the rest of their lives. We strive to build an empowered generation of veterans who provide sustainable leadership for our country and their communities."

"Who is an IAVA member veteran?

IAVA’s average member veteran is:

* Male - 88.7%
* 26-30 Years old - 33.1%
* Veteran of the Iraq War - 68.4%
* Served in the Army - 67.6%
* Student - 36.8% or has a Civilian job - 35.5%
* Married with children - 40.4%
* Owns their own home - 44.6%
* Politically independent - 35.2%"

IAVA - IAVA Mission and History | Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
 
then I would suggest you go there, as your opinion is incorrect. If someone had thrown a bottle, rock, and small explosives at me when I was in Iraq, they would have been killed. If you run up to a patrol today with something unidentifiable in your hand and move to throw it at them, they will all turn en masse and ventilate you.

furthermore, some smoke grenades pop off - and the signature of that "explosion" is much smaller than you would get from a flashbang. I notice the distinct lack of people incapacitated. My bet would be you got the right angle of the top of a smoke grenade, or one of the idiot protestors dropped or poorly threw their firecracker.



fascinating. considering they were using non-lethal force in response to what technically falls under the definition of a deadly threat triggering the 7 Justifications of Deadly Force, I would be interested in hearing what you think the nicer kinder gentler reaction (vice tear gas) to being charged by a crowd hurling explosives (because that is what firecrackers are) would be. Rubber bullets and tear gas hurt - but mallets to the skull hurt much worse.



that's funny. I was kind of thinking the same thing about the criminals who were attacking them.



this guy doesn't put anything on a higher plateau any more than all the vets in the Tea Party put that movement on a higher plateau. If you want to get into a "who do the vets support" chest-thumper, the OWS crowd will lose that in a landslide.

The part, which I have bolded, is complete BS, and nothing but Republican talking points, otherwise known as lies. Here is the actual video, where you can see that no rocks or bottles were thrown by any demonstrators, but that plenty of cannisters were thrown directly AT THE DEMONSTRATORS by the cops. This was a completely unprovoked attack against the demonstrators. In the video, you will see tear gas cannisters thrown directly at those who attempted to provide medical aid to the wounded vet, who had been hit in the face by a cannister. There was clearly no regard for human life here.

Cops should be rotting in prison for this.

 
Last edited:
The part, which I have bolded, is complete BS, and nothing but Republican talking points, otherwise known as lies. Here is the actual video, where you can see that no rocks or bottles were thrown by any demonstrators, but that plenty of cannisters were thrown directly AT THE DEMONSTRATORS by the cops. This was a completely unprovoked attack against the demonstrators. In the video, you will see tear gas cannisters thrown directly at those who attempted to provide medical aid to the wounded vet, who had been hit in the face by a cannister. There was clearly no regard for human life here.

Cops should be rotting in prison for this.

I especially like the sign held up at the 30 second mark...the revolutionary communist party...THIS is what we are fighting for. But...thats neither here nor there...

This video is yet another that has a few very conveeeeenient gaps. How do we go from the former sailor and former marine standing by the back barricade then suddenly to the front? What transpired during that time? When the video began the police can be heard very lcearly telling them to disperse or tear gas would be used. Instead of 'dispersing' they moved forward. What did they THINK was going to be the result? Precisely what WAS the result. Sucks when you get what you want, doesnt it?

Next time someone posts 'proof' that there was no precipitating incident it would sure be nice if they stopped offering edited videos.
 
Yes, after the police invaded the original encampment, violently throwing the protesters out, critically hospitalizing at least one, the protesters came back to re-take the park. Does not one (police) invasion beget another?

Would not John Rambo say (of the police): "They drew first blood!"

Would not the audience nod approvingly?

Dont respond if you don't know the timeline.

The guy hospitalized was injured during the attempt to RE-TAKE the park from authorities.........
 
I must have missed where the protesters were cutting down trees for firewood. Got a link?

Its the same ideology expressed by those who think they have the right to live on public land......

