Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really? You oppose "Second Amendment solutions" -- even though that's what got us free from English tyranny. You say that doesn't apply -- but tyranny is tyranny.What you say I'm supporting and what you are pointing out, are two different things.Then why do you keep supporting it, and opposing those who point it out?
I support what you are pointing out; I don't support, what you are saying I do.
Just pointing out leftist hypocrisy.Were you similarly outraged when Christian veteran gun-owning, small-government-supporting conservatives were labeled "potential domestic terrorists" by this Administration?Obama's not a liberal!
He doesn't have liberal policies and there's not a single liberal in his Cabinet!
You're fuckin' nuts! And your lack of outrage on this issue, shows you're also anti-American.
No?
Then feel free to eat shit.
Anyone who goes against obama is going to be considered a terrorist. The liberals are insane and, unfortunately, are running the country into the ground right now. Your point is???
OWS was what? I don't remember.
Like those kids getting maced?OWS is filled with the typical Anarchists who use any pretext to vandalize and loot law-abiding people.
Sitting in a public space, is vandalism?
The FBI deliberately put field agents in their crowds to start violence.The FBI as with all agencies of this type have a responsibility to investigate all potential threats of this nature. Further, OWS could have been used as a means for violent entities to commit crimes for which OWS may have not been involved with. Smart move on the part of the government.
You're full of shit and are basically defending the equivalent of the Gestapo.
I'm ignorant? You make general statements and use innuendo as proof. I can back up what I say with specifics!You are incredibly ignorant. The people who started violence are the same Anarchists who infiltrate most protests against western civilization.
Were "Pat" and "Mike", the "Anarchists" you were referring to?Washington, D.C.
On the very first day of the Occupation of Wall Street, we saw infiltration by the police. We were leaving Zucotti Park and were stopped in traffic by the rear of the park. We saw an unmarked van open, in the front seat were two uniformed police and out of the back came two men dressed as occupiers wearing backpacks, sweatshirts, and jeans. They walked into Zucotti Park and became part of the crowd.
In the first week of the Occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC we saw the impact of two right wing infiltrators. A peaceful protest was planned at the drone exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. The plan was for a banner drop and a die-in under the drones. But, as protesters arrived at the museum two people ran out in front, threatening the security guards and causing them to pepper spray protesters and tourists. Patrick Howley, an assistant editor for the American Spectator, wrote a column bragging about his role as an agent provocateur. A few days later we uncovered the second infiltrator, Michael Stack, when he was urging people on Freedom Plaza to resist police with force. We later learned he was from the Leadership Institute which trains youth in right wing ideology and tactics. We were told he had also been at Occupy Wall Street provoking violence.
Was "Howard" the "Anarchist" you were referring to?Oakland, Ca.
There have been a handful of other reports around the country of infiltration. In Oakland, CopWatch filmed an Oakland police officer infiltrating. And, in another video CopWatch includes audio tape of an Oakland police chief, Howard Jordan, talking about how police departments all over the country infiltrate, not just to monitor protesters but to manipulate and direct them.
There is nothing more patriotic, than exercising ones right to dissent. And there's nothing more anti-American, than criminalizing that right.Los Angeles, Ca.
There were also reports in Los Angeles of a dozen undercover police in the encampment before they were forcibly evicted by the police. The raid by the LA police was brutal and resulted in mass arrests, with most charges dropped, but with others mistreated in jails. Similar pre-raid undercover activities were reported in Nashville,Tennessee.
What's your fuckin' problem, asshole?
If I wanna email the White House, I'll do it myself!
I don't need you setting cyber bear traps, just to fuck with me!
I gave 3 examples (of why he's not a liberal) to back up my claim, you've provided none to back up yours.Look it up yourself......there are a ton of them.
The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence, not me.
Those were cops doing the vandalism!Read up on how Occupy Oakland (really, Oakland as the epicenter of Wall Street Power - give me a frelling break) vandalized the city.
Occupy Oakland Violence: Peaceful Occupy Protests Degenerate Into Chaos
Occupy Oakland
A simple search will yield a lot of results.
Didn't you notice the OWS protestors were not wearing masks, or hear them telling the cops to "stop that", when they were spray painting the walls?
Where's your source, proving my source, was lying?There are more credible sources and you have not provided any. Just more nonsense from disaffected crybabies.
As it stands now, your objection would be thrown out in a court of law as being frivolous and without merit.
I've satisfied that burden! I've provided testimony from the people who were there. Once I've done that, the burden of proof shifts to the objector, to prove their objection has merit. All you've provided, are ad hominem attacks on the sources I used, which is not a valid rebuttal.I have never said you were lying. Further, I am not the one who has the burden to prove a fact, you do. Beyond that your position is nothing more than talk.
So cut the foreplay and pony up the evidence; otherwise, apologize to this forum, for wasting its bandwidth.
