'Occupy' types

[NC_Skins]

I'm not ignoring your lame stance on the police abuse either JR. I really don't even think it deserves a response, and the fact you are taking up for the police is sickening as is. So you think that it's not ok if other countries put their people in line when they peacefully protest, but it's ok for our country to use it's police to do so against its citizens?...lol Hypocritical to say the least. I suggest you reread what Obama's quote in that picture again, and then tell me if he meant America as well. Apparently he didn't which is exactly why he's allowing that crap to continue on instead of putting his foot up some of those local mayors asses.


Freedom of speech isn't free if you put a time limit on it or require a "permit" for it. It's a ****ing joke and to defend it angers me so don't even bother doing it. There is no justification unless you simply support a police state.

Guys, you can have free speech from the hours of 8am to 11pm, but only on Monday through Friday. Oh, you have to get a permit and have it approved by our council. Thanks in advance. FUUUCK that. Maybe that's just the anarchist in me.

I will go on record and say I support any and all violence against authority in situations where police abuse their authority. Being a cop doesn't give you a right to abuse your position of power to break the laws yourself. People have a right to defend themselves, even if it's against the tyranny of it's own government.



My friend had a great quote.

"Obedient citizens never fixed anything."

This in regards to you harping about them breaking the laws, and condoning the police brutality acts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm not ignoring your lame stance on the police abuse either JR. I really don't even think it deserves a response, and the fact you are taking up for the police is sickening as is. So you think that it's not ok if other countries put their people in line when they peacefully protest, but it's ok for our country to use it's police to do so against its citizens?...lol Hypocritical to say the least. I suggest you reread what Obama's quote in that picture again, and then tell me if he meant America as well. Apparently he didn't which is exactly why he's allowing that crap to continue on instead of putting his foot up some of those local mayors asses..

I will use incredible restraint and simply say you have no concept of the rule of law and all its implications. Comparing these protests and the police reaction to them as the equivalent of the Arab Summer protests and the governmental reaction to them is the height of ignorance. Peaceful protests in the US happen all the time without confrontations or suppression. These students were clearly seeking a confrontation and they got one.

When a mob gets to choose which laws to obey - it's still mob rule, peaceful or otherwise.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Freedom of speech isn't free if you put a time limit on it or require a "permit" for it. It's a ****ing joke and to defend it angers me so don't even bother doing it. There is no justification unless you simply support a police state...

Guys, you can have free speech from the hours of 8am to 11pm, but only on Monday through Friday. Oh, you have to get a permit and have it approved by our council. Thanks in advance. FUUUCK that. Maybe that's just the anarchist in me.

200 years of reasoned caselaw says you have no clue what you are talking about. At the same time, your position is incredibly hypocritical in light of your call in the "Media" thread to allow the government to regulate the content put out on the airwaves. So - on one hand you want to adopt laws that allow the Federal government to regulate/censor content on the airwaves - but you want to prohibit local governments from reasonably regulating their thruways and public spaces so that everyone - protesters and non-protestors alike can use them? Get a clue.

It's not the anarchist that calls for such hypocrisy, it's the uniformed citizen.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I will go on record and say I support any and all violence against authority in situations where police abuse their authority. Being a cop doesn't give you a right to abuse your position of power to break the laws yourself. People have a right to defend themselves, even if it's against the tyranny of it's own government.

My friend had a great quote.

"Obedient citizens never fixed anything."

Ghandi, MLK would agree - and yet they never called for violence even the face of abuse and violence far exceeding what these students faced. Again, your resolution is something akin to barbarism - I was wronged so I will wrong you. Your understanding of civil society is barely above neaderthal. Yes, police abuse of authority is wrong and, although often not severely or consistently enough, is punished. This situation will be thouroghly vetted and lawsuits will fly, I guarrantee.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This in regards to you harping about them breaking the laws, and condoning the police brutality acts.