Do try to keep up.
 
They're not camping out as you would in a national park. What a disingenuous remark.

They're camping out in protest. Would it make a difference if they were there in person instead of in tents overnight? It doesn't seem like it. Other cities with non-camping protests are still getting jackbooted by police. Chicago, Oakland... what next?

The protests are being closed down due to permit violations, but what sickens me the most is that apologists such as yourself will defend the brutal actions of police that are in turn a result of the unconstitutional permit system. You don't need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights, yet most major cities in America now have permit requirements for protesting, which in turn direct protesters to go to "special protest zones" where they will have the least amount of obstruction. Do you realize the permit system is new, as of the 1970's when protesting stopped the Vietnam war?

The point of protest is to obstruct and spread awareness. The action of police and city hall are unconstitutional. I wish people would see this for what it is already. Police are committing acts of violence against the innocent, and you sit here berating the protesters.

There is no hope for America when Americans deride one another for exercising their civil obligation to protest and keep the powers in check.

Disgusting.

I have yet to see any "police violence" as a result of a lack of protest permits.

Im not saying they don't exist, I haven't read any stories related to this...

Care to provide some insight into this?
 
The part, which I have bolded, is complete BS, and nothing but Republican talking points, otherwise known as lies. Here is the actual video, where you can see that no rocks or bottles were thrown by any demonstrators, but that plenty of cannisters were thrown directly AT THE DEMONSTRATORS by the cops. This was a completely unprovoked attack against the demonstrators. In the video, you will see tear gas cannisters thrown directly at those who attempted to provide medical aid to the wounded vet, who had been hit in the face by a cannister. There was clearly no regard for human life here.

Cops should be rotting in prison for this.



So, are you calling the protester who reluctantly admitted to that one popular MSNBC anchor (whose name escapes me at the moment) that the protesters did in fact throw rocks bottles and such at police before they commenced to use riot control techniques on them a liar?

She was present... you are watching a short video that does not encompass the entirety of the scenario.
 
They're not camping out as you would in a national park. What a disingenuous remark.

They're camping out in protest. Would it make a difference if they were there in person instead of in tents overnight? It doesn't seem like it. Other cities with non-camping protests are still getting jackbooted by police. Chicago, Oakland... what next?

The protests are being closed down due to permit violations, but what sickens me the most is that apologists such as yourself will defend the brutal actions of police that are in turn a result of the unconstitutional permit system. You don't need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights, yet most major cities in America now have permit requirements for protesting, which in turn direct protesters to go to "special protest zones" where they will have the least amount of obstruction. Do you realize the permit system is new, as of the 1970's when protesting stopped the Vietnam war?

The point of protest is to obstruct and spread awareness. The action of police and city hall are unconstitutional. I wish people would see this for what it is already. Police are committing acts of violence against the innocent, and you sit here berating the protesters.

There is no hope for America when Americans deride one another for exercising their civil obligation to protest and keep the powers in check.

Disgusting.


Fine. You want protesters to be able to disrupt normal business and obstruct roads? And police to do nothing about it?

Okay. But don't expect the police to intervene when I, as a private citizen, find my right of way obstructed by protesters and start my OWN protest by whuppin' the **** out of six or eight of 'em.
 
precisely. i find it interesting that the same protestors that want the cops to come protect them from the criminal elements attracted to them are now all upset that they are there. The cops are there for everyones' protection - but our big government anarchists (i know, i know, but you have to remember that it's not like they are internally coherent) seem to take that for granted.... as they do everything else.
 
I just watched the video DANA posted again..

The creator of the video flawed..

They pointed out "Notice the canister flying through the air" Yet they failed to make the distinction that the canister they pointed out was traveling BACK to the police, because the stupid protesters picked it up and threw it back.

You can see that in another video posted in another Oakland thread I must go dig up
 
They pointed out "Notice the canister flying through the air" Yet they failed to make the distinction that the canister they pointed out was traveling BACK to the police, because the stupid protesters picked it up and threw it back.

Or it was fired from the other side, but regardless this is proper procedure when a tear gas canister is thrown/shot at you.
 
I just watched the video DANA posted again..

The creator of the video flawed..

They pointed out "Notice the canister flying through the air" Yet they failed to make the distinction that the canister they pointed out was traveling BACK to the police, because the stupid protesters picked it up and threw it back.

You can see that in another video posted in another Oakland thread I must go dig up

Either you are hallucinating, or you are just making it up as you go along.

To everybody: Watch the video, and note what happens at the 1:45 mark. The cannister is clearly coming from the police, and explodes right in the midst of those who were attempting to provide medical assistance to the wounded vet.
 
To everybody: Watch the video, and note what happens at the 1:45 mark. The cannister is clearly coming from the police, and explodes right in the midst of those who were attempting to provide medical assistance to the wounded vet.

The second one is obvious, Caine is ignoring that one because it is indefensible and instead focusing on the first one, that injured Scott.

Actually, no he's not he's just whining about bottle and rock throwing and about how the protestors had the gall to defend themselves against a tear gas attack.
 
Either you are hallucinating, or you are just making it up as you go along.

To everybody: Watch the video, and note what happens at the 1:45 mark. The cannister is clearly coming from the police, and explodes right in the midst of those who were attempting to provide medical assistance to the wounded vet.
Thats well after the initial exchange. Dude was already down. No one got hurt by the one tossed into the crowd. The crowd shouldnt have come back. The video you posted is seriously hacked and edited.
 
Thats well after the initial exchange. Dude was already down. No one got hurt by the one tossed into the crowd. The crowd shouldnt have come back. The video you posted is seriously hacked and edited.

Yeah they all should have just stood back and watched him die.

Oh and nobody got hurt by the second one, really? How do you know that? And how would the cop know that the same thing that happened to Scott wouldn't happen to any of the other 10-20 demonstrators he threw that directly into?

You're completely ****ing delusional.
 
The second one is obvious, Caine is ignoring that one because it is indefensible and instead focusing on the first one, that injured Scott.

Actually, no he's not he's just whining about bottle and rock throwing and about how the protestors had the gall to defend themselves against a tear gas attack.
You still dont get it. The police are the authority. You can piss...whine...stomp...cry...protest to your little hearts content. But when you reach the point the police say disprese, you disperse. OR DONT! But when you DONT and you choose to engage stop ****ing whining that you got your ass kicked.
 
You still dont get it. The police are the authority. You can piss...whine...stomp...cry...protest to your little hearts content. But when you reach the point the police say disprese, you disperse. OR DONT! But when you DONT and you choose to engage stop ****ing whining that you got your ass kicked.

Then you defend Tiananmen.
 
Yeah they all should have just stood back and watched him die.

Oh and nobody got hurt by the second one, really? How do you know that? And how would the cop know that the same thing that happened to Scott wouldn't happen to any of the other 10-20 demonstrators he threw that directly into?

You're completely ****ing delusional.
How do we know that? Because the crowd ran off. If the crowd had dispersed like they SHOULD have they could have stepped in and rendered aid. Watch the video. Dood went from the BACK fence to the front fence AFTER they were warned it was time to go. Instead of leaving they ADVANCED. And then they (and you) are STUNNED that something bad happened. You have this moronic notion that you can defy the cops without consequence. They say move and if you refuse...well...OK...you win I guess, right? What fairy tale land do you live in?

Edit...as the protester being interviewed CLEARLY admitted. They not only advanced TOWARDS the police, but the moron protesters were throwing bottles and rocks at the police.
 
Last edited:
Then you defend Tiananmen.
I defend Oakland. Dont be a moron. There is plenty to discuss right here. THESE protesters were booted from the park and they vowed to come back and RETAKE the park from the police. Thats just plain ****ing stupid...but OK...go for it. They were told to disperse. Instead of leaving he advanced. Bad **** happens to stupid people.
 
Back
Top Bottom