Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

justabubba · Nov 10, 2011

those of us who were around during the equal rights movement and the anti-war movement should be able to recall elements of those groups who wanted to use violence to make their opposition to the status quo known
stokely carmichael and the black panthers; Malcolm X (before he converted to Islam) ... they inveighed against those who subscribed to peaceful means to accomplish the end of racial discrimination
abbey hoffman, tom hayden, SDS and the weathermen espoused militant action instead of peaceful demonstration
not sure why we expect anything different from the Occupy movement

what i do recall is the fear the opposition felt
they were forced to consider the peaceful group(s)' positions in a way i do not believe would have resulted but for the paranoia caused by the willingness of the militants to wreak havoc

Malcolm X understood this; here were his words:

"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

"I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King."

but these were his words which ignited passion in some and fear in many:

"We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."

"Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary."

"The day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself."

racist white America knew it was a new day when they heard his words. they realized the era of stepandfetchit had ended:

"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are black people."

"I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do."

"It doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

"Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights - I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That's all."

be assured, Malcolm X scared the **** out of racist white Americans
his positions forced white America to recognize that MLK was actually a reasonable fellow to deal with

to a lesser extent the high profile activism of the chicago seven and the acts by the SDS and weathermen allowed the American public to view the antiwar demonstrators as more reasonable

the militant groups were infiltrated by government agents back then, who often attempted to provoke violent ooutbursts, giving justification for law enforcement efforts to quell the violence - and tarnish the movement
it would not surprise me to see the same thing happening today regarding the more militant wing of the Occupy movement

Grant · Nov 10, 2011

Ikari said:
I'm not 100% sure about that. Assembly and protest are exceedingly important and this is just a consequence of freedom. I think we should have to see it and deal with it and understand what it means to be free.

Did you not see the video where the protesters were not allowing others freedom of assembly, as is their Constitutional rights also?

You can't possibly make the claim that the OWS protesters have the right to Assemble while they are denying that same right to others. The same rights should extend to everyone.

You are apparently making the claim that these OWS protesters should be free to do their thing while others are not free to do theirs. This is not 'protest'. This is a prelude to violence. The smart ones have already left, and others should follow. It's hard to have too much sympathy for those who choose to remain within a violent group.

iliveonramen · Nov 10, 2011

Did you not see the video where the protesters were not allowing others freedom of assembly, as is their Constitutional rights also?

You can't possibly make the claim that the OWS protesters have the right to Assemble while they are denying that same right to others. The same rights should extend to everyone.

You are apparently making the claim that these OWS protesters should be free to do their thing while others are not free to do theirs. This is not 'protest'. This is a prelude to violence. The smart ones have already left, and others should follow. It's hard to have too much sympathy for those who choose to remain within a violent group.

Come on Grant...a couple of years ago Tea partiers were shouting down everybody in town halls over healthcare reform. I'm guessing that infuriated you as well?

Grant · Nov 10, 2011

iliveonramen said:
Come on Grant...a couple of years ago Tea partiers were shouting down everybody in town halls over healthcare reform. I'm guessing that infuriated you as well?

Yes, I recall that shouting. Does that compare with anything that's going on among the OWS protesters? It's gone well beyond a shouting match. I don;t see anything the Tea Party might have done that can compare with the OWS protesters. Do you?

But of course there were other points referred to in that post beyond raising ones voice.

mike2810 · Nov 10, 2011

iliveonramen said:
Come on Grant...a couple of years ago Tea partiers were shouting down everybody in town halls over healthcare reform. I'm guessing that infuriated you as well?

Yep, same old responses from libs. If so and so did in the past, we can do it now, yet we objected then, why are you objecting to what we do now?
and some wonder why nothing changes in American regarding politcs.

By using the same tactics (OWS) of the party you object (TEA), you are no better than they are. Personally, both sides were wrong when they distrubt meetings. Yet, part of me thinks if I was at that meeting and a group was shouting down the meeting, I just might want to help evict them. I have rights of hearing what officlals want to say.

justabubba · Nov 10, 2011

mike2810 said:
Yep, same old responses from libs. If so and so did in the past, we can do it now, yet we objected then, why are you objecting to what we do now?
and some wonder why nothing changes in American regarding politcs.

By using the same tactics (OWS) of the party you object (TEA), you are no better than they are. Personally, both sides were wrong when they distrubt meetings. Yet, part of me thinks if I was at that meeting and a group was shouting down the meeting, I just might want to help evict them. I have rights of hearing what officlals want to say.

that old saying is true; you do learn something new every day

so please tell me what part of the Constitution establishes your right to hear what officials want to say

i think i have missed that one

mike2810 · Nov 10, 2011

justabubba said:
that old saying is true; you do learn something new every day

so please tell me what part of the Constitution establishes your right to hear what officials want to say

i think i have missed that one

I knew someone would come up with that. way to dodge the point.
So what give you the right to distrupt the meeting?

justabubba · Nov 10, 2011

mike2810 said:
I knew someone would come up with that. way to dodge the point.
So what give you the right to distrupt the meeting?

i didn't disrupt any meeting

so, when are you going to tell us what part of the Constitution establishes your "right" to hear what officials want to say

mike2810 · Nov 10, 2011

justabubba said:
i didn't disrupt any meeting

so, when are you going to tell us what part of the Constitution establishes your "right" to hear what officials want to say

JBub, you are such a....

ok it doesnt.
So where does the law say the OWS have a right to distrupt?

justabubba · Nov 10, 2011

mike2810 said:
JBub, you are such a....

ok it doesnt.
So where does the law say the OWS have a right to distrupt?

who asserted that anyone has a right to disrupt

but we know you asserted that you have a right to hear what public officals want to say

only we have established that you actually have no such right. you made that up. what else do you make up out of thin air for your posts

mike2810 · Nov 10, 2011

justabubba said:
who asserted that anyone has a right to disrupt

but we know you asserted that you have a right to hear what public officals want to say

only we have established that you actually have no such right. you made that up. what else do you make up out of thin air for your posts

.
Got you. You don't research much do you. So we can now ignore what you post as opinion only.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized this right.
The Constitutional Right to Listen - Peter Ferrara - National Review Online
In 1986’s Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, the Court held that the constitutional guarantee of free speech protects significant societal interests wholly apart from the speaker’s interest in self-expression, including the public’s interest in receiving information. And in 2000’s U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., the Court ruled that, under the First Amendment’s free-speech clause, the citizen is entitled to seek out or reject certain ideas or influences
without government interference or control.

MKULTRABOY · Nov 10, 2011

Mycroft said:
Could you rephrase the highlighted part of your post?

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you are trying to say there.

Thank you.

Sorry, little sleep, replace the 'of' with 'upon'.

DiAnna · Nov 10, 2011

Does no one see the paradox of a group protesting for their own freedom of speech by not allowing others the same freedom? By shouting down everyone with whom they disagree, they have just become that which they supposedly abhorr... people who will not allow the freedom of protest or dissenting opinion.

There are posters in this thread wearing big enough blinders to make a Clydesdale proud.

Mycroft · Nov 10, 2011

MKULTRABOY said:
Sorry, little sleep, replace the 'of' with 'upon'.

Ah...that makes sense now.

I think that some...probably most...of the useful idiots don't want violence.

But the people directing the show DO want violence. They depend on it. Their movement will die without it.

justabubba · Nov 11, 2011

mike2810 said:
.
Got you. You don't research much do you. So we can now ignore what you post as opinion only.

now you are just being silly
read the opinion
it does not give you a right to "hear"
in no way does it compel others to remain silent so that you can hear what another is saying

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized this right.

nope
it has not
it confirms what we already knew
that you have a right to "listen"
but that is not your argument
no one prevented you from listening
instead, you insist that you have a right to "hear"
pity you are unable to appreciate the distinction

The Constitutional Right to Listen - Peter Ferrara - National Review Online
In 1986’s Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, the Court held that the constitutional guarantee of free speech protects significant societal interests wholly apart from the speaker’s interest in self-expression, including the public’s interest in receiving information. And in 2000’s U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., the Court ruled that, under the First Amendment’s free-speech clause, the citizen is entitled to seek out or reject certain ideas or influences
without government interference or control.

and please show us where the government interfered with your opportunity to seek out any ideas or influences

my inclination to be civil tells me to say 'nice try'; but in reality, since you are so far off the mark, desperate to find cover for your assertion that you have a Constitutional right to "hear", it was actually a sophomoric effort

Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

justabubba

long standing member

Grant

iliveonramen

Pontificator

Grant

mike2810

justabubba

long standing member

mike2810

justabubba

long standing member

mike2810

justabubba

long standing member

mike2810

MKULTRABOY

DiAnna

Hooter Babe

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

justabubba

long standing member