See CRed's statement. I agree with it 100%.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I will use incredible restraint and simply say you have no concept of the rule of law and all its implications. Comparing these protests and the police reaction to them as the equivalent of the Arab Summer protests and the governmental reaction to them is the height of ignorance. Peaceful protests in the US happen all the time without confrontations or suppression. These students were clearly seeking a confrontation and they got one.

When a mob gets to choose which laws to obey - it's still mob rule, peaceful or otherwise.



200 years of reasoned caselaw says you have no clue what you are talking about. At the same time, your position is incredibly hypocritical in light of your call in the "Media" thread to allow the government to regulate the content put out on the airwaves. So - on one hand you want to adopt laws that allow the Federal government to regulate/censor content on the airwaves - but you want to prohibit local governments from reasonably regulating their thruways and public spaces so that everyone - protesters and non-protestors alike can use them? Get a clue.

It's not the anarchist that calls for such hypocrisy, it's the uniformed citizen.



Ghandi, MLK would agree - and yet they never called for violence even the face of abuse and violence far exceeding what these students faced. Again, your resolution is something akin to barbarism - I was wronged so I will wrong you. Your understanding of civil society is barely above neaderthal. Yes, police abuse of authority is wrong and, although often not severely or consistently enough, is punished. This situation will be thouroghly vetted and lawsuits will fly, I guarrantee.



See CRed's statement. I agree with it 100%.

lol our hard earned tax dollars at work people!

[JoeRedskin]

Deleted by Edit.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I will use incredible restraint and simply say you have no concept of the rule of law and all its implications. Comparing these protests and the police reaction to them as the equivalent of the Arab Summer protests and the governmental reaction to them is the height of ignorance. Peaceful protests in the US happen all the time without confrontations or suppression. These students were clearly seeking a confrontation and they got one.

When a mob gets to choose which laws to obey - it's still mob rule, peaceful or otherwise.

I do have a concept of the rule of law. I just don't agree with or support those laws. Many of those laws are put in to control the population. Wouldn't want any unruly peasants bucking the system now do we? Certainly can't have the slaves overthrowing the masters. Ya dig? Peaceful protests do happen all the time, but how many start a world wide spark to reform corporate influence into government and accountability? You know the big boys up there don't like that, which is exactly why I posted this link.

U.S. banks should "undermine" Occupy protesters: memo - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

200 years of reasoned caselaw says you have no clue what you are talking about. At the same time, your position is incredibly hypocritical in light of your call in the "Media" thread to allow the government to regulate the content put out on the airwaves. So - on one hand you want to adopt laws that allow the Federal government to regulate/censor content on the airwaves - but you want to prohibit local governments from reasonably regulating their thruways and public spaces so that everyone - protesters and non-protestors alike can use them? Get a clue.

It's not the anarchist that calls for such hypocrisy, it's the uniformed citizen.

No. I support not allowing news agencies to openly lie and mislead. When it comes to freedom of speech and protesting, I'm 100% behind use of public property to do so. These people pay taxes and should be allowed to protest 365 days a year, 24 hours a day if they want. It's funny you talk shit about me being condescending, yet here you are....now THAT is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ghandi, MLK would agree - and yet they never called for violence even the face of abuse and violence far exceeding what these students faced. Again, your resolution is something akin to barbarism - I was wronged so I will wrong you. Your understanding of civil society is barely above neaderthal. Yes, police abuse of authority is wrong and, although often not severely or consistently enough, is punished. This situation will be thouroghly vetted and lawsuits will fly, I guarrantee.

See CRed's statement. I agree with it 100%.

So did you support the Afghan invasion? Isn't that retaliation? Meeting violence with violence, yet I am the one that's barbaric and neanderthal? LOLOLOL Keep spinning those records Mr. DJ.

I have a huge understanding of a civil society, and I have a huge understanding of being controlled by the ruling class. You may not like my tactics of violence to offset violence, but lets be honest. Countries were formed and freedoms were won off of violence. I prefer the non-violent way, but I think two people smarter than me said it best.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I do have a concept of the rule of law. I just don't agree with or support those laws. Many of those laws are put in to control the population. Wouldn't want any unruly peasants bucking the system now do we? Certainly can't have the slaves overthrowing the masters. Ya dig? Peaceful protests do happen all the time, but how many start a world wide spark to reform corporate influence into government and accountability? You know the big boys up there don't like that, which is exactly why I posted this link.

U.S. banks should "undermine" Occupy protesters: memo - Yahoo! News

You have "a concept of the rule of law" but support mob rule to ignore law when it is inconvenient? LOLOL. Wow. Your arrogance is stunning. "Slaves overthrowing the masters"?? Ahhhh, I see, when logic and reason fail, you'll just resort to a little hyperbole. For a bunch of "slaves" those students were amazingly well fed & clothed and certainly seemed to be enjoying the rights which others fought for. Ya dig?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No. I support not allowing news agencies to openly lie and mislead.

News agencies that openly lie and mislead? If it ain't the truth, why are you afriaid of it? Who decides what is fact and what is opinion? Who says "I forbid you to broadcast this"? For an anarchist, you are quite the trusting soul!! (You probably found nothing ironic in the Soviet's naming their party newspaper "Truth").

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

When it comes to freedom of speech and protesting, I'm 100% behind use of public property to do so. These people pay taxes and should be allowed to protest 365 days a year, 24 hours a day if they want. It's funny you talk shit about me being condescending, yet here you are....now THAT is hypocritical.

I got no problem with them using public space to protest. At the same time, that space doesn't belong to them. Others pay taxes too and have the right to use space. If a bunch of Tea Party folks (who also pay taxes) show up and want to use the same public space to protest, I guess we just let'em duke it out.

We are part of a civil society in which all must make accomodations for others (see - it's that rule of law thing again). These students absolutely have the right to use the space for their speech and, in fact, to deny them based on the content of that speech is illegal. I mean, I fricking spelled it out for you earlier.

I know - law confuses you. We should just get the mob together and string folks up who disagree with you. Might makes right after all.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So did you support the Afghan invasion? Isn't that retaliation? Meeting violence with violence, yet I am the one that's barbaric and neanderthal? LOLOLOL Keep spinning those records Mr. DJ.

You're right- b/c what we should have done to stop the Taliban from funding and supporting those who kill Americans was to hold a sit-in in Kabul. Or maybe start a letter writing campaign in their oh-so-free-press. I am sure we could have petitioned their govt., elected members of their parliment or in other peaceful ways effected change from within.

And yes, you are barbaric when you would chose violence in this situation. As usual, you compare apples to oranges and call them equal. You keep telling yourself your ends justify your means while urging people to bash in the heads of police and chuck firebombs at them as they try to lawfully disburse crowds. Sounds f'ing brilliant to me.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I have a huge understanding of a civil society, and I have a huge understanding of being controlled by the ruling class. You may not like my tactics of violence to offset violence, but lets be honest. Countries were formed and freedoms were won off of violence. I prefer the non-violent way, but I think two people smarter than me said it best.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

LOLOL ... You got nothing - what you have is a "huge understanding" of warmed over syndicalist/anarchic philosphy that has proved itself both ineffective and impractical (see Spain circa 1938 - I suggest Orwell's "The Road to Catalonia"). Sorry, chosing (and advocating) blood and violence in a society where peaceful demonstrations/movements have historically created massive change, even in the face of violent opposition, is misguided and will ultimately bring, not change, but repression.

Here, in the US, there is no need for blood, either from tyrants or patriots. It's why we have courts, laws and means of redress.

A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

Sir Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? ... Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

[CRedskinsRule]

My only opinion on that video, is that the protesters sitting down were idiots. Yeah, the cops could step over the protesters, and certainly it is a flipped out scene to see the officer stepping over the line to spray them, but the protesters had a ton of warnings, and simply refused to obey what were simple lawful orders. They were well aware of what the refusal meant, in terms of getting sprayed, and so when it happened, it's hard for me to build up any amount of sympathy for them.

