OWS shuts down Port of Oakland

[paulitician]

Good way to lose more jobs. These "Occupiers" are not very smart.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response. Surprise.

Since I was off-line all late afternoon yesterday, no surprise at all. Don't get your panties in a knot.

Here are some of the pertinent parts of the Constitution:

None of these in any way support your claim that the Constitutioon forbids the government - any of them - from reacting to non-violence with violence.

Disagree? Please answer the following questions:

"Congress shall make no law . . . 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."

This supports your position... how?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This supports your position... how?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This supports your position... how?

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This supports your position... how?

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This supports your position... how?

Need I go on?

You do if you hope to have any suppiort of your claim, for as of this molment, you have squat.

The Government is forbidden by law from suppressing non-violent protest movements by force.

Not that you have shown here.

EDIT: As to your other post, merely saying "you cannot show that this applies today" is not a response.

Unless you can show how those things apply, in context, it necessarily means that your comparison fails.

 

[Dragon]

Translation:

No translation needed. You have made no coherent arguments. I cannot respond because you have presented nothing to respond to. If you cannot see that the U.S. is a country that respects civil liberties and guarantees the right of nonviolent protest, and cannot use force against nonviolent political movements -- if you cannot see that there are fundamental differences in this regard between the U.S. and, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union -- then you are blind, and nothing anyone says will be of any utility.

 

[Intense]

So OWS disrupts trade in one of our ports and the people who named themselves after the Boston Tea Party have a fainting spell.

lol, too funny.

You idiots should have named yourselves the Loyalists.

Shutting down a Free Society in the name of Equal Distribution?

Yeah.... Totally on track.

So how long you been working for the Government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Translation:

No translation needed. You have made no coherent arguments. I cannot respond because you have presented nothing to respond to. If you cannot see that the U.S. is a country that respects civil liberties and guarantees the right of nonviolent protest, and cannot use force against nonviolent political movements -- if you cannot see that there are fundamental differences in this regard between the U.S. and, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union -- then you are blind, and nothing anyone says will be of any utility.

All -I- see is you trying to avoid your responsibility to back up your claim with something substantive.
:roll:

 

[Conservative]

Translation:

No translation needed. You have made no coherent arguments. I cannot respond because you have presented nothing to respond to. If you cannot see that the U.S. is a country that respects civil liberties and guarantees the right of nonviolent protest, and cannot use force against nonviolent political movements -- if you cannot see that there are fundamental differences in this regard between the U.S. and, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union -- then you are blind, and nothing anyone says will be of any utility.

M14 Shooter & I each individually broke down your initial statement, and the specific areas of the Constitution you claimed supported your statement. They do not. It's really not rocket science. You claimed something that is not supported by the evidence you then presented. When asked to be more specific about how each section proved your initial comment, you ignored the request and whined like a little girl.

 

[conner700]

The Occupy Movement is saying to the elite that if you take the 99% out of the equation...then who will you get the work that make them rich.

Attacking the poor and the working class through laws that violate the peoples rights and is wrong.

The elite in this country have gone to far when they make money by scamming the banking system, stealing people's home, among other things.

Your vote is used to get a politition into office, but once there he uses his position to make laws against the people and to keep the elite making profits. Calling this process legal.

Shutting down the Port of Oakland was a symbolic messege. The 99% has power.

I would have love to see you back in Boston when the protesters threw the tea in the water. Would you have sided with England. Would you have comforted the Redcoats?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Attacking the poor and the working class through laws that violate the peoples rights and is wrong.

But... forcing the "rich" to provide others the means to exercise their rights is OK?

The elite in this country have gone to far when they make money by scamming the banking system, stealing people's home, among other things.

"Stealing" peoples' homes? Such hyperbole.

Your vote is used to get a politition into office, but once there he uses his position to make laws against the people and to keep the elite making profits. Calling this process legal.

Yes, well, Democrats simply cannot be trusted. Glad to see you realize this.