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

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.


Wow, did you just make a leap from an explanation over why conservatives distrusted and disliked OWS to "justification for" police beatings?

Dude, I can't stand my mother-in-law, but don't want to see her beaten down or pepper sprayed.

Like I said before, it's interesting that you would espouse hatred for the TEA party because they were founded by the Koch Brothers and embraced by the conservative political machine, neglecting entirely the millions of average Americans who are part of that movement purely because we're sick and tired of the goddamn theives in DC laying claim to an ever growing portion of OUR money, but blindly do exactly the opposite in relation to OWS.

Re-read what I've written in this thread and find one instance where I said anything negative about the actual OWS protestors. Aside from the fact that most of them voted for Obama, I honestly don't harbor any resentment or anger towards them. I think they shoot themselves in the foot when they protest big business and then turn around and vote for the most big business friendly, bought and sold president in US history... the TEA Party members have a huge platform of superiority over them in that regard considering taxes went down under Bush (not that all TEA members were Bush voters, but generally speaking they sure as hell outnumbered the Obama voters in the movement.)

It's a simple equation, really...
OWS: Protest against big business + side with a political party that is paid just as much as the GOP by big business = confusing ethos?
TEA: Protest ever rising taxation of Americans + side with a political party that has a history of reducing taxes across all spectrums = consistant ethos.

All the rest is pretty nonsequiter here.

Further: I like the Koch brothers. They're good people. Anytime you have someone who can rally the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and that blithering idiot from the UK to all work themselves up into a lathering, frothing rage against the person, chances are I'm going to like them. It usually means the target of that rage is doing something that will be good for me as a middle class tax payer or trying to prevent something that would be very bad for me as a middle class tax payer. As an individual who has stated time after time that I am beyond fed up with being expected to hand over portions of my income to subsidize the lives of others, I openly embrace anyone who has a position that will lead to me keeping a greater portion of my money in my possession. For the same reason I supported OWS, when they were simply protesting the banker bailouts... when the 1% suddenly started expanding to the point where it now includes open consideration of anyone making over $100K as being "privleged"... well, screw that noise and wave goodbye to my previous support.




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Going along with that thought.

Isn't it also valid to ask if Occupy would have behaved differently had they been armed?

Also, had the pro-Bundy protestors behaved/protested more like Occupy how would the BLM have treated them?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
two different objectives,
two different ideologies,

one relies on the right to peacefully assemble to express political opinion,
one relies on the right to bear arms,

one stated peaceful and non violent,
one that believes only the barrel of a gun can bring resolution,

one that believes that inequity is the source of the problem,
one that believes taxes are the source of the problem,

both think there are problems,
but both see a different way of resolving the same problem.

personally i don't think you can fix a broken tax system till cooperation's cannot "offshore" their earnings,
while individuals are forced to make up the short fall.

in my opinion the tea party is miss guided into thinking individual tax rate is the problem,
when its actually the corporate tax dodging that costs so much that individual tax rates must rise to cover the short falls.

the one thing i think both groups agree on,

taking tax payer money and bailing out wealthy cooperation's is socialism.
taking tax payer money and subsidising wall marts profits, while they under pay their staff is socialism.

taking money from the poor to pay the rich even more while they push for more tax breaks for the rich,
is not going to solve either problems that both TEA and OWS see but disagree on.

i still believe in peaceful non violent political action and its protection from the courts (many cases were dismissed)
which means peaceful assembly is still a viable option.

the media attempted to make both groups look bad,
have you ever asked why?


xploder



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
To add to my previous post. We were the OWS of the 1970's....and they shot and killed 4 peaceful students. Because of the same kind of protesting. Dont ever wonder what they gov will do....look it up. We WERENT armed ....History repeats...

"The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre)[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis."
edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where did I "espouse hatred" for the Tea Party? I think the organizers are for the most part shady, sociopaths and douche bags and that it's largely a fake movement that was created by the Koch Brothers, Dick Armey, the good folks at Fox News, etc and of course Ron Paul, who is imo a joke. Unfortunately, even my own dear elderly mother self-identifies with the Tea Party. I don't hate the everyday Tea Partiers, I just think that they've manipulated into buying into a whole lot of BS.

I see no real difference when it comes to taxes between the Democrats and the GOP. Sure, the GOP says they're the party of smaller government and lower taxes but are they really?

Reagan lowered taxes, including income taxes in 1981, the economy faltered, he raised them in like '83, '85, and '86 and things got back on track, meanwhile the government grew. The first Bush said "no new taxes," there were in fact, new taxes, and he lost the election, the government grew. His son cut taxes in 2001, though the Bush Tax cuts disproportionately benefited households making $200k+ and added $1.35 trillion to the national debt. He cut taxes again in 2003 and we got our checks in 2008 in a failed attempt to ward of recession.. oh and government grew. We blew a bunch of money in Iraq and Afghanistan, started forking over 100s of billions in bail outs and went into recession ANYWAY. See where it all falls apart is that the GOP would have you believe that we could save all sorts of money if we just cut off those freeloaders and took out some of those unnecessary departments/agencies -- then we could pay less taxes and the government would be smaller and it all sounds great.

In actuality, they spend the same, they just invent things like the War on Drugs to spend money on or increase "defense" spending to line the pockets of defense contractors. The idea of paying lower taxes in of itself is awesome, are you kidding? Who wants to pay taxes? I make a decent amount of money and I pay a lot of taxes and just like everyone else I think to myself, "damn, what I could with that money I just spent on taxes." But I'm a realist, and I know that the job situation isn't going to get fixed no matter who is in office based on what both sides have been saying thus far and we're going to continue to have less and less new jobs year after year because it's not about lazy poor people and it's not about a lack of education or a lack of American exceptionalism. No amount of praying to the Job Creators is going to fix it, hell the mythical Job Creators are making more than ever. Like a broken record, the Republicans keep pushing trickle-down economics and the Democrats keep pushing things like education and job training (training for what?). I will say that I think that encouraging business in new sectors with grants is a better idea than cutting the corporate tax rate but after Solyndra, nobody has the stomach for it. The real problem as I've noted in posts before is automation.

And it's pretty obvious that many members of what is left of the Tea Party are on to the fact that GOP isn't really going to make good on their rhetoric either but like OWS throwing in with the Democrats because the Democrats pretend to be kindred spirits, the Tea Party is attached to the Republicans.

Beyond that, I think that a lot of the Tea Party doctrine is just irrational and let's not forget that the Tea Party has used "taxes" and the national debt to make all sorts of issues relevant to their cause, such as illegal immigration ("They took our jobs!") and it's disingenuous for you to try to sum the Tea Party up as simply being about "tax reform" because they're not. Groups describing themselves as "Tea Party" have gotten involved in a number of purely social issues.

..and of course you like the Koch Brothers.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Where did I "espouse hatred" for the Tea Party? I think the organizers are for the most part shady, sociopaths and douche bags and that it's largely a fake movement that was created by the Koch Brothers, Dick Armey, the good folks at Fox News, etc and of course Ron Paul, who is imo a joke.


I could be wrong, but I think you asked a question and answered it without even knowing it?

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



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Personal Fact: I paid less in taxes (percentage and dollar value) with Bush in office than I have been addled with the past 4 years.

I actually am not a huge GOP guy anymore, at least on the national stage. I'd vote for anyone who ran on a platform of complete dismantlement of the union and a handover of everything to the states. The fact is, that candidate doesn't exist right now, so I'm stuck voting for who I think is going to screw me the least... that usually is the GOP candidate.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
For what it's worth, I had my gun with me at Occupy STL and it was anything but a secret. I don't make a habit of advertising, but some in camp didn't care for a "big bad scary gun" while they camped in the middle of a city named Murder Capital of the United States not that long ago. (I wasn't staying without one) So... I spent part of my first day on-site, at General Assembly, arguing for the right to keep my weapon under the state CCW law. I stayed, my gun stayed and we had an audience for that GA, so the cops and secret service knew at least one of us was armed.

Never saw any problems from it... Even on the main night Michelle Obama and Biden's wife were at the World Series a few blocks away. The SS drove their gun trucks around the park occasionally to remind us we didn't need to feel lonely, but I was never approached or singled out. Maybe it really depends on where someone is in this country and of course, whether it's legal to have it.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

But what were they going to do to you? Tell you no?

The point is that an armed person garners a whole lot of respect the same way a predator does. Sort of like when a leopard or cheetah stalks across the savannah showing that white tail underside. Everything gives it a wide berth because of what it is, but no one freaks out because they know it's not hunting.

The question at that point is what behavior the armed person displays. Most legally armed people know how to treat their own weapon and status with the respect it deserves.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, actually... Yeah. lol... They very easily could have said No.

Somewhere out there, Occupy St Louis still had it's tapes of their GA's from 2011 and this was in the second half of October.. A Saturday, if I'm not terribly mistaken. Anyway, I'm doing cue for the same GA meeting when not taking my few minutes to argue the issue. I let the people generally looked up to as leaders (to put that carefully) know as soon as I figured out who they were, that I was CCW. I figured to do anything less, planning to join up, would have basically been betraying them by a lie through omission, right out the gate. Not the best way to earn trust and make friends in Occupy.

They couldn't force anyone out of the public plaza, but they sure could make a very public place seem like the loneliest place in the world to someone they simply decided they didn't want. I'd have left if the point had been lost in that open forum.

As far as respect? No.. Not really. It wasn't terribly helpful, actually. There were about a 60/40 split between protesters and homeless/regular downtown criminal element ..and I'm not saying they were or are the same thing by any means, but both exist there. They definitely outnumbered me at night, walking the outer sidewalk and around the spots where safety committee is kinda expected to be looking for safety stuff. lol....

The joke between myself and the others on safety was that the radios we were using were life savers. The gun was just to make sure I didn't get taken alive if caught alone.
(Maybe more like half joking at a couple points I recall)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Yes, we would have been treated differently.
We'd have been slaughtered where we stood.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
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?



i'm sure harry reid was behind it too.


oh, ever hear of tianamin square, antediluvian?

if they were armed, it would kinda suck for the ows too.

but that's what they want, right? big gov?


actually, what was their point?
edit on 3004294130am2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: XPLodER

in my opinion the tea party is miss guided into thinking individual tax rate is the problem,
when its actually the corporate tax dodging that costs so much that individual tax rates must rise to cover the short falls.



Sounds nice and even correct in theory but in practice it is wrong. I cant count how many times in towns and states I've lived where they've danced the tax shuffle with promises of lessening the burden on the individual only to have all taxes continue to rise.

Years back CT residents made such a noise about their property taxes that an income tax gained enough support to pass. It was promised to reduce property taxes. Guess what happened: income tax came in and property taxes still went up. So then they decided to create a sales tax. Did it lessen the other tax burdens? Nope. Now CT has some of the highest sales, income and property taxes in the nation.

Then came the lottery. The state promised to use all lottery funds for the schools which would reduce property taxes for individuals. That lasted all of one year then the lottery proceeds were moved to the "general fund" and property taxes went up yet again.

So in a perfect world you're right and I'd love to believe that in some magical unprecedented way that increasing the corporate tax revenue would lessen the burden on us normal folk but having lived though two state that played this game I'll tell you and promise you the reality is that if corporate tax revenues increase our income, sales and property taxes will just keep on increasing in kind.

The last thing the government needs is more money. They've been proven time and again to be totally irresponsible with what the money they do have.

Right now I'm in another state where the morons think their property taxes are too high so they want a sales tax and an income tax. It absolutely baffles me that with neighbors in the next state over having already gone through this people in this state here think it'll be different this time. Are they so blind, so ignorant, so foolish that they can't learn from history or even current failures? Apparently they are. So I'm sure within ten years this extremely low cost of living low tax state will be ruined under a new sales tax a new income tax and a still increasing property tax because politicians and the state are greedy and the people are stupid.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Well yeah, that's a no brainer! The threat of instant death is the most powerful motivator.

OWS were a bunch of unarmed, dirty hippies and we know how they deal with this sort. If OWS had been armed I think the country would be radically different today. Whether that difference would be war in our streets or reform is open for debate. In any case all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Its pretty clear that folks are looking for a showdown. I would bet that the PTB will bow every time to avoid that showdown. Just imagine the US government, local or Fed killing protestors in the street etc.. They can brutalize unarmed groups with impunity, but an armed group the size of OWS is a completely different beast.

Armed or not, deserving or not when people see citizens killed and government bloodied it follows pretty quickly that the same government is kicked to the curb.

That said they want your guns and they will have em soon if we don't make a stand! I don't believe that we should ever want to see the overthrow of our constitutional democracy, but the prospect of a more perfect Union is as American as Apple Pie.

edit on 19-4-2014 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: XPLodER

in my opinion the tea party is miss guided into thinking individual tax rate is the problem,
when its actually the corporate tax dodging that costs so much that individual tax rates must rise to cover the short falls.



Sounds nice and even correct in theory but in practice it is wrong. I cant count how many times in towns and states I've lived where they've danced the tax shuffle with promises of lessening the burden on the individual only to have all taxes continue to rise.

Years back CT residents made such a noise about their property taxes that an income tax gained enough support to pass. It was promised to reduce property taxes. Guess what happened: income tax came in and property taxes still went up. So then they decided to create a sales tax. Did it lessen the other tax burdens? Nope. Now CT has some of the highest sales, income and property taxes in the nation.

Then came the lottery. The state promised to use all lottery funds for the schools which would reduce property taxes for individuals. That lasted all of one year then the lottery proceeds were moved to the "general fund" and property taxes went up yet again.

So in a perfect world you're right and I'd love to believe that in some magical unprecedented way that increasing the corporate tax revenue would lessen the burden on us normal folk but having lived though two state that played this game I'll tell you and promise you the reality is that if corporate tax revenues increase our income, sales and property taxes will just keep on increasing in kind.

The last thing the government needs is more money. They've been proven time and again to be totally irresponsible with what the money they do have.

Right now I'm in another state where the morons think their property taxes are too high so they want a sales tax and an income tax. It absolutely baffles me that with neighbors in the next state over having already gone through this people in this state here think it'll be different this time. Are they so blind, so ignorant, so foolish that they can't learn from history or even current failures? Apparently they are. So I'm sure within ten years this extremely low cost of living low tax state will be ruined under a new sales tax a new income tax and a still increasing property tax because politicians and the state are greedy and the people are stupid.


what you are describing is the pressure placed on the individual,
to make up the short fall CREATED because corporate taxes are at an ALL TIME LOW

when you realise that some corporations who make billions of dollars in profit yet are payed tax refunds that they offshore, to tax havens,

that money must come from some where, THIS is the reason why you face higher and higher taxes while profitable corps pay LESS and LESS taxes.

i noticed all the tax types you mention adversely effect the individual,
while companies can use loop holes to avoid these taxes, and are not effected.

it is my firm belief, that if corporate tax breaks and incentives and loop holes were removed,
the PRESSURE to raise taxes would be REMOVED entirely.

how can the largest corps stick a straw into your tax money and suck it out to the cayman islands,
and your taxes not go up to compensate?\

xploder



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: XPLodER

I don't even think that the bailouts were even socialist..

corporatist is more accurate of a term.

frankly I wish we had actual socialists in government.

rather than half-baked corportists in progressive clothing.

If OWS had been armed, they would have been crushed much faster than they were.

anyone suspected of being involved in organizing Occupy-movement would be jailed in gitmo, or be forced to flee for another country (perhaps russia or france.)

we'd see a massive crackdown on universities,
professors with left-wing veiws being dragged to court to testify in trials, possibly being forced out of their jobs for their possibly radical views.

it would be a crackdown..
edit on 21-4-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

In the very first days of OWS several Tea Party groups tried to reach out but were severely rebuked. As for "mainstream" conservative media, they are run by the same Mockingbird control system as the leftist media. Their job is to manage rightwing anger and keep it from turning into a threat.

OWS was a faux movement being funded by the very capitalists who were supposed targets of the movement. The street troops were sincere enough, but the upper echelons were all well funded and managed. This is all fairly well documented. It was just political theater meant to blow off steam and make sure a true leftist revolution didn't break out, and maybe tweek some of the elites competitors.

The original TP, prior to being subverted by the gop establishment, wasn't just against big government, it was also against tax payer money being used to save criminals and gamblers. Having OWS protests waving May Day flags, defecating on police cars, and attacking Capitalism instead of targeting specific corporate criminals and their government stooges was engineered to drive a wedge between right and left movements, which could have found common cause against corruption and unfairness. The right doesn't like government spending at all. The left thinks the money should go to the poor. Both could agree it shouldn't be going to a bunch of corrupt crony capitalist/fascists.

In the end, the elites managed to co opt and diffuse any real action on the left or right. As consequence, nothing was fixed. The elites gained more power. And the problems have grown to the point that its nearly guaranteed that the next time around will be an absolute disaster. Oh whats that? Homeland just bought another 7 million shotguns shells? Hey, the elites know whats coming. They will do what they always do. Divide and conquer.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yes, they could have said no, and then, it was up to you how you were going to respond. Were they going to make you go if you didn't want to? Would they have had an easier time making you go if you weren't armed?

Think about it.

At that point, they were more or less relying wholly on your sense of decency and respect for their wishes. You were not quite as much at their mercy as you would have been had you not been armed.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: robobbob

I've said it many times, where OWS and the TEA Party split company is that one side wanted the government to fix it all while the other side saw government as a large part of the problem.

You can't fix a problem by using one of the big players as the solution.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

troll harder buddy

read the thread;

what tea party rally in the US has been broken up with tear gas, pepper spray, etc.
edit on 22-4-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join