• 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

If that is true, then you should have no trouble producing them... keeping in mind that it is incumbent upon you to prove your point, not for others (me) to do it for you.

In fact, your news reports are actually reports of reports. Second-hand information. Hearsay. Someone said... according to reports... some are saying.... etc. According to (insert Rupert Murdoch media outlet name here). Who are the eyewitnesses? Unknown. Or none. Vapor. Vapid as well, I'd venture.

All kidding and debate aside, I'm pretty amazed by the vitriol developing BASED on weak evidence.

I can't believe the amount of "wiggle words" being thrown about. "Somebody said" elevated to gospel. "(Unnamed) police spokesman says" is Gods truth.

I can't find any follow up to the story about the 19 year old, for instance. Just the initial report and a bunch of citations of the original story. I'm not denying or defending anything. It just seems like national news, and I can't find a single link to a msm account. Just the one local story.
Surely fox did a report, right? CNN? Please, if anyone posted further information, just tell me the thread and who posted it and i'll gladly look.
 
[...] Your acting like a defense attorney who attacks each point of evidence as something independent and not taking the whole picture into account. [...]
I have been called many things by many people. That is lower than low. I have no comeback to such a slur.
John Adams, 2nd President of these United States to be, and founding father, acted as defense attorney for the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.

I'd say you've been placed in good company :cool:
 
John Adams, 2nd President of these United States to be, and founding father, acted as defense attorney for the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.

I'd say you've been placed in good company :cool:

Thanks Karl. I was being a wiseguy and trying to get a laugh. Some defense attorneys are my personal heroes - Clarence Darrow for one, William Kuntsler for another.
 
Well... I have photographs, news articles, and videos that show my positions.

You have.......... Doubt and Conspiracy Theories.

Both of the false stories I referred to were presented as factual here and debunked.

The provocateur was also self admittedly trying to make the protesters look bad.

And how exactly would one prevent a movement from gaining legitimacy than to seek out anything negative and broadcast it. With more than one example of deliberate attempts to smear OWS having already been exposed, claiming "conspiracy nut" doesn't fly anymore.
 
All kidding and debate aside, I'm pretty amazed by the vitriol developing BASED on weak evidence. [...]
All kidding and debate aside, I'd say the vitriol was in place well before any 'evidence' was produced. The right will tolerate no assault on unfettered capitalism, even though they are, for the most part, arguing against their own self-interest. As the Tea Party politicians in Congress have clearly shown, the 'new' right is willing to destroy the economy in order to protect (what they think is) capitalism. Go figure
confuse.gif
 
Thanks Karl. I was being a wiseguy and trying to get a laugh. [...]
I figured as much, but couldn't resist the opportunity to show off that particular tidbit of encyclopedic knowledge. Ssssh, let's not tell anyone ;)
 
All kidding and debate aside, I'm pretty amazed by the vitriol developing BASED on weak evidence.

I can't believe the amount of "wiggle words" being thrown about. "Somebody said" elevated to gospel. "(Unnamed) police spokesman says" is Gods truth.

I can't find any follow up to the story about the 19 year old, for instance. Just the initial report and a bunch of citations of the original story. I'm not denying or defending anything. It just seems like national news, and I can't find a single link to a msm account. Just the one local story.
Surely fox did a report, right? CNN? Please, if anyone posted further information, just tell me the thread and who posted it and i'll gladly look.

Yes, because if National News didn't report it..... It didn't happen :roll:

Hint/Tip: All sexual assault crimes are not national news.
 
Yes, because if National News didn't report it..... It didn't happen :roll:

Hint/Tip: All sexual assault crimes are not national news.
Half the time they don't make the local cut due to privacy issues, as personal as a crime as it is I don't blame the victims for not signing a release.
 
All kidding and debate aside, I'd say the vitriol was in place well before any 'evidence' was produced. The right will tolerate no assault on unfettered capitalism, even though they are, for the most part, arguing against their own self-interest. As the Tea Party politicians in Congress have clearly shown, the 'new' right is willing to destroy the economy in order to protect (what they think is) capitalism. Go figure
confuse.gif
Care to back up your hilarious statements with evidence?
 
Care to back up your hilarious statements with evidence?
In order to not waste bandwidth, nor waste the time of those capable of critical thought, I don't explain the obvious.
 
Yes, because if National News didn't report it..... It didn't happen :roll:

Hint/Tip: All sexual assault crimes are not national news.
In other words, we must take your (or others) word for it.

While that may work well in elementary school, some of us have indeed attained an age greater than 12. Mentally, as well as physically. Should I mention IQ points? No, that would be overkill.... :2razz:
 
In order to not waste bandwidth, nor waste the time of those capable of critical thought, I don't explain the obvious.
Gee, what an intriguing response. You being rather partisan, I doubt your ability to use evidence to back up your claims. I suggest you provide evidence for your ridiculous claims, or else be deemed not credible for being biased. One capable of critical thought would never make such ridiculous claims.
 
Gee, what an intriguing response. You being rather partisan, I doubt your ability to use evidence to back up your claims. I suggest you provide evidence for your ridiculous claims, or else be deemed not credible for being biased. One capable of critical thought would never make such ridiculous claims.
Congratulations on one, large, cohesive, personal attack. Now -- do you have a rational argument to present?

The following stands as self-evident, and without rebuttal (to date):

[...] The right will tolerate no assault on unfettered capitalism, even though they are, for the most part, arguing against their own self-interest. As the Tea Party politicians in Congress have clearly shown, the 'new' right is willing to destroy the economy in order to protect (what they think is) capitalism. [...]
 
What makes it "brutal" in your view?

and where is the line between protest and riot?

A man is in coma:( or was last I read.
 
A man is in coma:( or was last I read.

All because the crowd chose to not obey the law and throw things at policemen. You should be angry at the protesters, not the people who were trying to restore order.
 
Congratulations on one, large, cohesive, personal attack. Now -- do you have a rational argument to present?

The following stands as self-evident, and without rebuttal (to date):

no, it does not stand as self-evident.... it stands as your personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Congratulations on one, large, cohesive, personal attack. Now -- do you have a rational argument to present?The following stands as self-evident, and without rebuttal (to date):
You are the one who made the statement, and so YOU are to back your claims up with evidence. The mere fact that I've given you chances to provide evidence, yet you so vehemently refuse, calls your credibility into question. Only axioms are self-evident, which your paragraph isn't. Prove your statement or lose your credibility, Sir. There is more on the line here than being right. Your credibility will take a blow if you yet again refuse to offer any evidence for your claims.
 
Couple of things, descent is absolutely necessary if you want to land a plane or get off of a high elevation.
Damn google chrome spell check!

Dissent is sometimes necessary in a free society, but not just because you personally don't like the way things are,
Ohhh so i got it when 47% of the country agrees with your movement then its just that way because "you dont like it".
Its a global movement...

dissent because the government has encroached your rights is patriotic, not because you want people to pay more taxes or you have problems with the way the country was founded.
That is not the point of the movement. Its a group of people that have different ideologies who want the corporate control of our political system gone...

In short your dissent should have real merit and not just be a bunch of pissing and moaning.
Soooo i get it.. Pissing and moaning over a democrat being in office is ok, while waving around signs calling him a nazi, socialist, communist, marxist, while be fueled by a nut job political pundit who just draws on a chalk board in your book is good dissent. But when a global movement starts about separating corporations and state comes up that is just a bunch of in your words: "pissing and moaning".

This is indeed democracy, well, democracy among the small percentage of people in the protests within that group, most of the U.S. thinks these clowns are full of ****.
Not really. Most of the US agrees with the message.

Finally, the United States is NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic

:dohA democratic republic is a form of democracy.
We are a republic with a form of representative "democracy"

and this was done so that if the public got too greedy or stupid they couldn't mess the whole thing up by tipping the scales in a manner that the damage couldn't be repaired.
We are a democratic republic.

Somehow the politicians have figured out a way to **** things up anyway and these protesters want more stupid moves......tsk tsk.
:doh:lamo:doh:lamo
 
Do you mean "dissent"? I understand dissent is also a great way to start a revolution. A revolution that could change a republic into a socialist nation, or a democracy, etc.

First off what is the right wings obsession just saying we are a republic? You do realize what a republic is? The vast majority of republics have some form of democracy. We are a democratic republic. A republic that has a form of representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. So we are a democratic republic.
Second off you can be a republic and have socialism Wake... Do we need to go back to the communist/socialist thread again?
 
Oh the Media and coverage of protests... Remember the WTO protests in 1999? Started off all peaceful, huge amount of people peaceful protesting and no news coverage. Then what happened a loose band of anarchists came started breaking ****, THEN the media came and covered it, but of course they covered it as everyone there as violent anarchists who just like to break ****.
Point being is that the media doesnt cover people power movements because they are "important", because they perseeve that as dry and a tip to the corporate media power struggle. They will only cover it if there is some "bang" affect going on for them.
 
You are the one who made the statement, and so YOU are to back your claims up with evidence. The mere fact that I've given you chances to provide evidence, yet you so vehemently refuse, calls your credibility into question. [...]
Vehemently, eh? I can only say that the violence is inbred into the right; even into their rhetoric. Your post exemplifies that.

Only axioms are self-evident, which your paragraph isn't. Prove your statement or lose your credibility, Sir. There is more on the line here than being right. Your credibility will take a blow if you yet again refuse to offer any evidence for your claims.
Given your prior statements, your assessment of anyone's credibility is simply a joke. That the Tea Party right is willing to take the government down to advance their agenda is, quite simply, self evident to any critical thinker. They brought on the credit downgrade as a result of their debt ceiling idiocy. They have avowed to make Obama a one-term president (at clearly any cost). They, in the form of supportive right wing talk media, wish Obama to fail (how can a president fail without the country failing as well?). Bottom line, my claim requires explanation to only those who will refuse to acknowledge it regardless. Stop wasting everyone's time... I, nor anyone I would consider credible, cares one whit about the right wing's assessment of their credibility, given that the right wing talk media machine is clearly composed of sociopathic liars (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al).

If the right wing talk media propaganda hate machine -- and their sycophants -- considered my arguments credible, then I would be worried. In the meantime, their claims that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth is to be expected.
 
let's not confuse partisan hyperbole and ideological yammering as critical thought.... it insult critical thinkers when you do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom