121 replies to this topic

[Joker]

so selling yay and starting fights should be accepted? and if it were you'd come along and call them criminals. seriously, if you have absolutely nothing to contribute but slander, i am out of conversation with you. it's beyond old at this point.

Oh and I guess they should just enforce the laws the protesters agree with and think should be enforced

[MeOmYo]

Oh and I guess they should just enforce the laws the protesters agree with and think should be enforced

What are the laws they are enforcing Jack?

[Joker]

In what case? I'm not sure what they're enforcing or not. In this discussion I don't think I've claimed they've enforced anything. It's my understanding the protesters have been complaining about unlawful arrests.

[PeaceFrog]

I can't say what it's like at Zucotti, but it seems anyone is welcome to food, coffee, emergency first aid, access to power via solar panels, and information at Occupy Albany in Academy Park across from the Governer's Mansion.

I participated in the March on Banksters of America today. They locked their front door so we couldn't go in. A few people closed their bank accounts and moved their money to credit unions. It seems most protesters had done that already some time ago.

[OnBongos]

They have bins of hoodies and warms shirts/sweatshirts and also lots of coats hanging up. They have a tent set up with a sign that if you need to stay overnight there you can, in that big tent. There is also a library where they have lots of books. I think some folks go down to lend their time and voice and wind up staying for longer than they intend to, and have need of the free stuff.

It's much more of a bare bones operation than Albany, but it's had to be. They had all their stuff taken from them - no generators and no porta johns. Albany is blessed to have the understanding Police force they do, as well. Can we help it if we are pissed off? How can they have expected any less in light of the situation?

[PeaceFrog]

They have bins of hoodies and warms shirts/sweatshirts and also lots of coats hanging up. They have a tent set up with a sign that if you need to stay overnight there you can, in that big tent. There is also a library where they have lots of books. I think some folks go down to lend their time and voice and wind up staying for longer than they intend to, and have need of the free stuff.

It's much more of a bare bones operation than Albany, but it's had to be. They had all their stuff taken from them - no generators and no porta johns. Albany is blessed to have the understanding Police force they do, as well. Can we help it if we are pissed off? How can they have expected any less in light of the situation?

I think it's normal to be angry when your 1st Amendment Rights are not being granted to you... very frustrating to say the least.

[OnBongos]

[LEFT][B][COLOR="Indigo"]I choose to let my frustration become empowerment. We can be mad and complain and do nothing or we can fire up the People to do something!
We are getting pretty fired up about it. Did you see Maher last week? Cornell West was wonderful. He said the 1% (which is actually about 400 people?!!) has taken 100% of the growth
and it made him angry and he got fired up and came down to OWS.

We may not have the dollars, but we have the bodies and we will gladly show up en masse for the generations to come. I don't have children of my own, but I am so scared that tomorrow's children will be living 3rd world existances if things go on as they have been for much longer. 1 of 5 kids today live in poverty here in the USA!? We can't sustain the greed any more.

Thomas Jefferson 3rd President (1801-1809)

Periodic revolution,

[Joker]

I think it's normal to be angry when your 1st Amendment Rights are not being granted to you... very frustrating to say the least.

I keep hearing things like this, who's 1st amendment rights aren't being granted?

[PeaceFrog]

I keep hearing things like this, who's 1st amendment rights aren't being granted?

take a wild guess

[PeaceFrog]

I'll give you a hint because I'd rather you come to the conclusion on your own than just tell you.

This is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some vocabulary for you:

abridging - Verb:
1. Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
2. Curtail (rights or privileges).

[Joker]

How about you just give a straight answer and an example of what you're talking about?

[PeaceFrog]

You're not aware of what's been going on in Oakland, Chicago, Atlanta and on a smaller scale everywhere protesters are assembling?

OK, then I'll tell you what's been going on. Arrests of protesters and/or confiscation of their belongings.

Peaceful protesters who are not endangering anybody else are constitutionally allowed to remain. Any attempt to suppress protesters is in direct violation with the 1st Amendment in my opinion (and most lawyers across the country). Curfews during a protest are unconstitutional.

[Joker]

From what I've seen arrests have been made for other legitimate reasons.

Folks do have the right to assemble, they don't have the right to set up shop, basically squatting, and prevent others from using public property.

[PeaceFrog]

from what you have seen? what have you seen besides what Fox news has shown you?

You think protesters should confine their protest to only certain scheduled hours? Where in the constitution does it say that?

[Joker]

from what you have seen? what have you seen besides what Fox news has shown you?

You think protesters should confine their protest to only certain scheduled hours? Where in the constitution does it say that?

I've seen plenty of different news reports and I didn't say anything about confining protests to certain hours.

I guess when you've got nothing you think it's best to try and put words in my mouth than actually back up your own statements.

[PeaceFrog]

your exact words were that protesters don't have the right to "set up shop."

What exactly does it mean to "set up shop?"

I understood that to mean you don't think protesters should be allowed to remain in public 24/7

If you don't want your words to be misinterpreted, then choose them more carefully.

[PeaceFrog]

and please don't try and tell me that you're not aware of the violent police actions that have attempted to stifle this movement.

[Joker]

your exact words were that protesters don't have the right to "set up shop."

What exactly does it mean to "set up shop?"

I understood that to mean you don't think protesters should be allowed to remain in public 24/7

If you don't want your words to be misinterpreted, then choose them more carefully.

Do you not see the 2 words immediately after "set up shop?" They are "basically squatting" and they pretty much explain exactly what I mean when I say "set up shop."

[PeaceFrog]

Do you not see the 2 words immediately after "set up shop?" They are "basically squatting" and they pretty much explain exactly what I mean when I say "set up shop."

so they should protest within certain hours? Is that what you mean?

Because the words "basically squatting" are just as wishy-washy and vague as "set up shop."

are they squatting or not?

[Joker]

so they should protest within certain hours? Is that what you mean?

Because the words "basically squatting" are just as wishy-washy and vague as "set up shop."

are they squatting or not?

They can protest whenever they want as far as I'm concerned.

Let's see if I can make it easier for you to understand. They don't have the right to break laws.

[vic]

he supports the movement:rotf:

[Joker]

he supports the movement:rotf:

Still waiting for you to show me where I've slandered the protesters

[PeaceFrog]

They can protest whenever they want as far as I'm concerned.

Let's see if I can make it easier for you to understand. They don't have the right to break laws.

actually, according to the constitution, no laws are allowed to be made to restrict their freedom to protest.

there's a difference.

[Joker]

actually, according to the constitution, no laws are allowed to be made to restrict their freedom to protest.

there's a difference.

Have any laws have been made for that purpose?

Do people have the right to march into your house and stay as long as they want to protest?

Do people have the right to attack others and destroy property as part of their protest?

You guys seem to think protesters are entitled to do whatever they want as part of their protests and it's just not true.

That type of selfish thinking will be the downfall of the movement

You've got to learn to be more like the protesters who put their lives on the line in Oakland by standing in front of the idiots who were vandalizing buildings and starting trouble.

There's still time to turn things around if it's done lawfully and peacefully. I'd imagine that's the way the majority of us would like it to happen

[TakeAStepBack]

Take it the whole thing to washington. All those funds could be used to bring them ALL in to Occupy the washington mall and hold their GAs there and put together a list of official grievances to file in petition. Take it to the online community and get signatures. Show congress and the executive branch we mean business and know who's at fault here. Otherwise, we're pissin' in the wind and getting it on our friends and neighbors.

[vic]

From what I've seen arrests have been made for other legitimate reasons.

Folks do have the right to assemble, they don't have the right to set up shop, basically squatting, and prevent others from using public property.

we could start here

Still waiting for you to show me where I've slandered the protesters

i'm not here to archive your statements for you, baller

[vic]

Take it the whole thing to washington. All those funds could be used to bring them ALL in to Occupy the washington mall and hold their GAs there and put together a list of official grievances to file in petition.

yep. i suggested that over a week ago.

that doesn't mean wall st should get off the hook though, and i don't think people are just flat-out forgetting about washington.

[TakeAStepBack]

Why would wall st. get off the hook? If there is reasonable suspiciion or evidence of fraud then they should have been/should be prosecuted, by the law. Which is the job of the government to do.

They aren't going to prosecute themselves for christ sake.

[vic]

there's an obvious reason why they haven't been prosecuted.

they control government.

not the other way around, unfortunately.

[TakeAStepBack]

I think it's a tandem relationship. Take the business principle out of government and its only function becomes the law. How can a corporation buy congress if congress has no viable persuasion over business activity?

This is why smaller fefderal government and more emphasis on the state is required for a proper working constitutional republic.

The president has basically declare hiimself elected dictator at this point. Completely sidelining congress to get his agenda pushed through....

[Joker]

we could start here



i'm not here to archive your statements for you, baller

In other words you were just talking out of your ass.

Sorry to see you've chosen to go that route Vic.

[TakeAStepBack]

But I digress, we're veering off topic again. Which OWS thread is this one again?

[vic]

In other words you were just talking out of your ass.

Sorry to see you've chosen to go that route Vic.

selective amnesia. word. rock on.

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, good grief, can you just post the damned thing Jack said that slandered the protesters so we can all see it and then move on?
Or at least post something that can be rebuttaled to being construed as slander and then argue about that?

It's like watching two of my homies fight over who's gonna hump the doorknob.

[Joker]

The only thing I can think of is there was one post where I used insulting language to prove a point about the rhetoric being used, other than that I have no idea

[vic]

well, there's a novel or 2's worth of threads in this forum to skim through, which i'm not gonna do while i'm at work, nor on my free time. all one needs to do is look at every single mention of police to see where the bulk of your slander has come from.

doesn't really matter though. opinions=assholes

[Joker]

I've been asking you to back it up for a few days now and you've pretty much just ignored my requests.

It's one thing to disagree with someone's PoV, it's another to go slinging accusations at others and not back them up.

[vic]

we can start with your adament defense of tony bologna, then we can move on to every other case of police brutality discussed in this forum.

or you can send me on a fucking hunt throughout this entire forum as if you don't know how much you've been flapping your keys about protesters breaking laws and nothing more as if breaking the law and provoking police has been their sole purpose throughout this entire thing.

you're not on trial here. if you got nothing else but this left in your arguments then that's too bad.

PS you've been asking me to back it up on the weekend when i'm on the computer for about 5 minutes at a time with a broken keyboard

[Joker]

we can start with your adament defense of tony bologna, then we can move on to every other case of police brutality discussed in this forum.

or you can send me on a fucking hunt throughout this entire forum as if you don't know how much you've been flapping your keys about protesters breaking laws and nothing more as if breaking the law and provoking police has been their sole purpose throughout this entire thing.

you're not on trial here. if you got nothing else but this left in your arguments then that's too bad.

PS you've been asking me to back it up on the weekend when i'm on the computer for about 5 minutes at a time with a broken keyboard

I've said more than a couple of times the Bologna looked guilty of wrongdoing and that he should be held accountable for his actions. Not that it makes a difference because that's not slandering the protesters.

Yes, I have been talking about the protesters breaking the law and how they shouldn't, that's hardly slanderous.

And this has nothing to do with being on trial and everything to do with being honest.

I have no problem accepting that we have different views on subjects, I do have a problem with you accusing me of something that just isn't true


PS I've been asking you about the slander bullshit since last Wed.

[PeaceFrog]

Joker, you blindly defend the police and government much the same way you accuse others of blindly defending democrats in the past and OWS currently.

You have no proof that protesters were breaking any laws.

[Joker]

And by blindly defend you mean opting to wait to get the big picture before accusing

Despite what you want to believe I've repeatedly stated ANYONE found guilty of wrongdoing should be prosecuted, this includes both police and protesters. Democrats as well as Republicans.

We could start with any video of the protesters marching on the bridge and blocking traffic as proof of protesters breaking laws.

[PeaceFrog]

YOU are the one ACCUSING PROTESTERS of wrongdoing without having the full picture!

One news report said the police allowed the protesters onto the bridge.

You are so noble by saying that ANYONE found guilty of wrongdoing should be prosecuted. That's a real brainy opinion.

Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience? What do you do when the laws are immoral?

[Joker]

YOU are the one ACCUSING PROTESTERS of wrongdoing without having the full picture!

One news report said the police allowed the protesters onto the bridge.

You are so noble by saying that ANYONE found guilty of wrongdoing should be prosecuted. That's a real brainy opinion.

Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience? What do you do when the laws are immoral?

What protesters have I accused of wrongdoing without having the full picture?

What news report was that? I have seen video of the cops standing right in front of a group of protesters telling them not to go on the bridge or they'd be subject to arrest.

Call me noble, call it a brainy opinion, it doesn't change a thing.

I'm all for PEACEFUL civil disobedience to attempt to change laws that you believe are wrong or immoral.

[PeaceFrog]

I haven't seen any video of cops telling protesters not to go on a bridge or they'd be subject to arrest.

However, if they did choose to go on the bridge, that does not make the protest violent in my opinion. I would consider that a peaceful act of civil disobedience.

I did see a video of cops throwing teargas bombs at a group of protesters attempting to attend to another protester that was hurt badly.

[Joker]

What protesters have I accused of wrongdoing without having the full picture?

[TakeAStepBack]

I've got to dodge these threads.

Jeebus, Jack! Would you stop accusing the protesters of breaking the law!?

And would others please bare in mind that there are laws, and civil disobedience against laws that are considered injust or immoral, might just get you arrested? It might even get you arrested with a heavy hand. I've seen the cops have to drag people who wont cooperate with them. How is any of this new or relevant?

I think it simply takes away from the "message" and puts the focus on police vs. the protesters. People WILL get arrested. People will cross the line of peaceful. Neither side is right. This is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Putting all of the focus on it, is turning this into a charade vs. a movement with a message.

[PeaceFrog]

I agree with you 100% TASB

[Joker]

You'd think with the amount of shit I talk over here people could find something concrete to stick on me rather than having to resort to making shit up

[vic]

calling the protesters squatters isn't slander. nor is falsely accusing someone of grabbing a cop right before bologna pepper-sprayed those 2 dangerous females. nor is seeing a couple kids standing there in front of a mall and calling them human shields. no, that's not slander.

i'll keep in mind that you SUPPORT the movement next time i say such out of line things:rotf:

i don't think there would be as much talk of police brutality in here if jack didn't blindly jump to their defense so often.

[Joker]

calling the protesters squatters isn't slander. nor is falsely accusing someone of grabbing a cop right before bologna pepper-sprayed those 2 dangerous females. nor is seeing a couple kids standing there in front of a mall and calling them human shields. no, that's not slander.

i'll keep in mind that you SUPPORT the movement next time i say such out of line things:rotf:

i don't think there would be as much talk of police brutality in here if jack didn't blindly jump to their defense so often.

Really? Calling them squatters is slander even if they're squatting?

In the video it sure looked like the protesters were reaching in as if to grab his arm

And they were using the kids as protection from the cops so they were using them as human shields.

Thanks for playing