• 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!

Judge: OWS Protesters Wrongfully Arrested On Brooklyn Bridge

huh? You can protest without disrupting people.

Why do you feel it is necessary to disrupt people in order to get your message across?

I think the very idea of protest comes with some sort of disruption. Obviously, there are varying degrees of disruption (such as violent or non-violent). But yes, I think protest in its very nature comes with disruption.
 
Last edited:
I think the very idea of protest comes with some sort of disruption. Obviously, there are varying degrees of disruption (such as violent or non-violent). But yes, I think protest in its very nature comes with disruption.

And you are wrong.

Forceful disruption is not peaceful.

Forceful would be any time that a person has no choice but to be disrupted by the protesters.

Now, if the person is disrupted because they are mentally distracted by the protesters who are not in anyone's way or preventing free movement, or causing any sort of a direct safety hazard, then that is not what I consider "disrupting" for these intents and purposes.
 
Disrupting others is not peaceful.

Walking in a street is peaceful. Walking in the streets is peaceful.
2qk5ide.jpg


This is peaceful.
 
Someone who needs to get to or from his job, and for whom that road is the only reasonable route, would disagree.

They can disagree all they want. Fact of the matter is the protesters are marching peacefully making it peaceful.
 
They can disagree all they want. Fact of the matter is the protesters are marching peacefully making it peaceful.

There is nothing peaceful about interfering with the ability of others to go about their own business in peace. Such interference is inherently unpeaceful.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing peaceful about interfering with the ability of others to go about their own business in peace. Such interference is inherently unpeaceful.

Marching in the streets is peaceful. Linking arms in front of a door is peaceful. Sit ins are peaceful.
Its like a giant rally protest at DC on the mall, "hey i cant get from point a to point b fast enough because of all these protesters" but guess what its still peaceful.

Peaceful:
2wd67ap.jpg


Peaceful:
14xz43b.jpg


Not peaceful:
2hd9s8g.jpg
 
Oh god :doh
Back to these images again?

Also holding a sign is peaceful even if its with a hateful message. Just like Nazis they can hold a peaceful rally even if they use racist imagery.

You cannot deny that Oakland is a part of OWS. Thats why I provided you with this link: occupywallst.org/article/solidarity-sunday/

"Yesterday, Occupy Oakland moved to convert a vacant building into a community center to provide education, medical, and housing services for the 99%. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds and mass arrests. The state has compounded its policy of callous indifference with a ruthless display of violent repression. The Occupy movement will respond, as we have always reponded: with an overwhelming show of collective resistance. Today, we take to the streets. Across the country, we will demonstrate our resolve to overcome repression and continue to build a better world grounded in love and solidarity for one another. All eyes on all Occupies."

And from experience so far if one does not join the resistance we are targeted as being with the 1% or in effect the enemy. Its for the principle alone that I am resisting the resistance. But at least call it what it is a resistance and the protests are just a tactic of the resistance.

Oh and how do the OWS folks act when they are blocked from their peaceful path? Well they start yelling and getting all upset that someone blocked their path. It would seem that blocking someone path isnt very peaceful even to the occupiers.
 
You cannot deny that Oakland is a part of OWS. Thats why I provided you with this link: occupywallst.org/article/solidarity-sunday/

"Yesterday, Occupy Oakland moved to convert a vacant building into a community center to provide education, medical, and housing services for the 99%. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds and mass arrests. The state has compounded its policy of callous indifference with a ruthless display of violent repression. The Occupy movement will respond, as we have always reponded: with an overwhelming show of collective resistance. Today, we take to the streets. Across the country, we will demonstrate our resolve to overcome repression and continue to build a better world grounded in love and solidarity for one another. All eyes on all Occupies."

And from experience so far if one does not join the resistance we are targeted as being with the 1% or in effect the enemy. Its for the principle alone that I am resisting the resistance. But at least call it what it is a resistance and the protests are just a tactic of the resistance.

Oh and how do the OWS folks act when they are blocked from their peaceful path? Well they start yelling and getting all upset that someone blocked their path. It would seem that blocking someone path isnt very peaceful even to the occupiers.

Im not debating this issue here. I have already made the points i wanted to make on that thread about 3 months ago. If you want to continue to debate on that issue PM me and we can move this discussion and have the whole other round of discussion about those images there and about Occupy Oakland and the events that unfolded on that night on the other thread. I will be more than happily do that on that thread and not derail this thread. Just PM me on the thread link to that thread about Occupy Oakland and i will be more than happy to do it there.
 
The Constitution is incorporated, for the most part.

By definition of incorporation u either take it all or nothing and the states have their own constitution.
 
Who cares? OWS has run it's 15 minutes out and is fading back into insignificance where it began.

Police over reaction and abuse should always be exposed and prosecuted.

Can someone tell me anything OWS accomplished? Anything good? Outside of being a grass roots movement with no future.
 
Who cares? OWS has run it's 15 minutes out and is fading back into insignificance where it began.

Police over reaction and abuse should always be exposed and prosecuted.

Can someone tell me anything OWS accomplished? Anything good? Outside of being a grass roots movement with no future.

National discussion. Brought to the front the topics of inequality, economic wages amongst working class and middle class people, corporate injustice, and money in politics.
 
National discussion. Brought to the front the topics of inequality, economic wages amongst working class and middle class people, corporate injustice, and money in politics.

As if no one new any of that already.

So you are saying they brought a dialog that we were already having.

Sorry, that is a tall bucket of fail.
 
National discussion. Brought to the front the topics of inequality, economic wages amongst working class and middle class people, corporate injustice, and money in politics.
All of those topics were being discussed nationally before the occupiers started squatting in public places. During Katrina the national discussion was focused on inequality. Liberals have been talking about wages for a longtime. Conservative's as well. And both sides have been talking about the working clss and the middle class. Corporations have also been a big topic of national discussion, have you not been paying attention to Enron and also the bail louts and and that national debate? And money in politics is always a big focus of national discussion long before the occupiers were even born.

But how much of a national debate on any of those subjects is going on right now?

Im not debating this issue here. I have already made the points i wanted to make on that thread about 3 months ago. If you want to continue to debate on that issue PM me and we can move this discussion and have the whole other round of discussion about those images there and about Occupy Oakland and the events that unfolded on that night on the other thread. I will be more than happily do that on that thread and not derail this thread. Just PM me on the thread link to that thread about Occupy Oakland and i will be more than happy to do it there.

You are the one that posted a giant photo of a protest and asserted that it was peaceful. You were implying that all of OWS is peaceful which just is not true. If you do not want someone to answer your assertions in this thread dont offer them. You cant just assert something then when called on it turn around and cry about derailing a thread when you were the one derailing it in the first place.

Oakland is not the leader of OWS but like I showed in that link OWS is in solidarity with Oakland and their Anarchist block bloc tactics. The only occupiers that are not in solidarity with the black bloc tactics are the Liberal tools that had not figured out that they are in the wrong protest. But the Liberals figured it out and left OWS and now OWS is just a collection of radicals. Which makes OWS a fringe movement of radicals. Which also means that groups like those in Oakland have more power in the occupy movement. Plus OWS has been very vocally against Obama and the Liberals are trying to get Obama reelected so they cant tolerate such things anymore.
 
Rebellion is not protected by the Constitution, peaceable assembly is.

Rebellion is just refusing some sort of authority. It can be done in a peaceful matter.
 
Police over reaction and abuse should always be exposed and prosecuted.

Until I find provable stories of dead OWS participants, ANY talk of police overreaction will fall on deaf ears here. Even then, my bias will always be in favor of the LEOs over OWS.
 
All of those topics were being discussed nationally before the occupiers started squatting in public places. During Katrina the national discussion was focused on inequality. Liberals have been talking about wages for a longtime. Conservative's as well. And both sides have been talking about the working clss and the middle class. Corporations have also been a big topic of national discussion, have you not been paying attention to Enron and also the bail louts and and that national debate? And money in politics is always a big focus of national discussion long before the occupiers were even born.
They were not talking about the causes of this mess, the punishment of the bankers, what measures she be brought back to end these. Plus the common people were never involved and i gurantee the average citizen did not even care about inequality even if they are affected until the OWS movement was brought and until the media actually reported on them.

But how much of a national debate on any of those subjects is going on right now?
Hardly any.


You are the one that posted a giant photo of a protest and asserted that it was peaceful. You were implying that all of OWS is peaceful which just is not true.
Never stated that "all of OWS is peaceful".
I stated before that about 97% of OWS is peaceful.

If you do not want someone to answer your assertions in this thread dont offer them. You cant just assert something then when called on it turn around and cry about derailing a thread when you were the one derailing it in the first place.
How am i "derailing it"?
People are saying: "Well if you walk in a street and slow down traffic thats not peaceful"


Oakland is not the leader of OWS but like I showed in that link OWS is in solidarity with Oakland and their Anarchist block bloc tactics. The only occupiers that are not in solidarity with the black bloc tactics are the Liberal tools that had not figured out that they are in the wrong protest. But the Liberals figured it out and left OWS and now OWS is just a collection of radicals. Which makes OWS a fringe movement of radicals. Which also means that groups like those in Oakland have more power in the occupy movement. Plus OWS has been very vocally against Obama and the Liberals are trying to get Obama reelected so they cant tolerate such things anymore.
If you want to debate Occupy Oakland go to the other thread and i will gladtly follow.
 
They were not talking about the causes of this mess, the punishment of the bankers, what measures she be brought back to end these. Plus the common people were never involved and i gurantee the average citizen did not even care about inequality even if they are affected until the OWS movement was brought and until the media actually reported on them.
Lol if there is so much inequality how come the average citizen is unaware of it? Inequality is not something that someone needs to be told exists. Inequality is something that people cannot but to recognize since it is around them at every turn. The problem is that OWS sensationalized the concept of inequality too much. OWS was disconnected from reality and the average citizen notice that disconnect just as they notice the disconnect the wealthy politicians have.


Hardly any.
Then there wasnt any success now was there?



Never stated that "all of OWS is peaceful".
I stated before that about 97% of OWS is peaceful.
Its that small percentage that is controlling the majority of the movement now.


How am i "derailing it"?
People are saying: "Well if you walk in a street and slow down traffic thats not peaceful"
First they were not just slowing down tragic they were purposely stopping it. The entire premise of the original protesters were to shut down Wall Street by having mass protests in the middle of it. And lets be honest they were not talking about just stopping traffic in a road. OWS planned on causing a disruption to the stock market in an attempt to topple our financial system. It was an attempted economic terrorism tactic. And at the same time another group headed by the owners of Firedoglake were going to protest in DC to demand the end of military actions. It was a two prong attempt to get people to move against the government in hopes of toppling it like in Egypt. And the entire charade was put on by solely Leftist groups. But thankfully they failed miserably. If they had make any victories we would probably not be discussing this on here but would be fighting in a civil war.



If you want to debate Occupy Oakland go to the other thread and i will gladtly follow.
Oakland is not separate from OWS, in fact they are collectively bound together in solidarity as I have shown you. The occupy movement is viewed as a whole not separate protests. So Oakland is not off limits, no matter how much they have made OWS look bad OWS does not agree with you that Oakland is separate from the movement.But you are correct this is not just about Oakland it is about the entire occupy movement.

So what is the entire occupy movement upto? Occupy's Pledge to FIGHT BACK

Occupy's Pledge to FIGHT BACK
We Didn’t Start the Class War

The 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

The relentless class war against the 99% must end. We’ve been deceived our whole lives into believing the only way to create change is by voting, but now we’re learning there’s another way. A revolution for real democracy is underway, and it falls on each and every one of us to fight together for our common future. We will cast the vote of resistance. We will take direct action to shut this broken system down and build a better world that works in the interest of all people, everywhere.


Then they give you these choices:

Will you help us wage resistance? (Check off all that apply)

I pledge to come out in the streets when Occupy calls for a day of action.
I pledge to attend at least one meeting with my local Occupy group.
Click Here to find one in your area
I pledge to help promote #occupy news and actions via social media.
I pledge to donate what I make in one hour to an Occupy-related project.
Click Here for our curated list of places to donate
I pledge to never go to work during a general strike.
I pledge to help organize my co-workers to make demands. It doesn’t matter if I’m behind a desk, a cash register, or a machine—we deserve better treatment.
Click Here to learn how
I pledge to attend a direct action / civil disobedience training session.
Click Here for NYC Summer Disobedience School
Click Here for online video training
I pledge to dump my bank and join a credit union.
Click Here to find one in your area


I pledge to start an affinity group to occupy something.
This can be just about anything. Like a park, a farm, defending a foreclosed home, or holding a sit-in at your town hall or school. You might only need a half dozen or so dedicated people. Issue demands if you like, but don't go home until they're met. You can even use blockading to make it extra hard for them to remove you. Remember: Occupying is a militant nonviolent tactic meant to assert control over physical space by reclaiming it for a new purpose while disrupting the ability of your adversary to use that space, thus forcing recognition of your cause. You don't need a permit any more than Martin Luther King Jr. needed permission to hold sit-ins at lunch counters. This is the very meaning of civil disobedience, but it also means you'll be risking arrest so you should consider seeking legal counsel beforehand. How much does change mean to you?


This last choice is interesting. It tells us exactly what 'Occupying" is defined as: Occupying is a militant nonviolent tactic meant to assert control over physical space by reclaiming it for a new purpose while disrupting the ability of your adversary to use that space, thus forcing recognition of your cause.

Also of interest is that OWS is asserting that they are involved in direct action Which the have made a link for that says this:direct action is
non-violent civil disobedience, demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins—activities undertaken by individuals or groups to influence change outside of electoral politics.


My point is this: That the occupy movement does not believe in democracy at least not until they have the numbers. They keep making it clear that they do not want to vote on anything that they want to force an revolution on the US and the rest of the world. OWS does not = the 99% and OWS has admitted it. Which is why I have always asserted that Americans will not allow Leftists to dictate to us what we do. OWS is not about equality OWS is about taking over and forcing everyone to believe in their ideologies.

This is the very meaning of civil disobedience, but it also means you'll be risking arrest so you should consider seeking legal counsel beforehand. How much does change mean to you?
 
Last edited:
My question for this ny judge is that if he is all for constitutional rights how can he sit back and let Bloomberg ban guns like he has?
 
Back
Top Bottom