OWS shuts down Port of Oakland

[Full-Auto]

The TP never forced anyone to lose a day of work.

And, they got and still get plenty of coverage and attention.

The Tea Party was reinforcing a standard conservative/authoritarian line favorable to the Powers That Be, and so was not really a protest.

Oh brother, talk about a line of Bull.

 

[Claudette]

From what I've been reading the organizers of OWS are appalled by what went on in Oakland.

Perhaps they should start policing their movement before someone gets hurt or killed??

Once that happens the police will remove them all.

 

[Dragon]

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:

"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."

First Amendment.

"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."

Fourth Amendment.

"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."

Sixth Amendment.

"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.

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

Article I, Section 9.

Need I go on? The Constitution protects people's rights, including the right to peacefully protest. The Government is forbidden by law from suppressing non-violent protest movements by force. It may respond with force only to an insurrection, which must employ violent means to be so considered.

Occupy, as long as it remains nonviolent, has no need to arm itself, even if the ultimate aim is revolution. If and when it achieves sufficient popular support to make revolution possible, the military will desert the government and need not be fought. Until then, the U.S. military is too powerful to be defeated in combat by any insurgent force, and violence is futile.

EDIT: As to your other post, merely saying "you cannot show that this applies today" is not a response. I not only can show that but have shown that, as have many others. At this point, if you want to claim that Congress genuinely responds to the voters and is not corrupted by campaign donations and lobbyists, the burden is on you to show that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Don't watch the news or read a news paper do you ? Shit got burned and businesses had windows broken out. In case you haven't noticed, this movement has been infiltrated by radicals. This has gone from being annoying to actually hurting the people they claim to be standing up for.

No, I did see that. But that appears, to me, to be the actions of an isolated few, not indicative of the whole. Kinda like how an isolated few US troops have done some pretty horrible things through the course of the Iraq war. By contrast, the Boston Tea Party was an action by the whole who all shared the intent to destroy private property.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The revolt of the British North American colonies was not based on the petulant notion that they, the colonists, were entitled to a certain standard of living,

I guess fair representation in Parliament and self determination aren't factors in one's standard of living.

Thier behavior, in terms of what they do, what they say and why they are there.

Correction.....YOUR claims as to what they are doing, what they are saying, and why they are there.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Change can be messy. While i dont condone what they are doing i understand why.
a tipping point has been reached...change isnt some neat ordered package, well unless you are obama(ZING!).

This is pretty much where I stand on the Occupy movement. I don't support the movement, and I'm not condoning what they are doing. But I'm not condemning them either. Not yet, anyway. The fact is that a great many of the American people are mind numbingly frustrated and fed up with a great many things in our society today. Some people criticize the Occupiers as lacking any real direction in their protesting, and this is very much true. But I suspect that is largely because these people see so many things and how they are intertwined to some degree or another. That's why I say that what these people REALLY want isn't just change, it's revolution.

When societies reach a point where revolution begins to take place, it's not always motivated by all the "right" reasons. Since we've talked about the Boston Tea Party, I'll use that as an example. The new tax that instigated the event actually was a TAX CUT that made the price of tea cheaper in the colonies. Now, how in the world is a tax cut a "right" reason to protest? The the underlying issues were the concerns of representation in Parliament and emerging concerns that without it Parliament could potentially in the future legislate things that would be harmful to the colonies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The revolt of the British North American colonies was not based on the petulant notion that they, the colonists, were entitled to a certain standard of living,

[/quotw]

I guess fair representation in Parliament and self determination aren't factors in one's standard of living.

You have clearly chosen to miss the point, and have made it clear I need not waste any more time on you.

 

[Charles_Main]

The TP never forced anyone to lose a day of work.

And, they got and still get plenty of coverage and attention.

The Tea Party was reinforcing a standard conservative/authoritarian line favorable to the Powers That Be, and so was not really a protest.

Pure Horse shit. The Tea Party is Absolutely a Protest. It was Born out of the Democrats controlling Both Houses of Congress and the WH, and ramming unpopular Bills down our Throats, and spending to much money.

 

[Conservative]

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:

"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."

First Amendment.

"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."

Fourth Amendment.

"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."

Sixth Amendment.

"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.

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

Article I, Section 9.

Need I go on? The Constitution protects people's rights, including the right to peacefully protest. The Government is forbidden by law from suppressing non-violent protest movements by force. It may respond with force only to an insurrection, which must employ violent means to be so considered.

Occupy, as long as it remains nonviolent, has no need to arm itself, even if the ultimate aim is revolution. If and when it achieves sufficient popular support to make revolution possible, the military will desert the government and need not be fought. Until then, the U.S. military is too powerful to be defeated in combat by any insurgent force, and violence is futile.

EDIT: As to your other post, merely saying "you cannot show that this applies today" is not a response. I not only can show that but have shown that, as have many others. At this point, if you want to claim that Congress genuinely responds to the voters and is not corrupted by campaign donations and lobbyists, the burden is on you to show that.

Your citations from the Constitution do not say anything of the kind.

Let's address them individually...

1st...

"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."

Not making a law prohibiting peaceful assembly, and...

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

...are vastly different.

The first deals with actually making it illegal to assemble peaceably, which no one has done in the OWS case. The second deals with the use of force by the federal government to disperse a 'peaceably assembled' crowd. First, there has been no force used by the federal government against any OWS protestors (violent or other). Second, there has been no force used against any 'peaceably assembled' crowd. When the protestors were violent, force was used. Do you expect local police to hand out flowers and pot to protestors breaking the law?


2nd...

"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."

Search and seizures...
vs.

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

This amendment doesn't even cover peaceably assembling, so it doesn't prove your contention.


3rd...

"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."

Please, explain how this has anything even remotely says this...

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

This amendment doesn't even cover peaceably assembling, so it doesn't prove your contention.

4th...

"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.

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

vs.

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

This amendment doesn't even cover peaceably assembling, so it doesn't prove your contention.


So, essentially... you've stated initially that...

In the U.S., the government is forbidden by the Constitution from using violence to suppress a nonviolent movement.

...and offered as proof various sections of the Constitution that have nothing to do with your initial assertion.

Congratulations. You've proved you do not understand the Constitution.

 

[Dragon]

Your citations from the Constitution do not say anything of the kind.

Let's address them individually...

1st...

Not making a law prohibiting peaceful assembly, and...

...are vastly different.

The first deals with actually making it illegal to assemble peaceably, which no one has done in the OWS case. The second deals with the use of force by the federal government to disperse a 'peaceably assembled' crowd. First, there has been no force used by the federal government against any OWS protestors (violent or other). Second, there has been no force used against any 'peaceably assembled' crowd. When the protestors were violent, force was used. Do you expect local police to hand out flowers and pot to protestors breaking the law?

You are reinforcing my point here, not arguing against it. OF COURSE there has been no force used by the federal government or any other government in the U.S. to disperse a "peacefully assembled" crowd. That's exactly what I'm saying: there can't be. It's illegal, it's against the Constitution. The law may be enforced when the movement breaks it by (say) trespassing, but using force against the movement as such violates the Constitution. And that's why, unlike some revolutionary movements in history, Occupy does not need to resort to violence itself, and should not.

2nd...

Search and seizures...
vs.

This amendment doesn't even cover peaceably assembling, so it doesn't prove your contention.

It relates because the government cannot employ secret-police tactics to investigate and prosecute participants in a non-violent movement. Contrast this with tactics the government HAS used against the Weathermen or the right-wing militias or the KKK.

All of the passages I quoted relate. As long as a movement is not presenting a credible threat of violence, the government is must respect the civil liberties of the participants, and is forbidden to use force against it. This is a contrast with, for example, the Kuomintang in China or Batista in Cuba. Mao and Castro had to resort to violence because the government was free to use force against them, and they had to protect their movements while obtaining popular support. But that isn't true in the U.S. The government cannot use force against Occupy unless Occupy becomes violent. It would therefore serve no purpose, and be counterproductive, for Occupy to turn to violence.

The participants generally recognize this, which is why it has reacted with opposition to the vandalism in Oakland.

 

[The T]

'Occupy Oakland' Protesters Clash With Police Following Day Of Protests | Fox News









morons.

These idiots are falling for what they've been fed by thier handlers...and nevermind they don't care how it affects the lives of others.

Bunch of petulant children.

That's the irony, their preaching stop the greed, yet their the ones being selfish, on many levels.

Yep. Which makes it all the more hypocritical of them.

 

[logical4u]

These idiots are falling for what they've been fed by thier handlers...and nevermind they don't care how it affects the lives of others.

Bunch of petulant children.

That's the irony, their preaching stop the greed, yet their the ones being selfish, on many levels.

Yep. Which makes it all the more hypocritical of them.

Have you noticed these protests are happening where the guns are "strictly" controlled (not in places where people have more "freedom" to defend themselves and their property)?

 

[editec]

That's the irony, their preaching stop the greed, yet their the ones being selfish, on many levels.

Yep. Which makes it all the more hypocritical of them.

Have you noticed these protests are happening where the guns are "strictly" controlled (not in places where people have more "freedom" to defend themselves and their property)?

I hadn't noticed that, but upon reflection?

That might be a good thing.

 

[Dragon]

Have you noticed these protests are happening where the guns are "strictly" controlled (not in places where people have more "freedom" to defend themselves and their property)?

Occupy Austin | Facebook

 

[Conservative]

Your citations from the Constitution do not say anything of the kind.

Let's address them individually...

1st...

Not making a law prohibiting peaceful assembly, and...

...are vastly different.

The first deals with actually making it illegal to assemble peaceably, which no one has done in the OWS case. The second deals with the use of force by the federal government to disperse a 'peaceably assembled' crowd. First, there has been no force used by the federal government against any OWS protestors (violent or other). Second, there has been no force used against any 'peaceably assembled' crowd. When the protestors were violent, force was used. Do you expect local police to hand out flowers and pot to protestors breaking the law?

You are reinforcing my point here, not arguing against it. OF COURSE there has been no force used by the federal government or any other government in the U.S. to disperse a "peacefully assembled" crowd. That's exactly what I'm saying: there can't be. It's illegal, it's against the Constitution. The law may be enforced when the movement breaks it by (say) trespassing, but using force against the movement as such violates the Constitution. And that's why, unlike some revolutionary movements in history, Occupy does not need to resort to violence itself, and should not.

2nd...

Search and seizures...
vs.

This amendment doesn't even cover peaceably assembling, so it doesn't prove your contention.

It relates because the government cannot employ secret-police tactics to investigate and prosecute participants in a non-violent movement. Contrast this with tactics the government HAS used against the Weathermen or the right-wing militias or the KKK.

All of the passages I quoted relate. As long as a movement is not presenting a credible threat of violence, the government is must respect the civil liberties of the participants, and is forbidden to use force against it. This is a contrast with, for example, the Kuomintang in China or Batista in Cuba. Mao and Castro had to resort to violence because the government was free to use force against them, and they had to protect their movements while obtaining popular support. But that isn't true in the U.S. The government cannot use force against Occupy unless Occupy becomes violent. It would therefore serve no purpose, and be counterproductive, for Occupy to turn to violence.

The participants generally recognize this, which is why it has reacted with opposition to the vandalism in Oakland.

hardly.

you've not produced a single point in the Constitution that bolsters your statement.

Dipshit, you're talking about investigating and prosecuting here. Has ZERO to do with your original statement that 'In the U.S., the government is forbidden by the Constitution from using violence to suppress a nonviolent movement.'

No, they do not. They are completely unrelated to your specific quote. You are extrapolating additional meaning into those sections. Meaning that simply isn't there.

All you did was prove you have no real understanding of the Constitutions individual parts.

 

[boedicca]

How many Tea Party events had to create Rape Free Zones to protect women?

 

[Conservative]

How many Tea Party events had to create Rape Free Zones to protect women?

Ask Dragon. I'm sure he can point to part of the Constitution that deals with your question.

 

[Inthemiddle]

hardly.

you've not produced a single point in the Constitution that bolsters your statement.

Dipshit, you're talking about investigating and prosecuting here. Has ZERO to do with your original statement that 'In the U.S., the government is forbidden by the Constitution from using violence to suppress a nonviolent movement.'

No, they do not. They are completely unrelated to your specific quote. You are extrapolating additional meaning into those sections. Meaning that simply isn't there.

All you did was prove you have no real understanding of the Constitutions individual parts.

Listen, you're the dipshit here. What is the EFFECT!?! That Congress cannot make it illegal to peacefully assemble. Now, over to the 14th amendment, the government at all levels is required to uphold your rights to due process of the law. This means that the government cannot take away your rights without first providing you due process. So, how is the government CAPABLE of using force to disperse a peacefully assembled crowd? They aren't! There are too many constitutional restrictions that prevent it from happening, at least legally. There's no legal avenue available to the government through which they can arrive at that destination. It's amazing that you would sit here and play word games over this.

 

[Dragon]

hardly.

you've not produced a single point in the Constitution that bolsters your statement.

Dipshit, you're talking about investigating and prosecuting here. Has ZERO to do with your original statement that 'In the U.S., the government is forbidden by the Constitution from using violence to suppress a nonviolent movement.'

No, they do not. They are completely unrelated to your specific quote. You are extrapolating additional meaning into those sections. Meaning that simply isn't there.

All you did was prove you have no real understanding of the Constitutions individual parts.

What you have proven here is that you have nothing to say, no arguments to present, and also no civility, no maturity, no ability to debate like a civilized person or using any tactics other than name-calling and belligerence.

If that was always the case with you, it would put you immediately on the ignore list, but I've observed that it's not always the case. So I'll just ignore you here, unless and until you actually say something worth responding to.

 

[Dragon]

How many Tea Party events had to create Rape Free Zones to protect women?

Exactly as many as Occupy has had to.

Zero.