This whole movement just seems like a shadow of the civil rights movement, and sadly reflects how pathetic our country has become. I mean you have a group of protesters, than a hundred cell phone users hoping to capture the next Rodney King video, some people laughing (can you imagine anyone laughing as Rosa Park refused to go to the back?, or at MLK Jr's I have a dream speech? Those were serious issues, and demanded serious respect), then you have a cop walking over the protester line to spray them so that the police could move them off of a small piece of pavement. Simply ridiculous on all accounts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My only opinion on that video, is that the protesters sitting down were idiots. Yeah, the cops could step over the protesters, and certainly it is a flipped out scene to see the officer stepping over the line to spray them, but the protesters had a ton of warnings, and simply refused to obey what were simple lawful orders. They were well aware of what the refusal meant, in terms of getting sprayed, and so when it happened, it's hard for me to build up any amount of sympathy for them.

This whole movement just seems like a shadow of the civil rights movement, and sadly reflects how pathetic our country has become. I mean you have a group of protesters, than a hundred cell phone users hoping to capture the next Rodney King video, some people laughing (can you imagine anyone laughing as Rosa Park refused to go to the back?, or at MLK Jr's I had a dream speech? Those were serious issues, and demanded serious respect), then you have a cop walking over the protester line to spray them so that the police could move them off of a small piece of pavement. Simply ridiculous on all accounts.

This. 100%.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My only opinion on that video, is that the protesters sitting down were idiots. Yeah, the cops could step over the protesters, and certainly it is a flipped out scene to see the officer stepping over the line to spray them, but the protesters had a ton of warnings, and simply refused to obey what were simple lawful orders. They were well aware of what the refusal meant, in terms of getting sprayed, and so when it happened, it's hard for me to build up any amount of sympathy for them.

This whole movement just seems like a shadow of the civil rights movement, and sadly reflects how pathetic our country has become. I mean you have a group of protesters, than a hundred cell phone users hoping to capture the next Rodney King video, some people laughing (can you imagine anyone laughing as Rosa Park refused to go to the back?, or at MLK Jr's I had a dream speech? Those were serious issues, and demanded serious respect), then you have a cop walking over the protester line to spray them so that the police could move them off of a small piece of pavement. Simply ridiculous on all accounts.

You do have to wonder why just a few decided to sit and get sprayed while the other stood and just watched. Its like they voted the dumb one to actually do the sitting and get sprayed while the others watch and took pics. I thought there was strengths in numbers.

[firstdown]

So lets take a vote on who was dumber.

A. The Police For Spraying The Kids
B. The Kids For Sitting There Knowing What Was Coming.

We know the smart ones where the kids cheering them on ready to take a photo the minutes the cops started the warnings. If you watch the video one guy on the end gets up and leaves.

[over the mountain]

it was college students sitting on a sidewalk on their college campus . . .they werent blocking I 95 or obstructing any public walkways or even disturbing the public.

a strong argument could be made that they, as paying college students to UC Berkley, are an exclusive group who get the right of quiet use and enjoyment of the private campus to which they pay tuition.

this whole obstructing the public, public disturbance notion floated out there doesnt apply here imo. It would if this was OWS or some other public area but it isnt.

personally, from seeing the video i think the officers felt kinda stupid for just standing their like lame ducks and the one guy was embarrased/put on the spot so he did something . . .something really stupid.

[JoeRedskin]

In a land where you cannot be jailed solely on the basis of what you say, where everyone has access to the political process and all are eligible to vote and to run for office, peaceful revolution is not "impossible in the US". It has happened before (MLK's civil rights movement) and can happen again.

Peaceful revolution, however, is unable to take place here:
Egypt Erupts: Arab Spring cradle seethes with fresh unrest - YouTube

A Weekend Of Violence in Cairo - Image Gallery - YouTube

To equate what's going on in Egypt at Tahrir Square to pepper spray at a college campus is just insulting.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In a land where you cannot be jailed solely on the basis of what you say, where everyone has access to the political process and all are eligible to vote and to run for office, peaceful revolution is not "impossible in the US". It has happened before (MLK's civil rights movement) and can happen again.

Peaceful revolution, however, is unable to take place here:
Egypt Erupts: Arab Spring cradle seethes with fresh unrest - YouTube

A Weekend Of Violence in Cairo - Image Gallery - YouTube

To equate what's going on in Egypt at Tahrir Square to pepper spray at a college campus is just insulting.

There are many types of revolutions and the Civil Rights Movement is but one type of a revolution....and although the movement considered a non-violent revolution it wasn't short on bloodshed.

As for a peaceful revolution not being attainable in Egypt I think it is important keep in mind that this is a revolution where the people are trying to transfer state power from those who held it before to a new ruling coalition. You would be hard pressed to find revolutions such as the one in Egypt that is peaceful.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

There are many types of revolutions and the Civil Rights Movement is but one type of a revolution....and although the movement considered a non-violent revolution it wasn't short on bloodshed.

As for a peaceful revolution not being attainable in Egypt I think it is important keep in mind that this is a revolution where the people are trying to transfer state power from those who held it before to a new ruling coalition. You would be hard pressed to find revolutions such as the one in Egypt that is peaceful.

I agree on all points.

As to the Civil Rights Movement, it was often met with violence from authorities but, under MLK and others, I believe that the movement itself called for non-violent actions and that it was the leaders who called for non-violence who acheived the most lasting results. Given the violence used to oppose them, it is a testament to the likes of MLK and Medgar Evers that they did not resort to violence but worked to change the system from within and, I believe, accomplished a sea change in how the law operates. Had MLK and others called for violent response to the violence they were subjected to, I think we would have a very different - much worse - US today. Although some called for violence, I believe these groups were eventually marginalized and rendered ineffective by the more successful non-violent actions (legal actions, marches, sit-ins, etc.).

As to Egypt, I agree; it is a revolution of an entirely different animal than the OWS protests - that, in fact, was my point. In fact, the quoted Kennedy speech was given in 1962 to members of the Latin America diplomatic corp to encourage these countries to permit freedom of speech akin to that in America and to tolerate dissent where none was being tolerated. [ John F. Kennedy: Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress. ] Again, I agree that the goals fo the Egyptian protests and actions like theirs, almost certainly demand "the blood of patriots and tyrants". Changing the political spectrum and the focus of political discussion in the US, however, may demand persistence, hard work and patience, it does not require that those seeking such change also seek the blood of their opponents.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree on all points.

As to the Civil Rights Movement, it was often met with violence from authorities but, under MLK and others, I believe that the movement itself called for non-violent actions and that it was the leaders who called for non-violence who acheived the most lasting results. Given the violence used to oppose them, it is a testament to the likes of MLK and Medgar Evers that they did not resort to violence but worked to change the system from within and, I believe, accomplished a sea change in how the law operates. Had MLK and others called for violent response to the violence they were subjected to, I think we would have a very different - much worse - US today. Although some called for violence, I believe these groups were eventually marginalized and rendered ineffective by the more successful non-violent actions (legal actions, marches, sit-ins, etc.).

As to Egypt, I agree; it is a revolution of an entirely different animal than the OWS protests - that, in fact, was my point. In fact, the quoted Kennedy speech was given in 1962 to members of the Latin America diplomatic corp to encourage these countries to permit freedom of speech akin to that in America and to tolerate dissent where none was being tolerated. [ John F. Kennedy: Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress. ] Again, I agree that the goals fo the Egyptian protests and actions like theirs, almost certainly demand "the blood of patriots and tyrants". Changing the political spectrum and the focus of political discussion in the US, however, may demand persistence, hard work and patience, it does not require that those seeking such change also seek the blood of their opponents.

I agree but one correction civil rights movement were met with violence from other civilians mostly. Anti-protesters who were never brought to justice in most instances.