• 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 Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

TheDemSocialist said:
Jeesshh.. What are you doing on DebatePolitics.com then?
Im on the interwebs to and i have 7 degrees! I win :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
You can have 9, you still live on your mommy's credit card.
 
haymarket said:
Do you even have half an idea what that is supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
Yeah brother...it means lets grab some bats and beat some scab ass...right? :lamo

Hypocrite...you is one.
 
apdst said:
You know exactly what I'm talking about. Just admit it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

When you do not express yourself clearly, when your 'ideas' are not fully developed, when one engages in nonsense terms of their own creation, the result is a failure of the recipient to understand what point you failed to convey.
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah brother...it means lets grab some bats and beat some scab ass...right? :lamo

Hypocrite...you is one.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this nonsense from? If you believe my posts gave you these rather unique 'ideas' quote some of them for us.
 
VanceMack said:
Just goes to prove the old adage...its always fun and games, til someone gets hurt.

Regardless of what you think, you dont have the 'right' to do whatever you want, wherever you want, and however you want and you damn sure arent the arbiter of law. Protest...fine...have a ball. When the police say...OK...this has to stop, then the true 'peaceful' protester will say, you bet, officer...we'll stop...regroup, figure it out, and come back and press on.
Click to expand...

I cannot abide this form of argument as it subjugates assembly and protest to the decree of State. They can just say "protest is not allowed within 30 miles of the city" and y'all would be saying "well that's the law and you shouldn't try to break it, if you want to peacefully assemble and protest go to the circle in middle of the corn field that government said was the only place you can protest; but otherwise STFU dirty hippie".

No, government is restricted from infringing upon our rights; and that includes assembly and protest. This rights must be upheld to their fullest. It is essential in the process of keeping this Republic.
 
mac said:
If the assembled are not peaceful, then law enforcement must enforce the peace.
Click to expand...

but what if it's not peaceful because government made it not peaceful?
 
Ikari said:
I cannot abide this form of argument as it subjugates assembly and protest to the decree of State. They can just say "protest is not allowed within 30 miles of the city" and y'all would be saying "well that's the law and you shouldn't try to break it, if you want to peacefully assemble and protest go to the circle in middle of the corn field that government said was the only place you can protest; but otherwise STFU dirty hippie".

No, government is restricted from infringing upon our rights; and that includes assembly and protest. This rights must be upheld to their fullest. It is essential in the process of keeping this Republic.
Click to expand...
Then by all means...dont 'abide' it. Go violate laws while you refuse to 'abide' it. Tell us how it all works out.

The idea of personal freedoms INCLUDES respecting other peoples rights and freedoms. There is a reason why you cant jjst do whatever the **** you want on public land. Others use the sidewalks. Others use the roads. Others use the parks and others use public buildings. You having your ass chaffed and deciding you want to go protest is FINE...provided you dont obstruct your neighbor while he goes to work. Thats the rule. You dont like it...fine. Violate the rules...but pretend it wont come with consequences.
 
nijato said:
Militarism is very different from the military. Work on your vocabulary.
Click to expand...
Ack...my bad...liberals hate the military when a republican is president. As long as it is a democrat starting wars...its alllll gooood baby. Hypocrites.
 
Ikari said:
No, government is restricted from infringing upon our rights; and that includes assembly and protest. This rights must be upheld to their fullest. It is essential in the process of keeping this Republic.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm all for a new Constitution that redefines these things as PRIVILEGES rather than RIGHTS.
 
Tigger said:
Which is why I'm all for a new Constitution that redefines these things as PRIVILEGES rather than RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're more than free to call for that. I'd probably shoot you in the face should you actually try to take my freedom; but I also doubt that everyone is such a ***** that they'd have to give up all their rights and liberties.
 
Ikari said:
I cannot abide this form of argument as it subjugates assembly and protest to the decree of State. They can just say "protest is not allowed within 30 miles of the city" and y'all would be saying "well that's the law and you shouldn't try to break it, if you want to peacefully assemble and protest go to the circle in middle of the corn field that government said was the only place you can protest; but otherwise STFU dirty hippie".

No, government is restricted from infringing upon our rights; and that includes assembly and protest. This rights must be upheld to their fullest. It is essential in the process of keeping this Republic.
Click to expand...
We have the right to peaceably assemble. Nationwide, these protests have had public defication(illegal, disgusting, unsanitary), public urination(illegal,disgusting,unsanitary), there have been reports of rape, statutory rape, theft, etc. Let's not forget that there is an ordinance in most major cities forbidding camping in public parks, camping is not assembly....it is squatting. Finally, when the police tell you they are enforcing a law and it is time to move on it is time to move on and not time to charge the police. I'll tell you this, I have seen enough dumbasses turn a warning into jail time in my partying days just by being a smartass when they were in the wrong, they said the same thing as these protesters that they had rights, then they found out that they didn't have the rights they thought they had.

One last thing, if I were an officer and someone charged me I would not show the restraint these guys did and simply gas someone, someone would probably have taken a baton across the bridge of the nose. If someone thinks that is harsh, too bad as I don't like taking a scratch or bruise because some idiot felt like the faux morality they hold to is superior to my safety or ability to do my job.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, you're more than free to call for that. I'd probably shoot you in the face should you actually try to take my freedom; but I also doubt that everyone is such a ***** that they'd have to give up all their rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's all in the Marketing, Ikari. So long as you can follow the rules and color betwen the philosophical lines, you lose nothing. Only when you choose to color outside of the lines or break the rules is there a problem. You know as well as I do that the sheeple of this country are easily manipulated by even the slightest hint of logic. They'll tie the knot in the rope for their own necks, if you let them.
 
LaMidRighter said:
One last thing, if I were an officer and someone charged me I would not show the restraint these guys did and simply gas someone, someone would probably have taken a baton across the bridge of the nose. If someone thinks that is harsh, too bad as I don't like taking a scratch or bruise because some idiot felt like the faux morality they hold to is superior to my safety or ability to do my job.
Click to expand...

If I were an individual being charged by the police who are shooting flash bangs and tear gas to disperse protest against the government...I may be tempted to burn a few cops for freedom myself.
 
OK, seriously, instead of hyper-partisan talking points and emotionally charged rhetoric why don't we take a peek at the specifics of this issue as it appears that this thread has been effectively derailed from the original topic of conversation.

For those in support of the actions the police took I have a couple question so I can further understand your point of view:

1. The Mayor authorized the actions of the police by inferring there were health and public safety issues at stake in the park the protesters were occupying.... can someone explain to me what these exact issues were?
Generally, speaking people tend to believe that the more people that are present the greater the security of the general environment, i.e. I believe most people would feel more secure walking down a populated sidewalk or through a well populated park late at night rather than the same park or sidewalk with no one visibly present. If nothing else it provides more witnesses to any particular crime that may take place. In terms of public health, I have yet to hear any physician warning that is any sort of risk of any epidemic breaking out due to the environment the occupiers were keeping.

2. As far as public safety is concerned, and in particular having seen the results in retrospect, is there really any argument that suggests the manner the police employed did not in fact increase public safety concerns as opposed to diminish them?
The evidence to me seems fairly clear that the methods the police employed in this particular situation created an environment where both the safety of the police and the protesters was significantly compromised. To use an adaptation of the "Crowded Theater" analogy: Consider a crowded theater in which a bomb was discovered. Would it be preferable for the authorities to attempt to evacuate orderly row by row with a reasonable modicum of force for those that refuse (i.e. hand cuffing and physically removing) or, as it is more relevant in this situation, if the vast majority are refusing to budge, by lobbing tear gas and flash bangs in order to accomplish removal of said citizens? In essence there are swaths of videos showing protesters being peaceably removed (albeit forcibly), and a relatively small amount of video showing protesters 'fighting' back. While no official tally has been released here in Chicago... adding up the news reports, some 350+ protesters have been arrested with approximately 15-20 for disorderly conduct or resisting arrest and as yet I can find, nor have heard of, any here that have been arrested for assault on a police officer in regard to the protests. To me this implies that the use of enhanced crowd/riot control measures (tear gas and flash bangs) was not warranted.

3. Keeping Health and public safety issues in mind, there is a long list or reasonable, "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions that local, State, and Federal courts have all upheld with regard to people's 1st amendment rights. In an effort to be honest isn't this the real issue at hand as opposed to those of health and public safety?
The incident in Cleveland cited these restrictions as their basis for eviction of the protesters. A lower court issued a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against Local Government with regard to issuance of fine or removing the protesters by force. The court quickly ruled that Local government was not infringing upon the rights of the citizens and the arrests resumed. However, occupiers in Cleveland appealed to Federal courts and the City of Cleveland quickly issued a permit for 24 hour occupancy until Nov. 9th. This was in an attempt to prevent Federal court from issuing an official injunction prohibiting the City of Cleveland from taking action against the protesters. Interestingly enough, the Federal Court ordered the temporary injunction anyway (inferring that there may be a violation of 1st amendment rights taking place) and all we can do now is await the outcome.

My predictions:

Court rules against protesters:
Those in favor of protesters: "Crap..... we have to figure out another way to stay here" - bummer in my opinion and should this happen short of appealing to SCOTUS the protesters no longer have any real leg to stand on.
(we do not agree but the ruling is Legitimate)
Those NOT in favor: "See.... Federal Judiciary has determined that reasonable time place and manner restrictions ARE appropriate thus you do NOT have a Constitutionally Protected Right to protest in this manner" - And they Would be correct.
(We agree and the ruling is legitimate)

Court rules in favor of the protesters
Those in favor of protesters: "One small step for Civil Liberties.... One Giant leap for OWS"
(We agree and the ruling is legitimate)
Those NOT in favor: "Damn activist Judges, legislating from the bench, how dare they rule in a manner which is in opposition to my own personal beliefs."
(we do NOT agree and thus the ruling is illegitimate)
 
Tigger said:
Which is why I'm all for a new Constitution that redefines these things as PRIVILEGES rather than RIGHTS.
Click to expand...
Yes our clamoring that the troops should NOT be in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide Halliburton, et. al. with profits is somehow analogous to "we hate the military"

EDIT:

My bad I intended this to be in response to:
VanceMack said:
Ack...my bad...liberals hate the military when a republican is president. As long as it is a democrat starting wars...its alllll gooood baby. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

My apologies TIGGER
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
If I were an individual being charged by the police who are shooting flash bangs and tear gas to disperse protest against the government...I may be tempted to burn a few cops for freedom myself.
Click to expand...
It's nice to skim over the facts that multiple laws were broken, including obstruction which is not a minor crime. So it's okay to piss and **** in the streets as long as you call it "expression"? These "people" are completely in the wrong and I have no sympathy for them. These are not peaceful protests especially when you consider a good bit of the rhetoric coming out and the laws that are being broken.
 
Tigger said:
Which is why I'm all for a new Constitution that redefines these things as PRIVILEGES rather than RIGHTS.
Click to expand...
At risk of being redundant (and I sincerely apologize)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I challenge anyone to explain how this quote does not directly apply to this situation. Granted it is merely his opinion, but it seems to me that Franklin is a fairly respected figure in our history both in terms of philosophy and benefial impact on American society.
 
Swit said:
At risk of being redundant (and I sincerely apologize)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I challenge anyone to explain how this quote does not directly apply to this situation. Granted it is merely his opinion, but it seems to me that Franklin is a fairly respected figure in our history both in terms of philosophy and benefial impact on American society.
Click to expand...

Excellent question.

With each passing day, in a variety of threads on this subject, the blatant hypocrisy of the right wingers becomes more and more and more obvious. When they talk about FREEDOM and LIBERTY, many on the far right only care about their own particular use of those terms and how they can benefit only themselves. When their hated enemies on the left attempt to use the rights that they profess to be so sacred, they quickly find lots of excuses to play ostirch, hide their heads in the sand, and allow the government to do what they want to do to stop people from exercising their rights.

My single favorite excuse on this board came from a far rightie who said that the protests should be stopped because they were hurting local businesses and costing them revenue. When questioned about Wal Mart actually destroying local businesses they said what Wal Mart was doing was legal so they did not object to it. Amazing!!! The very people who are so quick to accuse progressives of being STATISTS resort to the STATIST argument to defend their lack of concern about Wal Mart destroying local businesses for the last couple of decades all over this land. "But its legal" they tell you.


The level of hypocrisy in this issue dwarfs the highest mountain on the planet. And when you bring this up, THEY DO NOT DENY IT. Instead, that little rubber hammer comes into play and they are eager to point out some issues that the left is hypocritical about.......... as if that excuses their own actions.
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
At risk of being redundant (and I sincerely apologize)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I challenge anyone to explain how this quote does not directly apply to this situation. Granted it is merely his opinion, but it seems to me that Franklin is a fairly respected figure in our history both in terms of philosophy and benefial impact on American society.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that Mr. Franklin lived in a time when the Men of his age were significantly superior beings to the boys and children that currently make up about 98% of the American male population these days. The Government Mr. Franklin and his fellows set up was never intended to be influenced by the RABBLE. That's why only a certain segment of the population was given the Right to Vote. The people most likely to be Informed and Educated on the matters of the day. Currently we allow every Tom, Jamal, Pedro, and Susan to have a say in the matters of the day and it has significantly degraded the construction that Mr. Franklin and his fellows put together more than two centuries ago. This would be an attempt to move back in the direction that Mr. Franklin and the Founding Fathers actually intended, thank you very much.


haymarket said:
Excellent question.

With each passing day, in a variety of threads on this subject, the blatant hypocrisy of the right wingers becomes more and more and more obvious. When they talk about FREEDOM and LIBERTY, many on the far right only care about their own particular use of those terms and how they can benefit only themselves. When their hated enemies on the left attempt to use the rights that they profess to be so sacred, they quickly find lots of excuses to play ostirch, hide their heads in the sand, and allow the government to do what they want to do to stop people from exercising their rights.
Click to expand...

I would ask you to please show me an instance where I have EVER suggested that Freedom and Liberty were essential concepts, or even ones that I support. I'm an Authoritarian. I've made no bones about that.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's nice to skim over the facts that multiple laws were broken, including obstruction which is not a minor crime. So it's okay to piss and **** in the streets as long as you call it "expression"? These "people" are completely in the wrong and I have no sympathy for them. These are not peaceful protests especially when you consider a good bit of the rhetoric coming out and the laws that are being broken.
Click to expand...
If federal court (Cleveland has a suit pending and a temporary injunction against the City of Cleveland from taking restrictive actions again the protesters has been ordered) decides to uphold the protesters 1st Amendment rights.... Then essentially no laws would have been broken (except on an individual or case by case basis)
 
from Tigger to me

I would ask you to please show me an instance where I have EVER suggested that Freedom and Liberty were essential concepts, or even ones that I support. I'm an Authoritarian. I've made no bones about that.
Click to expand...

Are you laboring under the delusion that I mentioned you by name?
 
Tigger said:
I would suggest that Mr. Franklin lived in a time when the Men of his age were significantly superior beings to the boys and children that currently make up about 98% of the American male population these days. The Government Mr. Franklin and his fellows set up was never intended to be influenced by the RABBLE. That's why only a certain segment of the population was given the Right to Vote. The people most likely to be Informed and Educated on the matters of the day. Currently we allow every Tom, Jamal, Pedro, and Susan to have a say in the matters of the day and it has significantly degraded the construction that Mr. Franklin and his fellows put together more than two centuries ago. This would be an attempt to move back in the direction that Mr. Franklin and the Founding Fathers actually intended, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
I would argue that that the constitution (and as amended with the bill of rights) as written by the founding fathers speaks in direct opposition to the above quoted text but trying to debate someone on their personal feelings of other individuals' private thoughts that lived in a different era would be an effort in futility.

Tigger said:
I would ask you to please show me an instance where I have EVER suggested that Freedom and Liberty were essential concepts, or even ones that I support. I'm an Authoritarian. I've made no bones about that.
Click to expand...
So as an Authoritarian, would you support an Authoritarian Government that holds views in direct opposition to your own? And if so, why rally against our current government then, the vast majority of arguments akin to "Government is forcing me to do stuff I do not want to do" seems to be coming from those on your end of the political spectrum.

EDIT: If you do not understand this obvious paradox then you fundamentally do not understand Franklin's original quote.
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
If federal court (Cleveland has a suit pending and a temporary injunction against the City of Cleveland from taking restrictive actions again the protesters has been ordered) decides to uphold the protesters 1st Amendment rights.... Then essentially no laws would have been broken (except on an individual or case by case basis)
Click to expand...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've never run across my stance on appeals to the court so I will reiterate. I do not respect the appeals to the court argument since the courts tend to have a particular lean, while their decisions do in fact hold legal weight they do not always necessarily render the best and most constitutional decision. Here is the problem, yes we have freedom of speech and it is an incredibly important right but it is also prone to abuse which is why the limits of said speech and assembly have been largely tackled in the 20th century. While the protesters do have the right to peaceably assemble they do not have the right simply to assembly, peaceable assembly requires a non-violent message AND(very important) adherence to basic laws and the rights of others.

On the adherence issue: "Free Speech zones" are not good, they are an abomination, this isn't the issue just an example of an unjust law. What we have here is basic laws such as obstruction, illegal camping, and sanitation issues that are not being adhered to which a city has every right to enforce. People must be allowed to speak however they cannot just use the bathroom in a public area, they cannot block streets and obstruct others who are trying to perform their duties, they cannot camp in public parks and cannot obstruct police actions(they especially cannot endanger officers in the line of duty). There is no excuse for any of the above and those actions are not within the rights of speech or assembly regardless of what an appeals court has decided, even though they have ruled on it and hold weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom