What can Occupy do about police violence?

reply to post by petrus4


You guys all need to get off this “trolling” thing. This is simply a way for people to discourage others from speaking their minds!

This was my contribution to your thread addressing the question YOU asked!

Despite popular belief here on ATS the police to NOT want to have violent clashes with OWS. The best way OWS can keep from having a violent confrontation with police is to simply follow lawful orders, stop damaging property, stop burning things, stop defecating and urinating in public and remain what they CLAIM to be – a PEACEFUL protest.

Trolling?? I think not!

Pffft….!

There are violent elements,or would-be violence at all PUBLIC spectacles.

OWS will get its chance again,to show the world what its about. Some people will have to adjust their thinking,if it becomes violent. Some will have to adjust their thinking,if it becomes a "Union" free for all. If it gets jobs to the inner city,I am all for it. Its not like the Presidents "shovel ready" Jobs program,is ever going to help America out.

reply to post by petrus4


The only tool Occupy has in dealing with radicals (not all anarchists are violent radicals) is the GA, general consensus must be reached for all actions. There's no way on earth to stop a few people or groups of people from showing up and causing trouble, there's no way to stop criminals either...especially since the police ignore protesters even when they say hey his woman was raped and pointing out her attacker "let your GA handle it".

reply to post by seabag


You mean like how people who are tying to have a discussion on one aspect of Occupy and people pop in with isolated incidents that happened months ago. To be quite honest, you were entirely off topic.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by petrus4

 

You guys all need to get off this “trolling” thing. This is simply a way for people to discourage others from speaking their minds!

Pffft….!

edit on 11-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

To be fair to both sides, Kali at times falls into a mental trap that I've seen other leftists on here get caught in. The initial presumption, not only first of all that she is right, but secondly, that the only reason anyone could possibly have for disagreeing with her, is because they either don't have sufficient information, are closed minded, or are confused. The one possibility that is never considered, is the idea that she herself might actually be wrong.

I think occupy made its first mistake by allowing itself to be associated with Muamar Ghaddafi...the second mistake was not addressing this issue.

Perhaps some of you won't know what I'm talking about, but i'll let you in on the position of some.

Occupy is the brainchild of now fallen middle eastern dictators. occupy was the 'insurance policy' of men that had been in power and influencing events in the united states for two generations. the idea was to expose the corruption and greed of the world...the very same corruption and greed they had been a part of when they were still alive.

see...occupiers may not understand this...let's face it...occupiers are tools and don't realize that 1+1 equals 2 in every case.

and rather than admit that their movement was hijacked in the delivery room, they are still trying to work out a way to be taken seriously and have the world consider them valid. its actually sad to watch...what is more upsetting still is that if someone tells them the truth...they reject it.

i imagine it would be frustrating to sincerely desire to be a part of the solution to the worlds problems only to realize that you are a part of the problem.

but we'll see where this goes...probably not much further.

reply to post by seabag

You guys all need to get off this “trolling” thing. This is simply a way for people to discourage others from speaking their minds!

Well people need to stop trolling us liberals. As a supporter of free rights people are allowed to agree with me in anyway they see fit, anything else is a cowardly abuse of our freedoms- which is NOT what they were made for.
I think Voltaire said it best.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And then I will have you jailed and killed for what you said.- Voltaire”

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by seabag

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And then I will have you jailed and killed for what you said.- Voltaire”

While this could change, I must confess that so far I haven't been given a particularly strong impression of you as a guardian of free speech, David.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by petrus4

 

You guys all need to get off this “trolling” thing. This is simply a way for people to discourage others from speaking their minds!

Pffft….!

edit on 11-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

To be fair to both sides, Kali at times falls into a mental trap that I've seen other leftists on here get caught in. The initial presumption, not only first of all that she is right, but secondly, that the only reason anyone could possibly have for disagreeing with her, is because they either don't have sufficient information, are closed minded, or are confused. The one possibility that is never considered, is the idea that she herself might actually be wrong.

So you are a 'centrist libertarian'? You remind me of a matador that is messing with two bulls or something. Always jumping out of the way. And could you be more condescending?

reply to post by petrus4


What gave you that impression? Please show me how i have not supported free speech, do it now.

reply to post by Germanicus

So you are a 'centrist libertarian'?

That term makes no sense, a "centrist libertarian" would be a libertarian that pretends to not be extreme to maintain an appearance of being more open than they actually are. Ever see an extra medium shirt?

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Germanicus

 

So you are a 'centrist libertarian'?

That term makes no sense, a "centrist libertarian" would be a libertarian that pretends to not be extreme to maintain an appearance of being more open than they actually are. Ever see an extra medium shirt?

Yeah,thats kinda what I was going for. I think this guy is wearing an extra medium shirt.

But thanks Captain Obvious

Originally posted by Germanicus
So you are a 'centrist libertarian'? You remind me of a matador that is messing with two bulls or something. Always jumping out of the way. And could you be more condescending?

"I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam."

reply to post by michaelbrux


This is the thing about the Occupy Movement:

If Occupy had been present during this Major Historical World Event, they would have been working with Hosni Mubarak's Police Force:

Do Occupiers realize this?



Whether they know it or not...I know it. In a way...this video is a documentary of the current Occupy Movements Past Life.

reply to post by petrus4


Ha! I think I was a little harsh there. And unfair. Maybe even a little hypocritical.

Sorry about that.

so...this is the deal with the Occupy Movement...while Wikipedia reports that it was inspired by the Arab Spring...I propose that it is in fact the mirror image of the Arab Spring and its driving forces are one and the same as the forces that kept so many Arab and middle eastern nations oppressed for the better part of the last 100 years making the Arab Spring necessary.

the most offensive thing about Occupy is that it tests the intelligence of humankind at a time when people deserve a break. instead of relieving humanity of oppression...it seeks to intensify it.

The Arab spring got stuff done, OWS is still just a bunch of whining little kids.

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by petrus4

 

Ha! I think I was a little harsh there. And unfair. Maybe even a little hypocritical.

Sorry about that.

That is ok. I just hope Kali is likewise going to forgive me.

This ruling may change the response to Occupy Wallstreet Protestors.

www.ca9.uscourts.gov...

reply to post by DavidWillts


that's because Arab Spring was real and Occupy is a bootleg copy thrown together at the last minute.

has anyone asked the question:

Why didn't occupy begin in March of 2011, instead of September of 2011?

My answer is and will always be:

Because the Tyrants of this world had hoped to hijack the Arab Spring for their own purposes and didn't unleash Occupy until they realized that it wasn't possible.

Gaddafi fleeing his Capital was the signal for Occupy.