• 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!

‘Red Scare History Burst Through My Door’

So? My point is true anarchists don't claim those rights, just as they don't honor the authority of the system that granted them.

If you're given the rights and take advantage of them, you can still be an Anarchist. Anarchism is a political philosophy, just as Liberalism and Conservatism are, if a Liberal sides with a Conservative, does that mean he's no longer a true Liberal and vice versa?

Well with the nonsense you do seem to believe, that's hardly surprising.

Nonsense I believe? Please, tell me what 'nonsense' that is.

I gave you a generalized answer. It's the same answer as if you had asked if I think KKK ralliers should be beaten and harassed absent criminal behavior. In my mind I'd revel in seeing it, but if asked to authorize it, the answer would be no.

I didn't ask if you would authorize it, I asked, if no crime was committed, would you be alright, just as a bystander, with Occupiers getting beaten and harassed?
 
Last edited:
No we are certainly not. Hackneyed again, but it reminds me of a definition of insanity: repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
That's not the definition of insanity.


Insanity
[in-san-i-tee]
noun, plural in·san·i·ties.

1.the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.

2. Law . such unsoundness of mind as frees one from legal responsibility, as for committing a crime, or as signals one's lack of legal capacity, as for entering into a contractual agreement.

3. Psychiatry . (formerly) psychosis.

4. a. extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness: Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity.

b. a foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.: We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse.

(Random House, Inc. 2012)
 
You're right, that is what you said, and I apologize.

But that's wrong.

ACORN had no hand in organizing the original protests (OWS) and most, if not all, of the protesters were there by their own will. Unless you have something to prove otherwise, again, it means nothing.
Hey like I said, folks can believe what they want, just make sure your car is fully insured before bringing one of those protests to my neighborhood ;)
 
Hey like I said, folks can believe what they want, just make sure your car is fully insured before bringing one of those protests to my neighborhood ;)
If you're in Afganistan, the OWS protesting in your neighborhood are the least of your worries. But my my, you sure are full of empty threats...or are they?
 
If you're in Afganistan, the OWS protesting in your neighborhood are the least of your worries. But my my, you sure are full of empty threats...or are they?
I guess at this point there's only one way to find out.
 
Hey like I said, folks can believe what they want, just make sure your car is fully insured before bringing one of those protests to my neighborhood ;)

That still doesn't solidify your point;

Another reason, a bigger reason IMO, is that ACORN is behind a majority of it, as previously sourced.

Which is completely false. Your 'source' only 'proves' (and I use that loosely, the Source isn't even identified) that 100 NYCC/ACORN members were being paid to protest at Occupy Wall Street and that a few members of 'TENAC', a group not in anyway associated with ACORN/NYCC were in Washington D.C. protesting. This in no way shows the majority, far from it. I would also take the video with a grain of salt, the ending is cut off and it's from a 'News Source' that just regurgitates video clips and links from other News Sources, mostly FOX News.
 
Last edited:
That still doesn't solidify your point;

It wasn't supposed to. The cops don't need me to 'solidify a point' on some discussion forum, they need a search warrant, and they had one, so neener-neener :2wave:

Don't like it? Don't associate with these criminal occupiers. Simple as that.
 
Free speech zones, now just breaking down your door because the state doesn't like the flyers you posses. Whats next?

Bring back the old IWW tactics.
 
Don't like it? Don't associate with these criminal occupiers. Simple as that.

Don't like getting attacked by islamic terrorists? Don't associate with criminal state terrorists.

BTW, I love the internet tough guy stance you have.
 
Don't like getting attacked by islamic terrorists? Don't associate with criminal state terrorists.

BTW, I love the internet tough guy stance you have.
Wimps are soooo much more impressive. That aside, do you really think anyone's buying into the new improved socialism? I suppose hope springs eternal, but still...
 
Wimps are soooo much more impressive. That aside, do you really think anyone's buying into the new improved socialism? I suppose hope springs eternal, but still...

People who make bull**** threats and play tough guy over the internet are more often than not wienies.

Anyway, according to the polls, people are no longer buying into Capitalism and looking for an alternative.
 
People who make bull**** threats and play tough guy over the internet are more often than not wienies.

Anyway, according to the polls, people are no longer buying into Capitalism and looking for an alternative.
Show me (let's skip whacko links, ok?)
 
"The poll, published Wednesday, found that while Americans overall tend to oppose socialism by a strong margin -- 60 percent say they have a negative view of it, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive"

This proves this quote of yours?:

"Anyway, according to the polls, people are no longer buying into Capitalism and looking for an alternative."
 
Yeah ... Because support for Capitalism is GOING DOWN.
 
"The poll, published Wednesday, found that while Americans overall tend to oppose socialism by a strong margin -- 60 percent say they have a negative view of it, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive"

This proves this quote of yours?:

"Anyway, according to the polls, people are no longer buying into Capitalism and looking for an alternative."
Could you square an absurd post with the finding of the poll?!

I really would like to hear this, for amusement if nothing else. Idiotic backtracking is a much more likely response, as you did above. Minimally, it would be disingenuous.
 
A: I didn't say everyone was supporting socailism.
B: Both polls show that support for capitalism is going lower and lower, which was my claim.
 
A: I didn't say everyone was supporting socailism.
B: Both polls show that support for capitalism is going lower and lower, which was my claim.
Both your claim and your answer are BS. You managed to be disingenuous and backtrack simultaneously.
 
Both your claim and your answer are BS. You managed to be disingenuous and backtrack simultaneously.

No ... I'm not backtracking .... less people trust Capitalism than before ...
 
If the swat team had a warrant it means a judge thought there was enough evidence to conduct a search. I don't see the problem.


No it doesn't. Getting a warrant is just a rubber stamp thing by some low ranking magistrate in nearly any jurisdiction. You believe in the television mythology of criminal justice.
 
No it doesn't. Getting a warrant is just a rubber stamp thing by some low ranking magistrate in nearly any jurisdiction. You believe in the television mythology of criminal justice.

"A search warrant is an order signed by a judge that authorizes police officers to search for specific objects or materials at a definite location at a specified time. For example, a warrant may authorize the search of "the premises at 11359 Happy Glade Avenue between the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m." and direct the police to search for and seize "cash, betting slips, record books, and every other means used in connection with placing bets on horses."

How Police Obtain Search Warrants

Police officers obtain search warrants by convincing a judge or magistrate that they have "probable cause" to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Usually, the police provide the judge or magistrate with information in the form of written statements under oath, called "affidavits," which report either their own observations, or those of private citizens or police undercover informants. If the magistrate believes that the affidavit establishes probable cause to conduct a search, he or she will issue a warrant.

The suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant is issued and therefore cannot contest the issue of probable cause at that time. However, the suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant before trial."

Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary | Nolo.com


Like I said, I don't see the problem.
 
If you're given the rights and take advantage of them, you can still be an Anarchist. Anarchism is a political philosophy, just as Liberalism and Conservatism are, if a Liberal sides with a Conservative, does that mean he's no longer a true Liberal and vice versa?

If a self-professed conservative does something for self-advantage that betrays basic conservative principles he/she believes are basic conservative principles - then they are not a true conservative. You're correct, it is a political philosophy AND if you don't follow that philosophy, you're not that thing.

Nonsense I believe? Please, tell me what 'nonsense' that is.

We can start with you thinking this event even closely resembles the Red Scare or that this is the state overreaching.

I didn't ask if you would authorize it, I asked, if no crime was committed, would you be alright, just as a bystander, with Occupiers getting beaten and harassed?

You seem hell bent on this strawman. I'm not playing. The fact is - there was a crime here and the search was warranted.
 
Back
Top Bottom