• 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 campers shout down Oakland council members

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,205
Reaction score
45,149
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tension escalated between Occupy Oakland and city leaders Wednesday when protesters swarmed a news conference held by five council members who were calling for the immediate dismantling of the encampment outside City Hall.

Protesters shouted, "We are the 99 percent of Oakland!" and drowned out the council members who were standing at a podium but had no sound system.

Councilwoman Desley Brooks then started her own chant, which was repeated by the two dozen members of the clergy, business owners and other council members who had gathered to speak out against the camp. Their chant was "Occupy Oakland must go!"

<snip>

Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating.
Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members


As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.
 
Maybe they want the change they gathered for... and possibly dont desire to bring violence of themselves in a mad conspiracy without ends?

...perhaps?
 
Maybe they want the change they gathered for... and possibly dont desire to bring violence of themselves in a mad conspiracy without ends?

...perhaps?

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.
 
As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.

I don't know, they didn't seem to do much here. Just shout over a group of people wishing to end their right to assemble.
 
I don't know, they didn't seem to do much here. Just shout over a group of people wishing to end their right to assemble.

At the end of the article, it states:

"Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."

I think that is the problem.
 
At the end of the article, it states:

"Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."

I think that is the problem.

But this incident has nothing to do with that, and how can they have "resolutions" and blah if they aren't to be organized?
 
At the end of the article, it states:

"Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."

I think that is the problem.

do they passively allow their rights to be taken from them

or do they take whatever action is necessary to assert their Constitutional rights, when those in authority attempt to unlawfully deprive them of their lawful rights

do they listen to Malcolm X
or MLK/Gandhi?
 
But this incident has nothing to do with that, and how can they have "resolutions" and blah if they aren't to be organized?

Mycroft's point (Mycroft, correct me if I am wrong) was that the OWS rallies would become violent or fail. The news artilcle clearly states that the group is making arangements in it's ranks to have uncivil/unpeaceful protests because their movement is failing. This incident has everyting to do with the OWS becoming violent. Because of this incident, they felt that weren't being heard and are now making an effort to be "violent" in order to be heard. Much like a child who doesn't get what they want.
 
do they passively allow their rights to be taken from them

or do they take whatever action is necessary to assert their Constitutional rights, when those in authority attempt to unlawfully deprive them of their lawful rights

do they listen to Malcolm X
or MLK/Gandhi?

I don't know, what would you do?

I can assure you, I would not attack my fellow citizen.
 
Mycroft's point (Mycroft, correct me if I am wrong) was that the OWS rallies would become violent or fail. The news artilcle clearly states that the group is making arangements in it's ranks to have uncivil/unpeaceful protests because their movement is failing. This incident has everyting to do with the OWS becoming violent. Because of this incident, they felt that weren't being heard and are now making an effort to be "violent" in order to be heard. Much like a child who doesn't get what they want.

No, the article clearly states that a faction of OWS, not the whole thing, has expressed desires in keeping a violent option.
 
I don't know, what would you do?

I can assure you, I would not attack my fellow citizen.


long term, MLK/Gandhi's approach ultimately prevailed
not so much Malcom X's approach (before he found Islam)
 
No, the article clearly states that a faction of OWS, not the whole thing, has expressed desires in keeping a violent option.

Alright, you first started saying that this article has nothing do with the group committing violence, or going in the direction of violence. Now you are saying it is just a faction. Basically you are confirming Mycroft's point. Thank you. A sect/faction (of unknown percentage) has decided that violence is the best answer for their protest.
 
Alright, you first started saying that this article has nothing do with the group committing violence, or going in the direction of violence. Now you are saying it is just a faction. Basically you are confirming Mycroft's point. Thank you. A sect/faction (of unknown percentage) has decided that violence is the best answer for their protest.
it would not be the first time that a violent faction has been planted to justify government action against their non-peaceful demonstrations
not saying this is the circumstance, but also not ruling it out
 
Alright, you first started saying that this article has nothing do with the group committing violence, or going in the direction of violence. Now you are saying it is just a faction. Basically you are confirming Mycroft's point. Thank you. A sect/faction (of unknown percentage) has decided that violence is the best answer for their protest.

The article doesn't have anything to do with them committing violence as they had committed no violent act. They had shouted down government agents and nothing more. It went on to claim that a faction desired to maintain the violent option; not the whole.

This is correcting you people who think that somehow so long as a or a few OWS members do something, that you can then generalize it to the entire group. It's a very stupid and childish way of thought.
 
it would not be the first time that a violent faction has been planted to justify government action against their non-peaceful demonstrations

good point. it was probably the same basterds who planted explosives in the WTC and flew a missile into the pentagon.
 
Mycroft's point (Mycroft, correct me if I am wrong) was that the OWS rallies would become violent or fail. The news artilcle clearly states that the group is making arangements in it's ranks to have uncivil/unpeaceful protests because their movement is failing. This incident has everyting to do with the OWS becoming violent. Because of this incident, they felt that weren't being heard and are now making an effort to be "violent" in order to be heard. Much like a child who doesn't get what they want.

You are essentially correct, but there is more to it. Those who are behind this movement...those who are directing it...Adbusters and certain individuals...have stated that they intend to use the Tunisia and Egypt models as their blueprint. Those models depended upon violence...especially violence on the part of the authorities. People died. Those models were a success.

OWS hasn't risen to that level of violence yet...and the authorities have been taking a careful and measured position to avoid busting heads. That's been the biggest problem for OWS, so far. That's why there are factions...who appear in Oakland, at least, to be gaining the upper hand...that want to escalate the violence.
 
The article doesn't have anything to do with them committing violence as they had committed no violent act. They had shouted down government agents and nothing more. It went on to claim that a faction desired to maintain the violent option; not the whole.

This is correcting you people who think that somehow so long as a or a few OWS members do something, that you can then generalize it to the entire group. It's a very stupid and childish way of thought.

You don't read anything do you? You just see something against OWS and then just type. You aren't actually addressing what the point of this topic is. OWS fail = members of OWS get violent. Not a generalization.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly the same type of mentality and ignorance that is fueling the kids at Penn State that are protesting Paterno's firing.

And this is why these Occupy Wall Street idiots shouldn't be paid any mind whatsoever.
 
I would LOVE to see the "Occupy" movement actually turn violent. If it were to do so, I would have more respect for them than I do for the Tea Party. I don't believe that EITHER movement is willing to do the two things necessary to actually make change....

1. Shed their own blood
2. Shed other people's blood (the more important one)

Additionally, it would give the police the excuse to go in and do what should have been done over a month ago, clean these pieces of refuse out with REAL bullets.
 
I would LOVE to see the "Occupy" movement actually turn violent. If it were to do so, I would have more respect for them than I do for the Tea Party. I don't believe that EITHER movement is willing to do the two things necessary to actually make change....

1. Shed their own blood
2. Shed other people's blood (the more important one)

Additionally, it would give the police the excuse to go in and do what should have been done over a month ago, clean these pieces of refuse out with REAL bullets.

I don't agree with you at all.

1. The Tea Party has been much more effective than OWS and they have managed to remain civil. I attribute this to the fact that the Tea Party actually has a core set of objectives and that they are willing to work within our political system to enact their desired change. OWS has none of that.

2. I don't want to see ANYONE shed their blood.
 
1. The Tea Party has been much more effective than OWS and they have managed to remain civil. I attribute this to the fact that the Tea Party actually has a core set of objectives and that they are willing to work within our political system to enact their desired change. OWS has none of that.

2. I don't want to see ANYONE shed their blood.

Then you have no chance of ever seeing your political and social ideologies become part of the core of American society. This country is LONG PAST the point where any type of protesting or public demonstration will change anything. How are those Tea Party Congressmen you folks elected a couple years ago doing in actually CHANGING the system? I know I haven't seen any of significance. They just became part of the establishment. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the history of Western Civilization there has been ONE significant non-violent exchange of government. It happened in the 1600's in England. Beyond that, no government in the Western world that I am aware of, has given up power without the use of force against it.
 
You don't read anything do you? You just see something against OWS and then just type. You aren't actually addressing what the point of this topic is. OWS fail = members of OWS get violent. Not a generalization.

YOU need to learn to read

As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.

The OWSer's movement (general) will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They (general) can't have that. They (general) want the authorities to bust some heads [this is no way supported by any measurement or data, BTW, it's just assumption and supposition].

More violence on the part of OWS (general) is on it's way.

That's what was written. Sorry if you were blinded by your position on OWS to actually understand the words there. Please try better.
 
YOU need to learn to read



The OWSer's movement (general) will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They (general) can't have that. They (general) want the authorities to bust some heads [this is no way supported by any measurement or data, BTW, it's just assumption and supposition].

More violence on the part of OWS (general) is on it's way

That's what was written. Sorry if you were blinded by your position on OWS to actually understand the words there. Please try better.

You are such a fool. You had a whole arguement with what I was saying, once you found out you were wrong, you tried to use someone else's writing against me.
 
You are such a fool. You had a whole arguement with what I was saying, once you found out you were wrong, you tried to use someone else's writing against me.

We were both referencing the OP, remember?
 
Back
Top Bottom