If OWS had been armed, would they have been treated differently?

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Of-course thats not possible in Bloomberg's police state but how about in places where freedom is legal?

Didnt they just randomly surround and pepper spray this girl?


I dont think they care if you scream.


And who can forget this iconic image.


Surely it takes a gang of cops to subdue a single female.


Wonder what his "crime" was?


I think this last one is from Portland.


So what do you guys think?

Is a person or group less likely to be bullied and attacked if they are protesting while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?






edit on 18-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



+4 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere


If OWS had been armed, would they have been treated differently?


Short answer?
Yes.

Longer answer?
Hell yes. But I don't remember Constitution being a center stage in Occupy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
edit on 18-4-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It seems like being armed would've given the cops a justification for cracking skulls, that's part of the point of a peaceful protest: to not give a valid reason for bloodshed from the other side.

But I feel the need to point out that OWS had a good amount of internal conflict, and even if I were a fellow "Occupier" I don't think I'd trust the other folks walking around armed.

Edit for clarification: many of the people involved with Occupy seem unfit to posses a weapon especially in a crowd. Not saying this about all the protesters, but MANY.
edit on 2014-04-18T14:43:28-05:002014280443kFriAmerica/ChicagobFri, 18 Apr 2014 14:43:28 -0500 by cosmikDebris because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cosmikDebris
It seems like being armed would've given the cops a justification for cracking skulls, that's part of the point of a peaceful protest: to not give a valid reason for bloodshed from the other side.

But I feel the need to point out that OWS had a good amount of internal conflict, and even if I were a fellow "Occupier" I don't think I'd trust the other folks walking around armed.


I think for many cops, the idea of an unarmed crowd is justification enough!


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
There's another important variable at work here. OWS was a movement against and encroaching corporate America whereas the 2nd Ammendment demonstrations are generally directed against an encroaching government. I think the discrepancy in magnitude of responses to the two speaks volumes about where the loyalties of the government lie. We can flip the bird at the government and expect a delayed, disproportionate response (either through militaristic raids on property, economic terrorism via the IRS, or general harassment from being placed on some "list" from their twisted little world of political dimentia that restricts your right to freely travel). Flip the bird at corporate America, however, and watch how swiftly the feds swoop in to rescue their endangered teat.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Absolutely.

These wage-slave Eichmans we have for cops are essentially cowards. Always have been and always will be.

They turn the hoses on grandma, sick the dogs on junior, spray Hippie Jon and Jan into blindness and club and beat whoever they see.

Standing armed is the only way to absolutely ensure they leave you alone. They get astonishingly polite and respectful maintaining their distance and simply holding watch when the protestors are armed.

In this modern world unarmed protest is essentially pointless. You will be ignored. You will be beaten. You will be killed. You will be ground up into little bits and spit out the other end.

Armed protest however gets you treated like a human being with a voice.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

As it was, local law enforcement was plotting to assassinate OWS organizers in Texas. I don't think that the majority of those involved were looking for armed conflict either, it was more about peaceful protest and civil disobedience, neither of which should require a firearm.

Instead of asking if they should have been armed, perhaps the real question is why did conservative media sh*t all over the OWS protesters?



Actually, why did conservatives in general sh*t all over them? I remember article after article in the online editions of several papers that were grossly anti-OWS and the comments were largely composed of people calling them hippies and criminals and filthy drug addicts who should get jobs and stop smoking crack. I would do my daily news scan of domestic media sources and see nothing but denigration of the protesters and then see images of police brutality at the U.S. protests in foreign sources. I remember remarking to my wife that it was truly a sad day in this country when I had to turn to foreign media outlets to see what was going on in my own country.

Here's what Rush Limbaugh had to say about OWS


RUSH: Part of me wishes it could be Columbus Day all year round. Did you notice the Wall Street protestors are so dedicated to their work they didn't take the day off, and they're being paid? They're being paid a lot. They didn't take the day off! Maybe the Obama campaign unions, the Democrat front groups -- of course I'm repeating myself there -- paid time-and-a-half, it's a holiday, it's Columbus Day, for working on a holiday, but you have to admire their dedication. I mean for most of these kids occupying Wall Street is the closest they've ever come to having any kind of occupation at all and they don't want to blow it.
edit on 2014-4-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Theyve have been all shot at and killed. The Nat Guard killed 4 of us protestors at Kent State for carrying peace signs. Shot them DEAD



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Actually, why did conservatives in general sh*t all over them? I remember article after article in the online editions of several papers that were grossly anti-OWS and the comments were largely composed of people calling them hippies and criminals and filthy drug addicts who should get jobs and stop smoking crack.

Because the Democrats quickly coopted the mpovement just as the GOP attempted to do with the TEA Party.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Actually, why did conservatives in general sh*t all over them? I remember article after article in the online editions of several papers that were grossly anti-OWS and the comments were largely composed of people calling them hippies and criminals and filthy drug addicts who should get jobs and stop smoking crack.

Because the Democrats quickly coopted the mpovement just as the GOP attempted to do with the TEA Party.


DING DING DING!!!!

BINGO!!!!

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!


The FEDS got caught with their pants down after THEY showed up armed with attack dogs, using tasers....

THEN, armed Americans showed up to counter the excessive use of government force!
edit on 18-4-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cosmikDebris



that's part of the point of a peaceful protest: to not give a valid reason for bloodshed from the other side.


Oh yeah, and that turned out so well for them.

Always better to have a means of self defense from those who may hurt or kill you. If OWS was armed things may have gotten real ugly but at least some of the banker / elitist criminals and the brown-shirt thugs who protect them would have suffered as well.

Always good to dish some out even if you're getting you're butt whipped.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Actually, why did conservatives in general sh*t all over them? I remember article after article in the online editions of several papers that were grossly anti-OWS and the comments were largely composed of people calling them hippies and criminals and filthy drug addicts who should get jobs and stop smoking crack.

Because the Democrats quickly coopted the mpovement just as the GOP attempted to do with the TEA Party.

Lol. The Tea Party wasn't co-opted, it was invented. Only suckers think it started with anti-tax protests in 2009.



That's a screenshot of the first Tea Party related website, www.usteaparty.com. Notice that it is (c)2002 Citizens for a Sound Economy. Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by....? David and Charles Koch. It later became FreedomWorks.

There's a research paper you might enjoy that was commissioned by the National Cancer Institute:


Results Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations. As of 2012, the Tea Party was beginning to spread internationally.

Conclusions Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations.

link
edit on 2014-4-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

...and George Soros was one of the financing agents behind formation of OWS
www.thenewamerican.com...

But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

Other Soros-backed outfits promoting big government — some with myriad ties to the Obama administration — are also publicly driving the occupation campaign. MoveOn.org, for instance, has received millions of dollars from the billionaire banker. And now, the group is urging its supporters to join the Occupy Wall Street movement as well.

“Over the last two weeks, an amazing wave of protest against Wall Street and the big banks has erupted across the country,” MoveOn said in a recent e-mail to supporters, praising the “brave” demonstrators. “On Wednesday, MoveOn members will join labor and community groups in New York City for a huge march down to the protest site — the biggest yet.”

On top of supplying activists to join the demonstrations, MoveOn is also staging what it calls a “massive ‘Virtual March on Wall Street’ online.” The Internet-based demonstrations are a collaborative effort with another radical and well-connected outfit tied to Soros called Rebuild the Dream.


I'm giving OWS some benefit of the doubt in my original statement... the Americans participating in the protests didn't know or care that the initial name of their group and/or intent behind it was secretly manufactured by a politically minded billionaire, they were there to get a message they believed in across to the people. What I'm talking about is the point in time after which the political asshats publically alligned with each group along party lines.

Comparitively speaking, if we're going to talk about who owns what politician and movement, you're making a commonly ignorant argument ripping on the Koch Brothers. Koch's own a governor (Scott Walker of Wisconsin) Soros owns a president (Obama)... who's got a more dangerous puppet feeding out of their hand?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
First off in NYC occupy protests if they were armed then the whole protest would have turned into a massacre. Remember at the time Bloomberg was still mayor and he just loves to loathe guns {except for the ones his bodyguards carry} and NYC has pretty restrictive gun laws. On top of that there is a difference about carrying a gun on somebodies property you have been invited onto and carrying one in what amounts to gov't property.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

IMO, the difference in the way that the two groups were treated in the media and by their fellow citizens is a difference of social class. Many people fancy themselves as owners of the USA e.g. WASP authoritarians. They saw another unworthy class of people to subordinate and dehumanize.

The Bundy posse is a bunch of people that the WASP authoritarians identify with, so they are hero-rebels. The actual facts of the legal conflict don't matter to these people. They believe what they want to believe.

The guns and open space in NV put some tactical specifics on the situation that you can't get in an urban environment.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's your evidence? REALLY? Some hack job in THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY'S OFFICIAL RAG?

Here's how the piece starts:


Labor unions, communists, “community organizers,” socialists, and anti-capitalist agitators have all joined together to “Occupy Wall Street” and protest against “greed,” corporations, and bankers. But despite efforts to portray the movement as “leaderless” or “grassroots,” it is becoming obvious that there is much more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.



But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.


AdBusters has been around since the late 80's, it received a $10,000 grant from The Tides Foundation in 2009, $8,000 in 2010 and it didn't receive anything in 2011. You know how I know this? The Tides Foundation publishes a list of all the money they grant and who receives it (link).


Other Soros-backed outfits promoting big government — some with myriad ties to the Obama administration — are also publicly driving the occupation campaign. MoveOn.org, for instance, has received millions of dollars from the billionaire banker. And now, the group is urging its supporters to join the Occupy Wall Street movement as well.

MoveOn.org. Yes, it's true, in 2004, MoveOn.org did receive over a million dollars from George Soros... in 2004.


Is MoveOn funded by George Soros or other billionaires?
As detailed above, MoveOn is entirely funded by small donations from its members. Fox News and other right-wing sources insist on lying about this fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.

George Soros gave a sizable donation to MoveOn Voter Fund in 2004 to match the donations coming from small donors aimed at stopping President Bush's horrible policies. He hasn't given since and MoveOn's Voter Fund, a 527 organization, was closed down after the 2004 election.



Led by self-described communist and former Obama administration czar Van Jones, the “Dream” movement is a partnership between a host of Soros-financed “progressive” groups. Big Labor and even Planned Parenthood — the largest abortion provider in America, which receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year — are partners, too.

Yes, that's right.. planned parenthood is after the 1%ers. Because you know.. oh wait I can't even come up with a reason why that might make sense.


Other groups working with Rebuild the Dream are also publicly hyping the demonstrations. And more than a few of them are on the Soros payroll as well. Some examples include People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood, Campaign For America's Future, Democracy For America, Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, Common Cause, Public Campaign, and many more.

Soros, of course, has a long history of financing organizations targeting the American system of government. He has also served on the board of the immensely influential global-governance-promoting Council on Foreign Relations.

I see, so Soros in the interest of attacking the American system of government, funds groups, including planned parenthood to start a fake grassroots movement (or co-opt it) in the midst of the Obama's first term even though, as you also state, Obama is bought and paid for by Soros.

There's absolutely no doubt that George Soros is a rich, he's worth like $13 billion or so, and there's no doubt that he gives a lot of money to a lot of progressive groups, it's not exactly a secret. There's also no evidence that he had an control over or provided significant backing for OWS.

The Koch Brothers invented the Tea Party, they registered a domain the Tea Party with a group they founded and originally funded entirely (not gave $10,000 a few years ago) 7 years before the alleged beginnings. Where were those shiny OWS buses filled with professional trainers and paid organizers roaming the countryside like the Tea Party Express buses? Itself a group whose spokesman, Mark Williams, had to resign in disgrace after writing this in a mock letter to Lincoln on his blog:


"Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"


You can go on about George Soros all you want, personally I'm looking forward to a time when we get all the money out of politics, including Soro's, but his contribution and let's be real here, the damage he's actually managed to do, pale by comparison. For you to equate allegedly support, after the fact, of OWS by George Soros to the years of funding and planning the Koch Brothers put into the Tea Party is ludicrous.

And let me finish with this. Here's a key difference. I might not agree with the Tea Party, I might believe that it's a fake grassroots movement, but I sure as hell wouldn't see that as a justification for thuggish law enforcement to beat on Tea Party protesters or spray them with pepper spray. That you think "it's because they were co-opted by the Democrats" is an acceptable explanation for why the conservative media sh*t all over these people is pretty telling about the quality of the self-professed lovers of freedom on the right.
edit on 2014-4-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you have any links to the sources you used?

Or are we just supposed to blindly think your right?

EDIT: My bad, I just saw that tiny link to the Tides Foundation. So the question now, is do you have a less biased source to use?

edit on 18-4-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963
Most of the quotes were from The New American? I linked to the Tides Foundation grants page, here's a link to the
MoveOn.org FAQ page where it discusses funding by Soros.

Here's a larger quote of what Mark Williams said:


In the voice of slaves, Williams wrote: "Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house.
"We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"
He went on to say blacks don't want taxes cut because "how will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?"p


source

EDIT:

I'm refuting statements from an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, a group that Fred Koch co-founded and you're asking ME for less biased sources? How can I prove a negative (that Soros doesn't fund MoveOn.org)? Where's a credible source that shows that MoveOn.org or The Tides Foundation are lying? Maybe we could pour over some Tea Party organizations funding for a while, have you gotten a peek at that or do they not release that information?
edit on 2014-4-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Like I already said, anything from a source that is not biased?

It amazes me how you and others of you political persuasion, scream bloody murder when anyone uses FOX news as a source, but yet you expect us to accept information from just as biased sources for your team!

Think tanks, are bullsnip!



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: theantediluvian

Like I already said, anything from a source that is not biased?

It amazes me how you and others of you political persuasion, scream bloody murder when anyone uses FOX news as a source, but yet you expect us to accept information from just as biased sources for your team!

Think tanks, are bullsnip!



Actually, I quote Fox News as much as possible because it's harder for the right wingers and the people who pretend to be "independent," to claim "liberal bias." The claim was made that Soros was behind OWS and I read the source cited in which it was claimed that among others, AdBusters and MoveOn.org were fronts for Soros substantiating them. What kind of source is what amounts to an opinion piece in The New American, a source that makes Fox News look like the left's fan club. Why aren't you asking for proof that Soros was behing OWS?

EDIT: Feel free to call me a leftist, left winger, liberal, progressive, whatever.. I wouldn't call myself a Democrat because in my opinion they're weak, they compromise too much and they're almost as badly corrupted by big business as the GOP. At least the GOP knows it, all these newly self-professed "Libertarians" have the exact same masters and run around pretending to be radicals because somehow they've deluded themselves into thinking they're a continuation of the founding fathers and not just an extension of the GOP. It becomes pretty obvious how little people like that are really concerned with liberty as soon as the boots are on the necks of the liberals and the Libertarians have nothing to say in opposition.
edit on 2014-4-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join