You attacked the source of my citation! That's an ad hominem attack. In addition, your inferring what they said should automatically dismissed, then list bias and hearsay as the reason. I'm sorry, but eye-witness testimony is allowed in court. And "hearsay", is someone in the third person recounting the events someone else experienced. My sources are from 1st person testimony and there's nothing more credible than that. Just because you don't like what they're saying, doesn't mean its bullshit.porkloin, that "testimony" is nothing more than hearsay from very biased and interested parties. I have attacked no one, what I have done was disagree with you and ask for sources. You have failed to establish your position.
Anyone against the revolving door that exists between Washington and Wall Street would be branded a terrorists.
The real terrorists are the Financial Terrorists on Wall Street and their Wall Street Politicians in Washington DC
OWS forgot one basic tenet.
If you want to be taken seriously, then act like it.
They paraded around like a bunch of hobos. Take a shower, get a shave, put on some clean clothes and I'll listen.
MLK KNEW he had to convince White America of the worthiness of his fight, or nothing of any consequence would change Carrying guns and screaming 'Kill Whitey" would have had the opposite effect. So they went the route of non-violence and made the southern crackers look like the bad guys. It worked.
OWS looked like a bunch of dirty losers, and without the support of the bulk of the middle class, was doomed from the get-go.
Doesn't matter what the government has "classified" them as. Most of America dismissed them very quickly.
Their message is sound (money has too much power), but it was delivered improperly.
My personal familiarity is with the Occupy Baltimore movement, and the character, deportment, and appearance of the participants there I believe made a different impression. As my photographs show, some of the participants could be categorized as "social eccentrics", but other participants were more representative of the disgruntled middle class.
See my set of images: "Occupy Baltimore" Protest - a set on Flickr
Does this guy sound like he has no clue?The two largest issues that scuttled OWS was most of the OWS people had no clue what it was they were protesting. When asked direct questions in man on the street interviews about the economy, current events and other issues, the answers given were from the overly simplistic to the shockingly stupid.
The other problem which faced OWS was they had no message. No unified front.
OWs was a social media generated gathering call. OWS got little if any traction because it failed to grab any positive attention from the general public. Additionally, OWS was ill timed. Here we had groups of people basically demanding free stuff while regular people were struggling to make ends meet while worrying if the next paycheck they get would be their last one.
OWS shot itself in both feet. At best, OWS was an annoyance.
OWS was a flyspeck and I cannot fathom as to why it is even being discussed
I provided the source. What you're asking is ridiculous. You want me to provide the source of a source. That's stupid! And there's also no reason to do it, because you've provided no reason to do so. You haven't provided any evidence, in any way, that would cast doubt about what these people said, one of which, was a police captain.When someone whips out "ad hominem", "citation" "hearsay" on a public discussion forum, they have run out of gas.
You claim these are from eye witness accounts. Ok, provide the source of these alleged eye witness accounts.
Be careful the sources which you may use. We ask questions. Then question answers.
In other words, it had better be solid or you'll find yourself scrambling.
There is no way out of this for you except to come across with your sources or duck out of the thread.
Choice is yours. Credible and unbiased source or you may disappear.
Insisting something without any evidence to back it up, does not make it true. However, if you provide the evidence, it, at the very least, is true for now. And it remains that way, until someone provides evidence to the contrary.Insisting something is true does not make it so.
I don't report posts and I don't put people on ignore. Never have, never will.Oh we've only just begun to fuck with YOU..
We'll have you wetting your panties and crying to the mods soon enough.
I don't support threatening the government with the use of force. In 1776, we had no other choice. Nowadays, we do. As long as we still have, "one man, one vote", there is no reason to take up arms against the government.Really? You oppose "Second Amendment solutions" -- even though that's what got us free from English tyranny. You say that doesn't apply -- but tyranny is tyranny.
I support their right to protest. What they were protesting, didn't exist. What they were protesting, were made up issues that weren't grounded in reality.Do you support the TEA Party? You don't have to agree with them, but do you support their right to protest the way they do?
Nope..You had your chance. You thought taking the route of baffling us with bullshit was the right path. You thought wrong. All you are doing is protesting.I provided the source. What you're asking is ridiculous. You want me to provide the source of a source. That's stupid! And there's also no reason to do it, because you've provided no reason to do so. You haven't provided any evidence, in any way, that would cast doubt about what these people said, one of which, was a police captain.When someone whips out "ad hominem", "citation" "hearsay" on a public discussion forum, they have run out of gas.
You claim these are from eye witness accounts. Ok, provide the source of these alleged eye witness accounts.
Be careful the sources which you may use. We ask questions. Then question answers.
In other words, it had better be solid or you'll find yourself scrambling.
There is no way out of this for you except to come across with your sources or duck out of the thread.
Choice is yours. Credible and unbiased source or you may disappear.
I'll provide another source, when you provide a valid rebuttal.
