• 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!

Occupy Wall Street Enters Its Fourth Day, Tensions Rise

Eighty Deuce said:
There is nothing stopping any of those "patriotic millionaires" from raising their taxes tomorrow, lets assume 10%, and writing that check to the Treasury. What are they waiting for ?
Click to expand...

You have to be the only poster in the world that would think of this. We get a little support from millionaires on the 99%, Occupy Wall Street, OWS, and you make a remark like that. If I was a millionaire, you are the kind of guy that would make me say "f*uck 'em all, they're as*holes - they deserve to go under."
 
Last edited:
L. A. Fairfax said:
You have to be the only poster in the world that would think of this. We get a little support from millionaires on the 99%, Occupy Wall Street, OWS, and you make a remark like that. If I was a millionaire, you are the kind of guy that would make me say "f*uck 'em all, they're as*holes - they deserve to go under."
Click to expand...

You can bank this. I am many.

However, as to "going under", you have discovered a basic principal of capitalism. And Conservatism. Failure must be allowed to happen. Welcome to your new awareness. No charge. ;)
 
Jryan said:
I feel Sam Harris (Also a wealthy person) writes this perfectly. Please do not quote from the rest of the article unless you read it entirely though. (Which I encourage you to do):



A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris
Click to expand...

I went to a different article, and researched them in addition to your link. The quote you added speaks droves. The "patriotic millionaire" is OK with paying more voluntarily, and that safely assumes accepting a tax increase, so long as he can avoid the waste that he knows exists.

That is not a unique position. I will tell you now that the average Tea Party member will pay more as well if given the same guarantee. We do not want to pass this mess on to our children. But we will not pay extra for the likes of Obama to waste. Not one penny.

The Deficit Commission recommended a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in order to tame the debt. Make those cuts real, and Conservatives will not only embrace such, but we will take hits to our Social Security and Medicare. Obama is smoke and mirrors on spending cuts though. Phoney baloney. In fact, with the "bipartisan" gang of 12, the Democrats on it have pledged that we ust raise taxes before we address cuts.

Phuck that. That ain't 3 to l anywhere.

We need a new President before we can fix this. That turd Obama has to go.
 
Caine said:
They led them ONTO the bridge, they didn't lead them INTO the street (travel lanes).
Click to expand...

I've seen the video.

The officers were facing the crowd, blocking access to the traffic lanes.

Then they suddenly turned around and, remaining in a line, began to precede the crowd onto the bridge.

I have no idea why they did this, but the crowd following them could be an honest mistake on their part.

They werent pushing more than normal crowd buffeting. There was chanting of "take the bridge".

But the officers weren't overwhelmed. They just turned around and "led" the crowd onto the bridge.

Its odd, and I bet it turns out to be no-fault in court because of it.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
BS. They are not on the bridge yet. When the camera angle widens, you can still see another "On ramp" with cars coming up even further to the left. The marchers have to cross that active roadway as well, to then get to the bridge, and its wide walkways. What is evident is that the police escorted the group as it had to cross active roadways. That makes sense. But once up on the bridge, they were to stay in the walkways, and not obstruct traffic on their own, which they clearly did in the longer video, blocking all lanes.

So is the choice now between what you say, or what my "lying" eyes can see ?
Click to expand...

Actually the entry to the walkway is behind all of this. You can see it in the other videos.

The police in question were actually standing on a roadway that was obviously closed down.

Then they turned around and in a line started walking onto the bridge.

It LOOKS like they led them onto the bridge.

Enough so it may provide a defense.

Because if the cops are facing you blocking an entrance then turn and apparently escort forward, it is logical to assume they're allowing you to proceed. Inferring permission.
 
What if...? said:
Actually the entry to the walkway is behind all of this. You can see it in the other videos.

The police in question were actually standing on a roadway that was obviously closed down.

Then they turned around and in a line started walking onto the bridge.

It LOOKS like they led them onto the bridge.

Enough so it may provide a defense.

Because if the cops are facing you blocking an entrance then turn and apparently escort forward, it is logical to assume they're allowing you to proceed. Inferring permission.
Click to expand...

The continued excuses by the libs, as you demonstrate here, is beyond absurd. The police say that the mob was told to stay in the pedestrian lanes on the bridge. That is the law, btw. To even assume that the mob was given an OK to break the law, and block the traffic lanes up on top of the Brooklyn Bridge, is beyond silly. Are yu claiming that they thought it was OK ? Are we in agreement that libs in a mob are that stupid ? They are, but I can't believe any lib would acknowledge such !

Trust that I smile in anticipation here. These completely dumbass protesters cannot help themselves. They are liberal protesters. They have minimal respect for the law. When they gather anywhere, unlike the Tea Party, they trash the joint. Crap on police cars. Smoke doobies. Be idiots. They will continue to trash the law. Cause they are libs. They cannot help themselves.

Watch and learn Grasshopper. See you here the day after Nov 2012. When we look at the repudiation of liberal stupidity for the second consecutive cycle. ;)

And then we begin to fix things. Its gonna hurt.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The continued excuses by the libs, as you demonstrate here, is beyond absurd. The police say that the mob was told to stay in the pedestrian lanes on the bridge. That is the law, btw. To even assume that the mob was given an OK to break the law, and block the traffic lanes up on top of the Brooklyn Bridge, is beyond silly. Are yu claiming that they thought it was OK ? Are we in agreement that libs in a mob are that stupid ? They are, but I can't believe any lib would acknowledge such !

Trust that I smile in anticipation here. These completely dumbass protesters cannot help themselves. They are liberal protesters. They have minimal respect for the law. When they gather anywhere, unlike the Tea Party, they trash the joint. Crap on police cars. Smoke doobies. Be idiots. They will continue to trash the law. Cause they are libs. They cannot help themselves.

Watch and learn Grasshopper. See you here the day after Nov 2012. When we look at the repudiation of liberal stupidity for the second consecutive cycle. ;)

And then we begin to fix things. Its gonna hurt.
Click to expand...

I have extensive experience with the Rainbow Gathering. A 30-some year.ongoing annual war protest.

Held on public land without permission or permit.

An average of 20,000 people gather each year to protest against war.

When their cleanup crews leave a month or two later, only an expert can tell they were there. A year later, even they can't.

They have a much better reputation with federal forestry than the Sierra Club.

So you're wrong about protests and cleanup. Because I know of a group that is exemplary in this regard. And I know you can't prove otherwise.

But I know you'll come up with something, some of what I've seen from you has actually been pretty entertaining.

Just not in the way you hope.
 
sangha said:
IMO, you are being disingenous. WHen you originally used the word hostile, it was to justify/explain the polices' use of violence
Click to expand...

And I used the word "violence" to characterise the police's actions. You see how the words are used in its correct context?


You were obviously using the first definition, not the other three, in order to misportray the protesters "hostility" as one that threatened the safety of the police because without the threat of violence implied by your use of the word "hostile", the police would have no need to "act out in defense" of themselves.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Notice the words "you think". And the "characteristics of being an enemy" doesn't imply "threat of violence" or "threatened the safety [of someone]", enemies don't always have to be violent to each other or threaten the safety of the other.

And the police are supposed to be professionals, and not get violent in response to "bait". They have rules and laws which govern when they are authorized to use force on american citizens
Click to expand...

And people are supposed to not bait them either. When feeling threatened, they have a right to retaliate, the right and wrong comes later.
 
Caine said:
They led them ONTO the bridge, they didn't lead them INTO the street (travel lanes).
Click to expand...


The police were shown in front of the crowd walking on the car lanes, everyone was peaceful. Denying that the police allowed the protestors onto the car lanes is futile.
 
Jryan said:
I feel Sam Harris (Also a wealthy person) writes this perfectly. Please do not quote from the rest of the article unless you read it entirely though. (Which I encourage you to do):



A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris
Click to expand...

