• 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!

Denver Occupy Tries to Storm Capitol - Police use pepper spray, etc.

LaMidRighter said:
TheDemSocialist said:
Your gonna kill people for entering THEIR capital building?
Click to expand...
No, but the police and marines might if it gets to the point of "storming" the capital.
Click to expand...
Ah, using the military against the citizenry. Is this step 4 or 9 on the way to totalitarian fascism?

Or is it merely the final step to tin pot dictatorship? In that case, you guys need to come up with a tin pot dictator fast... oh, sorry -- Gaddafi is listed as currently unavailable.
 
Karl said:
Ah, using the military against the citizenry. Is this step 4 or 9 on the way to totalitarian fascism?

Or is it merely the final step to tin pot dictatorship? In that case, you guys need to come up with a tin pot dictator fast... oh, sorry -- Gaddafi is listed as currently unavailable.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you would have been opposed to Truman deploying the 101st Airborne to Little Rock?
 
LaMidRighter said:
This coming from a guy who is dismissing the illegal actions of protesters and accusing the police of the crime of brutality? Yeah, and my thoughts are flawed.:roll:
Click to expand...
If you think skull fractures are a legitimate reaction to misdemeanor illegal camping, or graffiti, then yes, your thoughts are indeed flawed. Dangerously flawed. At least from a patriotic point of view

The police are no strangers to brutality:

Abner Louima [...] is a Haitian who was assaulted, brutalized and forcibly sodomized with the handle of a bathroom plunger by New York City police officers after being arrested outside a Brooklyn nightclub in 1997.

Abner Louima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Karl said:
Ah, using the military against the citizenry. Is this step 4 or 9 on the way to totalitarian fascism?

Or is it merely the final step to tin pot dictatorship? In that case, you guys need to come up with a tin pot dictator fast... oh, sorry -- Gaddafi is listed as currently unavailable.
Click to expand...
It's called national defense, when a bunch of numbnuts think they are going to seize state property for their ends that is called a few things, incitement to riot, attempt to overthrow the government, public endangerment, and all are felonies. When the mob graduates from nuisance to threat the threat gets ended. That's not totalitarianism that is called restoring order, I don't know why you are trying to excuse lawlessness but the fact is that crime will be stopped and the engagers will be punished. Totalitarianism would say that the military would put people down for simply speaking out against the government which is not the situation advocated for.
 
Karl said:
If you think skull fractures are a legitimate reaction to misdemeanor illegal camping, or graffiti, then yes, your thoughts are indeed flawed. Dangerously flawed. At least from a patriotic point of view

The police are no strangers to brutality:
Click to expand...

were skull fractures intended?
 
Karl said:
If you think skull fractures are a legitimate reaction to misdemeanor illegal camping, or graffiti, then yes, your thoughts are indeed flawed. Dangerously flawed. At least from a patriotic point of view

The police are no strangers to brutality:
Click to expand...
Again, I couldn't give two ****s about criminals getting injured if they do not comply. If the skull fractures happened and they were not in the middle of being stupid like, say, in the police station sitting on a bench awaiting paperwork that would be a different story.
 
Fiddytree said:
Why? It didn't work out well for the university students in the 1960s, it won't work for something more serious. I'd prefer we keep the government functioning instead of turning into a sideshow.
Click to expand...
Just to get you up to speed, the Tea Party are the ones wanting to disable/dismantle government using violence.


tea_party_gun_nut.jpg


OWS are the ones trying to reign in corporate capitalism (greed) using sit-ins.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Just to get you up to speed, the Tea Party are the ones wanting to disable/dismantle government using violence.


tea_party_gun_nut.jpg


OWS are the ones trying to reign in corporate capitalism (greed) using sit-ins.
Click to expand...

if what you say is accurate, why was there no violence at the Tea Party rallies?
 
apdst said:
Does that mean you would have been opposed to Truman deploying the 101st Airborne to Little Rock?
Click to expand...
Nicely done!
clap.gif


In that case federal power was used to bring state authorities into line. Yes, in a democracy, that is a damn dangerous line to tread. In that case, and the cases Kennedy intervened with Gov. Wallace, I would not oppose. The military was used to protect the citizenry, not oppose them.

The other side of that coin, Ruby Ridge and Waco, shows how that federal authority can go horribly wrong. However, the formula is quite simple... protecting the citizenry, or terrorizing the citizenry. Surely it is not difficult to determine which is right, and which is wrong.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's called national defense, when a bunch of numbnuts think they are going to seize state property for their ends [...]
Click to expand...
When the government feels the need to attack their own citizens in the name of national defense, something has gone very, very wrong.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
I have every problem with them blocking the path of the motorcycle.
Its unlawful.
Click to expand...

As I said elsewhere I do not know all the facts. Maybe there were legitimate reasons. I believe it to be unlawful to run off protesters.
 
1Perry said:
As I said elsewhere I do not know all the facts. Maybe there were legitimate reasons. I believe it to be unlawful to run off protesters.
Click to expand...

I believe it is unlawful for protesters to impede traffic.
 
Was in Denver this weekend and this sh!t go down, albeit from about a block away. I saw the group in front of the steps earlier in the day, who were at the time in a circle in the space around the Capitol, holding signs and chanting. Missed the actual storming of the building.

Not surprised, honestly. I know Denver cops, they are (mostly) relaxed and fair. A few are dicks, but most see citizens as their neighbors and the people who pay their salaries. I don't feel this is in the same vein as the Oakland police actions. The OWS protesters fncked this on up.
 
Karl said:
Just to get you up to speed, the Tea Party are the ones wanting to disable/dismantle government using violence.


tea_party_gun_nut.jpg


OWS are the ones trying to reign in corporate capitalism (greed) using sit-ins.
Click to expand...

This is why even though I agree with many of your points, I can not take you seriously. You do not actually believe in the idea, only politics.
 
Thrilla said:
if what you say is accurate, why was there no violence at the Tea Party rallies?
Click to expand...
Because the capitalists/corporatists agreed with the Tea Partiers. Please note, that for the most part the current violence is being instigated by the police, not the protesters. The protesters are not shooting tear gas, tossing flash bangs, or using batons as gut-probing instruments. Of course, about the third time some cop thumps you on the head with a baton, you may be inclined to thump back (personally my limit is two thumps).

There was minor violence/civil disobedience at the various townhalls that the Tea Partiers were bused to with GOP PAC money, but that was mostly swept under the carpet. Again, the Tea Party is advocating the corporatist agenda, so there will generally be no mainsteam (corporate-controlled) media condemnation.
 
1Perry said:
As I said elsewhere I do not know all the facts. Maybe there were legitimate reasons. I believe it to be unlawful to run off protesters.
Click to expand...

If they tried to bum rush the Capitol building, that's fair game for cops to bust heads, make arrests and break up the group as a whole. Again, Denver has a few riots under it's belt and cops do what they can do avoid full-on bedlam. When the cops broke up an Iraq War protest back in 2005 in Denver, it was after a few Black Bloc doofuses starting becoming aggressive to cops who were trying to contain a huge crowd. If you know anything about crowd mentality, you know that it only takes a few idiots to incite a crowd of thousands to get stupid. Cops want that danger extinguished ASAP.
 
RadicalModerate said:
If they tried to bum rush the Capitol building, that's fair game for cops to bust heads, make arrests and break up the group as a whole. Again, Denver has a few riots under it's belt and cops do what they can do avoid full-on bedlam. When the cops broke up an Iraq War protest back in 2005 in Denver, it was after a few Black Bloc doofuses starting becoming aggressive to cops who were trying to contain a huge crowd. If you know anything about crowd mentality, you know that it only takes a few idiots to incite a crowd of thousands to get stupid. Cops want that danger extinguished ASAP.
Click to expand...

That could be the case. I'm not dismissing it.
 
Karl said:
Just to get you up to speed, the Tea Party are the ones wanting to disable/dismantle government using violence.

tea_party_gun_nut.jpg


OWS are the ones trying to reign in corporate capitalism (greed) using sit-ins.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the most violence so far has come from the OWS, do I need to respond with how I disdain the Tea Party as well? For one thing, it is unclear how many of both groups truly want to overthrow the system and start anew. Regardless, once people advocate that removal, violence, or bloodshed and/or get arrested in mass numbers over an immediate situation with a disproportionate response, I think said individuals need to be rebuked. Because of the significant number of people in the OWS getting arrested, having awful rhetoric, yes, I will come against that more.

Now, stop using that image over and over again. It's hardly proved a point.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Aside from the fact that the most violence so far has come from the OWS [...]
Click to expand...
That fact is not in evidence.

The image is a fact. A much more pertinent fact that anything that has been posted 'against' OWS. If facts disturb you, then I suggest a non-debate venue.


We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg

Tea Party protester​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom