• 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 Oakland protesters remove barricade at port entrance

Caine said:
uHH... Quick Question....

WTF did your post have to do with the poster you were responding to?

I don't think he mentioned Obama's poll numbers at all.
Click to expand...
No...but at least she was honest enough to admit what this whole thing has been about.

As for Ikari...fuggedabowdit if you think he is ever goign to come out and admit...yes...the protesters set it off and the police response was accurate and adequate. Kinda defeats the whole poor us, the cops is evil bit when you have to admit that 1-the police were doing their job and 2-the protesters attacked the police.

Heres the REALLY funny part...if that dumbass cocaine using ex (Ihate the ****ing marine corps .com) marine weenie hadnt accidentally got popped in the dome with a tear gas cannister, this would have been the most mundane crowd suppression you ever saw. The cops didnt wade into the crowd using rubber hoses, they didnt use fire hoses and spray them down. They popped off some CS and smoke bombs and the assembled masses ran like bitches. Where it not for their absolute dumb luck that one in their crowd was stupid enough to stand too close to the cops, NO ONE would have been injured. Yet we have had days and days now of the 'brutality' bull****. a few dumbasses allegedly popped with rubber bullets and some watery eyes. Dang...thats not much to start a rebellion on. But hey...never let a crisis go to waste.
 
Caine said:
The flag is the symbol of our country. Of US.

Regardless of what some idiot thinks they MEAN, when people see them burning the flag, they think "That guy hates America"
Click to expand...

Well people are free to think as they like. But the rational individual tries at least someone to place context and understand why they are burning the flag. Do they hate America? It's possible. Are the protesting the government? Also possible. And so on and so forth.

So who's the "idiot", the individual burning his property in protest against the government, or the "people" who see it but refuse to actually figure out why it is being done and instead just blindly condemn?
 
Caine said:
Your opinion on this matter is now worthless.
Click to expand...

What? One reference to a dumb song and all of a sudden my opinion is on the same level as yours? Learn to take a joke.
 
VanceMack said:
As for Ikari...fuggedabowdit if you think he is ever goign to come out and admit...yes...the protesters set it off and the police response was accurate and adequate. Kinda defeats the whole poor us, the cops is evil bit when you have to admit that 1-the police were doing their job and 2-the protesters attacked the police.
Click to expand...

The government set off the protesters. Had they just left their right to assemble and protest unmolested, this would probably had never happened.
 
Ikari said:
The government set off the protesters. Had they just left their right to assemble and protest unmolested, this would probably had never happened.
Click to expand...


Your right to be you does not supersede my right to be free from you.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Your right to be you does not supersede my right to be free from you.
Click to expand...

You have no right to be "free" from me. Other than, I can't own you or force you to do something against your will.
 
Ikari said:
You have no right to be "free" from me. Other than, I can't own you or force you to do something against your will.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I don't have to put up with you, and if you keep after me, then you are absolutely infringing my rights, and breaking the law.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely! I don't have to put up with you, and if you keep after me, then you are absolutely infringing my rights, and breaking the law.


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's right. You don't have to put up with me and you can just walk away. I wouldn't chase you down the street to harass you, you ain't worth it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The people demonstrating are "ordinary citizens".
Click to expand...

not really.

...After that the mob headed over to the Port of Oakland, the nation's fifth busiest, to shut down commerce. They did so by erecting burning barricades, blocking trucks, and effectively holding drivers hostage. CBS reported that they then hurled chunks of concrete, metal pipes, Roman candles and Molotov cocktails at police.

The aim? To "shut down the means of production," they said, and "stop the flow of goods," which they did for at least one shift at the busy Oakland port, affecting thousands of workers' jobs...

The event was heavily populated by well-paid government employees, with some 18% of Oakland's city workers and 5% of its teachers taking holidays to go rioting against their own city and taxpayers.