Huge load of crap. Mumbo jumbo, nothing else. He is basically saying that he is not interested in paying higher taxes unless it's spent in only ways he supports. Wow, he is like so many others. I'll pay higher taxes if ever penny goes to lowering the deficit and we quit deficit spending.
 
1Perry said:
Huge load of crap. Mumbo jumbo, nothing else. He is basically saying that he is not interested in paying higher taxes unless it's spent in only ways he supports. Wow, he is like so many others. I'll pay higher taxes if ever penny goes to lowering the deficit and we quit deficit spending.
Click to expand...

The part I quoted simply states that him giving his money to the government would do nothing. If someone donated 1 million dollars (A large chunk of change) it would do nothing to our deficit.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
It doesn't show that at all. It shows them on a small portion of an entry-exit as they move towards the bridge. They were told to stay on the walkways once on the bridge, which are fairly wide. Instead they blocked all three lanes on that side of the bridge while on the bridge. No police leading them. In fact, the police came up the bridge from the other direction so as to arrest them. That is what the video shows.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty from the right.

The cops did not say "once on the bridge". Rightwingers have to make stuff up in order to have something to say
 
Eighty Deuce said:
BS. They are not on the bridge yet. When the camera angle widens, you can still see another "On ramp" with cars coming up even further to the left. The marchers have to cross that active roadway as well, to then get to the bridge, and its wide walkways. What is evident is that the police escorted the group as it had to cross active roadways. That makes sense. But once up on the bridge, they were to stay in the walkways, and not obstruct traffic on their own, which they clearly did in the longer video, blocking all lanes.

So is the choice now between what you say, or what my "lying" eyes can see ?
Click to expand...

You are being very dishonest. The cops and the protesters are on the roadway of the bridge. The walkway is elevated ABOVE THE ROADWAY and can be clearly seen on the right-hand side of the video. People do not have to walk on the roadway to reach the walkway. Any moron would realize how stupid it would be to make access to a pedestrian walkway require walking along the roadway of the bridge. The entrance to the walkway is at the base of the bridge, which can be seen if you go to Google maps, enter "Brooklyn Bridge promenade, New York, NY" in the search bar, and use the "street view". The promenade is in the CENTER OF THE BRIDGE, above the roadway
 
nonpareil said:
And I used the word "violence" to characterise the police's actions. You see how the words are used in its correct context?
Click to expand...

Straw man. I never said you didn't use the word violence to describe the polices' actions


Wrong. Notice the words "you think". And the "characteristics of being an enemy" doesn't imply "threat of violence" or "threatened the safety [of someone]", enemies don't always have to be violent to each other or threaten the safety of the other.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If the protesters did not present any threat of violence or harm, then why would the police react with violence?


And people are supposed to not bait them either. When feeling threatened, they have a right to retaliate, the right and wrong comes later.
Click to expand...

And again, you claim that the police had a reason to feel threatened, after claiming that the protestors did not present any threat of violence or harm

And people are allowed to say whatever they want to the police. It's called "free speech", not "baiting"
 
sangha said:
You are being very dishonest. The cops and the protesters are on the roadway of the bridge. The walkway is elevated ABOVE THE ROADWAY and can be clearly seen on the right-hand side of the video. People do not have to walk on the roadway to reach the walkway. Any moron would realize how stupid it would be to make access to a pedestrian walkway require walking along the roadway of the bridge. The entrance to the walkway is at the base of the bridge, which can be seen if you go to Google maps, enter "Brooklyn Bridge promenade, New York, NY" in the search bar, and use the "street view". The promenade is in the CENTER OF THE BRIDGE, above the roadway
Click to expand...

You're never gonna get an inch from those following Rep Kings marching orders.

If, as it looks to me, it was a "fog of war"/communication breakdown/misunderstanding that led to the protesters being on the bridge, the naysayers lose that tasty 700 number. (Who by the way were ticketed and released on site, not taken to jail, so "arrest" while technically correct is kinda dramatic.)

How many have been arrested aside from that 700?

How many have actually gone to jail?

Certainly nowhere near 700, so they'd lose their usefulness as a propaganda tool.

(Note that I'm the "liberal" here who has been coming down on the side of LE in most of the incidents posted to date. Not that individual behavior isn't excessive in some cases, but that legitimate crowd control issues are being addressed in most of them.)
 
Last edited:
Here are some pics proving that the pedestrian walkway is in the center of the bridge, above the roadway
42064950.jpg
bbridge_crowds.jpg

blog-2-005.jpg
 
What if...? said:
I've seen the video.

The officers were facing the crowd, blocking access to the traffic lanes.

Then they suddenly turned around and, remaining in a line, began to precede the crowd onto the bridge.

I have no idea why they did this, but the crowd following them could be an honest mistake on their part.

They werent pushing more than normal crowd buffeting. There was chanting of "take the bridge".

But the officers weren't overwhelmed. They just turned around and "led" the crowd onto the bridge.

Its odd, and I bet it turns out to be no-fault in court because of it.
Click to expand...

Its hard to tell what it LOOKS like with absolutely no context..... which is par for the course here.

We'll see videos of police taking folks into custody but no evidence of what happened before...

We'll see videos zoomed in as far as you can on one detail, but ignoring the others.

Ive seen a video where they were showing the arrest of a guy, and another guy jumped in and started assaulting cops, and the cameraman quickly moved to a different angle so you couldn't see the dude attacking police... imagine that.
 
sangha said:
Straw man. I never said you didn't use the word violence to describe the polices' actions
Click to expand...

It's not a strawman if you understand the arguement. The word "hostile" doesn't have to include "violence", the word "violence" does have to include "violence". The other poster was confused about the word "hostile" to mean "violence" (i.e. rip them to shreds). I'm pointing out what the correct context for each usage are.



Nonsense. If the protesters did not present any threat of violence or harm, then why would the police react with violence?
Click to expand...

Because the police thought they were hostile.



And again, you claim that the police had a reason to feel threatened, after claiming that the protestors did not present any threat of violence or harm
Click to expand...

Right. The key word is "feel". When hundreds of people who I think are hostile crowd in on me, I have every reasons to feel threatened, whether in actual fact they mean to harm me or not. I can't read their minds.


And people are allowed to say whatever they want to the police. It's called "free speech", not "baiting"
Click to expand...

No, people are not allowed to say whatever they want to the police. Inciting riot for example is a crime (though I do not think this is a case of inciting riot). And they didn't just "say", they moved in on the police. As I said, the video shows the police to be in a very claustrophobic position. At the end of that video, one of the protestors were thanking the police for beating them as it furthers their propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Its hard to tell what it LOOKS like with absolutely no context..... which is par for the course here.

We'll see videos of police taking folks into custody but no evidence of what happened before...

We'll see videos zoomed in as far as you can on one detail, but ignoring the others.

Ive seen a video where they were showing the arrest of a guy, and another guy jumped in and started assaulting cops, and the cameraman quickly moved to a different angle so you couldn't see the dude attacking police... imagine that.
Click to expand...


That the police were walking in front of the crowd and all was peaceful is enough context that the police didn't stop the protestors from getting onto the lanes.
 
I'm following one of the "occupy dallas" streams on twitter. They're asking for donations.

Oh. And "shelving." They have a lawyer filing motions to stay orders so you know your donations are well managed.

Give what you can. Election day is a long way off. Keep the Flea Party hopping!
 
 
"The protestors approved at one of their general assemblies . . . " that they would stay at the park.

These people R2cute4wurdz!

God bwess deh pointy widdle heads!

Oh And no arrests. (The vid promises a little action, but none comes.)
 
2 arrests, cops left. :-(
 
Oh wow bummer.

No cops no coverage.

Maybe tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom