Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

MARINES TO OAKLAND POLICE: 'You Did This To My Brother'

page: 18
202
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by tangonine
 


And you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties, it seems. Ah, well.

Let me spell it out for you: Defending American citizens who are exercising their rights to display grievances and displasure at the govornment is defending the constitution.


Let's discuss reading comprehension issues. "at the government" is the operative clause there where the Constitution is concerned.

Remind me again where Occupy WALL STREET is focused? Oh yeah, it's right there, built into the name...



If the cops are preventing demonstrators from practicing their free speech rights, it is the cops who are attacking the constitution, not the protesters. And thus, the cops become antagonists to the American constitution.


See above. re-read the Constitution... for comprehension this time...



You do realize the constitution protects everyone's right to public protest, whether you agree with them or not, right?


It protects their right to assemble and apply to the THE GOVERNMENT for redress of grievances.

Reading comprehension can be a GOOD thing...



So in intimidating, attacking, or trying to disrupt protests and demonstrations in the name of the sitting govornment, you are ultimately attacking the first amendment.


See above. Do I need to quote the First Amendment, or can you find it on your own to read for comprehension?



The Patriot act was a direct assault against amendments 4,5,6, and 7.


Agreed. Someone really ought to bring that up with... THE GOVERNMENT.



So I would suggest you try reading the constitution first, before deciding who is attacking it, and maybe be shocked by how many violations our lovely govornment, with passive consent of the people, have performed on the Bill of Rights alone.


Heh, heh, heh.... likewise...



Again, I say, the constitution is useless unless we are willing to defend it to the letter. And this includes standing up for people who you don't even agree with when they are exercising the same rights you have been granted.


I am defending it. To the letter.



Wake up, or at least sharpen yopur reading comprehension, please.


Did you really say that right out loud?





edit on 2011/11/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
#! The marine with the pic in his hands had tears in his eyes. This will not end well. You can only push so far....



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Uhh...in case you haven't noticed, Occupy Wall Street isn't exactly focused on anything. Alot more than drum banging hippies are out there, pissed off. And many are just as pissed at the government, because their incompetance allowed the idocy on all sides to grow unchecked. I've seen people protesting aned complaining about a wide variety of things at these protests. It's not just Wall Street people are pissed off at. Not that people shouldn't be pissed off with Wall Street, since they played a big role in the economic disaster, and certainly deserve a good share of ire. And protesting private entities is just as valid a form of free speech.

Now, to the first amendment, since you seem to have such a problem with it:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.


Ok, what part are you having a problem getting your head around?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think it's pretty funny that people claim OWS are a bunch of fringe hippies when they have more public support than the Tea Party!!


Also, I guess the same people who are against OWS have a very selective interpretation of "free speech", in that free speech is only granted if that speech matches their preconceived notions of how the world works



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 





I know for a fact alot of military, past and present, are sick of both the conservatives and the liberals, and tired of finding out their asses are on the line for Exxon, BP, and Haliburton rather than the United States of America.


Funny enough, this is one of the key reasons people are protesting. They finally realize that in reality, they're now slaves of corporate America, and their government has sold out and now works for those crooks instead of the PEOPLE (and soldiers are obviously people).



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I think it's pretty funny that people claim OWS are a bunch of fringe hippies when they have more public support than the Tea Party!!


26% to 22%, with 50% of the public not supporting (but not opposing) either. Not much of a difference.

The poll is near two-weeks old; I wonder if perception has changed in light of recent events.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
Also, I guess the same people who are against OWS have a very selective interpretation of "free speech", in that free speech is only granted if that speech matches their preconceived notions of how the world works


Evidence?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Count the number of posts ranting about people voicing their opinion and you have your evidence. Or the people who argued police violence is ok


Regarding the poll, in one of the centres of the protest (Wall Street, duh!), support is now up to 44% in favor of OWS, and support for the TP stands at 21% (LINK). The study's one day old, so it seems support's definitely on the rise



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Uhh...in case you haven't noticed, Occupy Wall Street isn't exactly focused on anything. Alot more than drum banging hippies are out there, pissed off. And many are just as pissed at the government, because their incompetance allowed the idocy on all sides to grow unchecked. I've seen people protesting aned complaining about a wide variety of things at these protests. It's not just Wall Street people are pissed off at. Not that people shouldn't be pissed off with Wall Street, since they played a big role in the economic disaster, and certainly deserve a good share of ire.


As a matter of fact, I HAVE noticed their apparent lack of focus, and commented on the likely cause behind that.
It seems they are trying to just mobilize pissed off crowds, and they don't much care what they're pissed off about. that tells me what they're really up to. They're planning on using that anger against the people, and FOR their own agenda. Pissed off people are easier to stampede when the trigger gets pulled. They don't cvre what the anger is about, as long as it's there to be used by the handlers.



And protesting private entities is just as valid a form of free speech.


Until it starts encroaching on the rights of others. Otherwise, the First Amendment must be specifically followed, and it specifically states that the people have the right to petition GOVERNMENT for redress of grievances.



Now, to the first amendment, since you seem to have such a problem with it:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.


Ok, what part are you having a problem getting your head around?


I ask you the same question - I can read what is plainly written there - why can't you? I put some bold on it for you, to help you out.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Regarding the poll, in one of the centres of the protest (Wall Street, duh!), support is now up to 44% in favor of OWS, and support for the TP stands at 21%


Which makes sense, being a poll of New Yorkers (not Wall Street workers specifically) and New Yorkers being Democrats, who are more supportive of OWS. Nothing in your poll indicates OWS support is on the rise.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Uhh...in case you haven't noticed, Occupy Wall Street isn't exactly focused on anything. Alot more than drum banging hippies are out there, pissed off. And many are just as pissed at the government, because their incompetance allowed the idocy on all sides to grow unchecked. I've seen people protesting aned complaining about a wide variety of things at these protests. It's not just Wall Street people are pissed off at. Not that people shouldn't be pissed off with Wall Street, since they played a big role in the economic disaster, and certainly deserve a good share of ire. And protesting private entities is just as valid a form of free speech.


You're right, OWS isn't exactly focused on anything, and that is a big part of the problem with it.

If they are protesting Wall Street issues, then they are in the right place, as long as it remains a peaceful assembly. If they are protesting the Government, then they need to be in a place where the Government resides.

So I can come to your home and protest you because I don't like something that you do? That would be protesting a private entity. Wrong. Protesting a public entity is a valid form of free speech.


Now, to the first amendment, since you seem to have such a problem with it:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.


Ok, what part are you having a problem getting your head around?


The section of the First Amendment that you need to focus on here is:

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Punctuation rules show that these two pieces go together; thus, people can gather together in peaceful groups to demand redress


Definition of REDRESS
transitive verb
1
a (1) : to set right : remedy (2) : to make up for : compensate b : to remove the cause of (a grievance or complaint) c : to exact reparation for : avenge

of grievances.

Nowhere does the constitution say that the people can gather in a mob to demand reapportioning of wealth.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Also, I guess the same people who are against OWS have a very selective interpretation of "free speech", in that free speech is only granted if that speech matches their preconceived notions of how the world works


As are the rabid OWS supporters who espouse the concept of "you are either with us or you are against us".

I seem to remember hearing that within the last 10 years, now who said it? Oh, yeah, it was George W. Bush.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This is the first time a lack of focus or purpose as evidence of sinister, alterior motives.

Yes, they are mobilizing alot of angry, pissed off people. And as far as I'm concerned, good. It's about timethey got off their asses and got angry about the complete crock of bullshyte that business as usual, in the current sense, is.

Yes, there are sectors of the protestors that are shouting the same commie crap they were 40 years ago. So what? like I said, this "movement" has no focus, no center. There are numerous groups out there demanding a myriad of things. So what? You have any idea what a motley crue the protesters against the WTO are? You're talking about tree hugging hippies marching in the same demonstration as the neighborhood NRA nut.

So there are just as many mixed views here. And as far as I can tell, they are, for the most part, peacefully demonstrating, or engaging in non-violent civil disobiedence. The few rioters and hooligans have been far fewer than the demonstrators. I don't care what the cops do to such people, if they are behaving violently.

And as far as redressing grievances, well...this so far seems to be the only method of redress that has gotten the government's attention. So I am not seeing the problem here. The vast majority of protestors are non-violent, they are protesting a variety of demands, and the cops are trying to disrupt/interfere with their rights to do so.

I honestly do not care what they are protesting or demanding, because they have the right to do so. It's not like the govornment is going to listen anyway. They could be demanding institution of a theocracy run by 10 foot moon ninjas, for all I care. They have the right to stand around shouting and chanting for whatever they want. Whether or not they will recieve is a different thing, and unimportant. Only that they have the right to make their demands heard.

Like I said, other than a few hooligans, the protests have been non violent even if unorganized. This being as it is, the cops do not have the right to start randomly attacking or closing down protests just because a couple idiots act up. And they certainly do NOT have the right to use excessive force against civilians, period. Excessive force being force that exceeeds what is reasonable or necessary to contain a suspect in a particular situation.

Clear enough?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 




Clear enough?


Your stance is clear, although how you arrive at it is somewhat muddled. You say this in one place:



And as far as redressing grievances, well...this so far seems to be the only method of redress that has gotten the government's attention.


and this in another:



It's not like the govornment is going to listen anyway.


So which is it?

I get your stance - that other people's rights mean nothing as long as you get yours, but how is it you justify that using what is plainly written in the US Constitution? You state plainly that the OWS has rights which override every one else's, and that the police don't have any rights to enforce the People's rights. You are ambivalent on the matter of whether or not the redress of grievances specified in the Constitution apply to government as specified, or just malaise in general against anything.

OWS is protesting against other citizens, and you are contradictory on whether the government is "getting the message" as well. By your argument, if the Coalition Against Evil Elves decides to camp out in your front lawn in protest against evil elves, that you have no say in the matter, since it is a "petition for redress of grievances". The government may or may not hear, in order to make some law governing the interactions of Evil Elves with the Coalition, but that doesn't matter to you, either - which, by extension, prevents to police from ejecting the coalition from your lawn, and in fact if you undertake to evict them, you are somehow trampling their rights to free speech.

Frankly, the argument asserting the supremacy of the rights of either the OWS or Coalition Against Evil Elves over your own rights or mine makes no sense to me, nor does the notion that a protest against the government is effective by targeting a group of citizens make any sense.

I personally have always subscribed to the idea of equal rights under the law, with on one having "more equal" rights than anyone else. OWS has the right to protest, however misdirected or misguided, but that right does not reign supreme above all other people's rights.

ESPECIALLY in the matter of protesting against other citizens, rather than the government as specified in the Constitution, the rights of OWS should by no means have any sort of supremacy above everyone else's rights.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
nor does the notion that a protest against the government is effective by targeting a group of citizens make any sense.


Targeting a nation's citizens in order to change a government's behavior? They have a name for that, though the name escapes me at the moment...



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by nenothtu
nor does the notion that a protest against the government is effective by targeting a group of citizens make any sense.


Targeting a nation's citizens in order to change a government's behavior? They have a name for that, though the name escapes me at the moment...


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but I wouldn't use "that word" in relation to OWS unless I just wanted to see people go ballistic and explode like a 4th of July display!


It's not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination. That's just the current incarnation of the phraseology. Collectivists have been employing the concept for as long as there have been collectivists. The idea is to get the people to force a government to bend to the will of the attackers by attacking the people, rather than the government, thus putting the fear of a people to work against it's own government.

In this case, they already have a solid toe hold in the halls of government, so they only want to force the hand of certain segments of that government. Therefore, it simply wouldn't do to go against the government on the off chance that they might dislodge the toehold they already have.

It's all about getting the people themselves to re-structure the parts of government that are not falling in line with the collectivist agenda, and to do that, they have to present an economic target instead of a government target, and get the people to demand a collectivist economic model from the political establishment, Then, they will have both of their eggs in the same basket - both politics and economics in the COLLECTIVIST basket.

At that point, the coup will be complete, and so will the control over the people by the collectivists.


edit on 2011/11/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I personally have always subscribed to the idea of equal rights under the law, with on one having "more equal" rights than anyone else. OWS has the right to protest, however misdirected or misguided, but that right does not reign supreme above all other people's rights.


However, that is what they believe, that their rights are supreme above those who disagree with them, as illustrated by what happened in DC last night, when protesters attempted to block people from leaving the Americans for Prosperity summit at the DC convention center.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Our military, especially the Marines have me smiling every day from ear to ear. The NYPD? I have never seen them act so ignorant, I grew up in NYC and yes, some of the NYPDs can be real tools but, their recent actions against the very citizens they are supposed to protect is outrages. But it's to be expected I guess, I remember playing X-Men Destiny, (The Recent X Men game, which sucked btw lol) and Cyclops saying, "If you want peace, then prepare for war". That phrase is so reflective of the current uprising of our world and our need for it, I Just hope something comes of it.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I think it's pretty funny that people claim OWS are a bunch of fringe hippies when they have more public support than the Tea Party!!


Also, I guess the same people who are against OWS have a very selective interpretation of "free speech", in that free speech is only granted if that speech matches their preconceived notions of how the world works


I'd like you to back up the statement: "they have more public support than the Tea Party" with facts and poll numbers.

Off you go. Google away. Betcha you come up empty.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by nenothtu
nor does the notion that a protest against the government is effective by targeting a group of citizens make any sense.


Targeting a nation's citizens in order to change a government's behavior? They have a name for that, though the name escapes me at the moment...


"Isurrection" "Treason" those 2 come to mind.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ISis12RA12ELohim
 


Isn't it funny how many will support the NYPD or the Police in general, after all the crap that they have caused. The Majority of the US Armed forces I support and respect. But when It comes to the US Police Force, they are about as bad as the UK Police Force that is for sure.

A lot seem to forget that the NYPD are as corrupt as the Met Police in the UK. But hay it is still oks to turn a blind eye and support them, although they have been caught out.





new topics

top topics



 
202
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join