And Oakland Mayor Jean Quan actually encouraged them to go. This, just one week after pleading with the federal government for more port funds. She sent her merry protesters to shut the commerce at the port with a taxpayer-provided police escort.

This is OWS' dirty little secret. They're not the poor or downtrodden. The Daily Caller and New York Post investigated the backgrounds of the 700 people arrested last month for shutting down the Brooklyn Bridge and found nearly all of them to be trust-fund idlers from well-off homes...

In short, it was the elites on a rampage, declaring war for the first time on those who work and create. But one thing now is clear: It's the takers against the makers.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
The government set off the protesters. Had they just left their right to assemble and protest unmolested, this would probably had never happened.
Click to expand...
Thats what I said. No way you can POSSIBLY bring yourself to admit the truth...that the 'peaceful' protesters attacked the cops and set the thing off.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats what I said. No way you can POSSIBLY bring yourself to admit the truth...that the 'peaceful' protesters attacked the cops and set the thing off.
Click to expand...

I'm just giving you another perspective. If it were that through allowing them to stay on the public land and continue to protest would have avoided this whole confrontation, don't you think it'd be worth it?

Much better keeping them confined to one spot than risking a huge riot. This is Oakland, as soon as a little bit starts to break down; the city will go crazy. That place is essentially a powder keg ready to go off.
 
Ikari said:
That's right. You don't have to put up with me and you can just walk away. I wouldn't chase you down the street to harass you, you ain't worth it.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....Pretty personal attack there Mr. Libertarian...My worthiness is not at question, what is the fact though is that people are indeed being harassed in that manner. So what you would or wouldn't do to me is irrelevant. But I'll take that you are just frustrated, and have no real answer to what I said.


j-mac
 
Ikari said:
I'm just giving you another perspective. If it were that through allowing them to stay on the public land and continue to protest would have avoided this whole confrontation, don't you think it'd be worth it?

Much better keeping them confined to one spot than risking a huge riot. This is Oakland, as soon as a little bit starts to break down; the city will go crazy. That place is essentially a powder keg ready to go off.
Click to expand...

The mayor didn't help things by having the protesters evicted and then backing down when she realized the people wouldn't go quietly.

She should have either let them continue and started negotiations to ensure that the folks were keeping their encampment within safe conditions and allowing her public safety full access..... or stood by her decision to boot them out.


Now they view her for what she is... weak. And they will continue to tear the city apart.
 
Ikari said:
I'm just giving you another perspective. If it were that through allowing them to stay on the public land and continue to protest would have avoided this whole confrontation, don't you think it'd be worth it?

Much better keeping them confined to one spot than risking a huge riot. This is Oakland, as soon as a little bit starts to break down; the city will go crazy. That place is essentially a powder keg ready to go off.
Click to expand...
WHat you are saying is that they ahd the right to do whatever they wanted and when they didnt get to do whatever they wanted they were justified in attacking the police with bottles and rocks. Intsead of marching on city hall...the place where the government officials make the decisions...you excuse and justify their behavior and then are shocked the police responded. You are using infantile logic...at best. Its the equivalent to a bunch of children kicking and stomping and throwing a fit because mommy and daddy didnt let them have their way and then said infant screaming I hate you you poopyheads! and throwing their toys. Yes...JR...a spanking comes next.
 
Caine said:
The mayor didn't help things by having the protesters evicted and then backing down when she realized the people wouldn't go quietly.

She should have either let them continue and started negotiations to ensure that the folks were keeping their encampment within safe conditions and allowing her public safety full access..... or stood by her decision to boot them out.


Now they view her for what she is... weak. And they will continue to tear the city apart.
Click to expand...

She is not only weak, but has made statements siding with the protesters, and brought about the strike yesterday that caused damage, and loss of commerce. This should disqualify her for any federal government aid what so ever.

j-mac
 
Caine said:
Now they view her for what she is... weak. And they will continue to tear the city apart.
Click to expand...

That's one of the main problems in Oakland. It's always on some hardly stable precipice of coherency. A little weakness shown, a small amount of chaos; and the whole thing is likely to explode. This should have been well known to those in charge and taken into consideration when they were making decisions.
 
Ikari said:
That's one of the main problems in Oakland. It's always on some hardly stable precipice of coherency. A little weakness shown, a small amount of chaos; and the whole thing is likely to explode. This should have been well known to those in charge and taken into consideration when they were making decisions.
Click to expand...

She wants to be viewed as "hip".

She is a horrible Mayor who already had one police chief quit on her due to being incapable of helping the department out and keeping it well understaffed.

Oakland would be the perfect place for the Black Bloc style anarchists to do whatever they want.... considering how understaffed the police department is and how tight the department has their hands tied by their ****ty weak mayor.
 
Caine said:
She wants to be viewed as "hip".

She is a horrible Mayor who already had one police chief quit on her due to being incapable of helping the department out and keeping it well understaffed.

Oakland would be the perfect place for the Black Bloc style anarchists to do whatever they want.... considering how understaffed the police department is and how tight the department has their hands tied by their ****ty weak mayor.
Click to expand...

She needs to do her job. This is one reason I think they should have been allowed to stay on the public land despite the camping laws. One, they are assembling and protesting and I would think those outweigh camping laws. Two, you keep them confined to an area and give them no excuse to riot.

Oakland's looking for an excuse, give it to them and they'll take it.
 
Ikari said:
She needs to do her job. This is one reason I think they should have been allowed to stay on the public land despite the camping laws. One, they are assembling and protesting and I would think those outweigh camping laws. Two, you keep them confined to an area and give them no excuse to riot.

Oakland's looking for an excuse, give it to them and they'll take it.
Click to expand...

Great! So we should always capitulate to mob rule, and suspend laws so that we don't piss off the mob.....Sounds like who ever can whip up enough fear wins....Good plan.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Great! So we should always capitulate to mob rule, and suspend laws so that we don't piss off the mob.....Sounds like who ever can whip up enough fear wins....Good plan.


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's the conservatives plan. TERRORISTS!!!!!!

Hahah, fear mongering isn't isolated to just one side, in fact your side is the best at using it. Still there are realities to look at and when you take action, you will have consequence. Thus any RATIONAL individual who sits down to make a decision will consider action and reaction in the process. It's natural for any intelligent being. As such, the reaction of Oakland should most certainly have been contemplated.

But I mean I guess you're ok in starting a huge riot in a city to enforce a camping law.
 
tessaesque said:
I think "ordinary citizens" would avoid blockading the work route of truckers and dock workers trying to earn their livings, isntead of lousing around and destroying public property in "peaceful protest" against things completely unrelated to the "middle class" workers they're targeting.
Click to expand...

No true Scotsman would ever wear Irish green.
 
Ikari said:
It's the conservatives plan. TERRORISTS!!!!!!

Hahah, fear mongering isn't isolated to just one side, in fact your side is the best at using it. Still there are realities to look at and when you take action, you will have consequence. Thus any RATIONAL individual who sits down to make a decision will consider action and reaction in the process. It's natural for any intelligent being. As such, the reaction of Oakland should most certainly have been contemplated.

But I mean I guess you're ok in starting a huge riot in a city to enforce a camping law.
Click to expand...

And I guess you are ok with mobs taking over and attacking police, and destroying commerce. Is that a Libertarian platform?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
And I guess you are ok with mobs taking over and attacking police, and destroying commerce. Is that a Libertarian platform?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, but if you could let them stay on the land, keep them contained, and because you're not using police force to move them out, they then have no reason TO riot. If you stop them from rioting, you're likely better off.
 
Ikari said:
No, but if you could let them stay on the land, keep them contained, and because you're not using police force to move them out, they then have no reason TO riot. If you stop them from rioting, you're likely better off.
Click to expand...

Why should they get to do it, when I have to obtain a permit and jump through hoops?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom