• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OWS Oakland, keeping their proud traditions alive

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I sure hope this movement continues right through to the November election, so the American people won't forget what being an Obama democrat is really all about.




‘F*** the Police’: Occupy Oakland Protesters Are Throwing Urine at the Media
Posted on February 5, 2012 at 10:36am

About 70 protesters began their march toward police headquarters around 9 p.m, burning an American flag as they set out, the Associated Press reported. Officers followed, mostly keeping their distance, as demonstrators waved signs and chanted, “End the war in Oakland” and “No justice, no peace,” according to the Oakland Tribune. At one point in the march’s livestream, protesters could also be heard chanting “F–k the police.”

Television stations reported that at one point some protesters threw a bottle of urine at one station’s truck and a wooden board at another, according to the AP.
Click to expand...

‘F*** the Police’: Occupy Oakland Protesters Are Throwing Urine at the Media | Video | TheBlaze.com

And here's a picture from the AP showing the proud American patriotism of the Occupy movement:

occupy-flag.webp
 
The stupid actions of a few don't reflect the beliefs of many or all within a movement.
 
Really? I thought we were done with this The Blaze BS. It's about a good a source of info as Alex Jones Infowars.com.
 
Grim17 said:
I sure hope this movement continues right through to the November election, so the American people won't forget what being an Obama democrat is really all about.
Click to expand...

Because being an Obama Democrat means you're a bottle-throwing, flag-burning troublemaker? What makes you even think these guys even like Obama? I've gone to the Occupy Oakland website and they seem like a bunch of left anarchists to me. For the most part they think Obama is just another enforcer of the capitalist system.
 
America isn't easy. America, is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Click to expand...

From the "American President".

Michael Douglas
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Really? I thought we were done with this The Blaze BS. It's about a good a source of info as Alex Jones Infowars.com.
Click to expand...

So, which part of the story from the Blaze do you dispute? I mean you must dispute some part of it, because if you didn't, then that would mean you are dishonestly attacking the source of the story, because the story makes your side of the isle look foolish and you want people to believe the story isn't true, when you know damned well it is.

So, is it the part where protesters are chanting "F–k the police"? If it is, I recommend you watch the video attached to the story on the Blaze.

Is it the flag burning picture... Do you think it's fake, or not from that protest? If so, I recommend you take it up with the Associated Press, since they are the ones who published it.

Is it maybe the "bottle of urine" thing you think isn't legitimate? If so, I again suggest you take it up with the Associated Press, because they are the ones who originally reported that, not the Blaze.

Or is it something else you dispute?

Or perhaps it's because Glenn Beck happens to own the Blaze, and your partisan hatred runs so deep that you just had to attack the Blaze, even though nothing they reported is inaccurate?

Looking forward to your response.
 
The OWS fools don't need any help from moron flag burners to look bad.
 
Meh, the urine thing is a very typical fabrication.

As for the "**** the police" and flag burning, who cares?
 
Grim17 said:
So, which part of the story from the Blaze do you dispute? I mean you must dispute some part of it, because if you didn't, then that would mean you are dishonestly attacking the source of the story, because the story makes your side of the isle look foolish and you want people to believe the story isn't true, when you know damned well it is.

So, is it the part where protesters are chanting "F–k the police"? If it is, I recommend you watch the video attached to the story on the Blaze.

Is it the flag burning picture... Do you think it's fake, or not from that protest? If so, I recommend you take it up with the Associated Press, since they are the ones who published it.

Is it maybe the "bottle of urine" thing you think isn't legitimate? If so, I again suggest you take it up with the Associated Press, because they are the ones who originally reported that, not the Blaze.

Or is it something else you dispute?

Or perhaps it's because Glenn Beck happens to own the Blaze, and your partisan hatred runs so deep that you just had to attack the Blaze, even though nothing they reported is inaccurate?

Looking forward to your response.
Click to expand...


Yes, I can attack the source because some sources are more legitimate than others. For example, I'd regard Fox News with higher legitimacy than Infowars. The Blaze is run by Glenn Beck who is a known conspiracy theorist (such as connecting socialism with Islam). Thus, I'd have a problem with someone citing him as a source.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yes, I can attack the source because some sources are more legitimate than others. For example, I'd regard Fox News with higher legitimacy than Infowars. The Blaze is run by Glenn Beck who is a known conspiracy theorist (such as connecting socialism with Islam). Thus, I'd have a problem with someone citing him as a source.
Click to expand...

I'd believe you more if you went off on people quoting huffpo or media matters. I can't recall ever seeing you do so though.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Meh, the urine thing is a very typical fabrication.
Click to expand...

Really? Then 2 local TV stations in the most liberal media market in the United States of America (San Francisco Bay area), lied to the Associated Press about the participants in a liberal protest. LMAO... I'm sure that's the case.

And this discredits the Blaze how exactly?

As for the "**** the police" and flag burning, who cares?
Click to expand...

Indeed... I couldn't have demonstrated the difference between liberals and conservatives in America any better, if I had written it myself. Saves me the trouble of pointing out the lack of respect for both law enforcement and America itself, that the left has become so famous for... Thanks.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yes, I can attack the source because some sources are more legitimate than others. For example, I'd regard Fox News with higher legitimacy than Infowars. The Blaze is run by Glenn Beck who is a known conspiracy theorist (such as connecting socialism with Islam). Thus, I'd have a problem with someone citing him as a source.
Click to expand...

What A surprise, I was right. It isn't that the Blaze has demonstrated that it isn't a credible source, or that you object to the facts they presented in their story, it's all based purely on your seething hatred for Glenn Beck that's behind all this.

How, ummm.... Predictable of you.
 
MrVicchio said:
I'd believe you more if you went off on people quoting huffpo or media matters. I can't recall ever seeing you do so though.
Click to expand...
Please, show me where I ever endorsed either of those sites. Just because I don't go off on them does not mean I support them. Try harder.

Grim17 said:
What A surprise, I was right. It isn't that the Blaze has demonstrated that it isn't a credible source, or that you object to the facts they presented in their story, it's all based purely on your seething hatred for Glenn Beck that's behind all this.

How, ummm.... Predictable of you.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance amazes me. Let me put it in an easier way for you to understand. People don't take Infowars seriously because Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. For me, the same goes for Glenn Beck or any other conspiracy theorist. I don't take their sites seriously.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Please, show me where I ever endorsed either of those sites. Just because I don't go off on them does not mean I support them. Try harder.



Your ignorance amazes me. Let me put it in an easier way for you to understand. People don't take Infowars seriously because Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. For me, the same goes for Glenn Beck or any other conspiracy theorist. I don't take their sites seriously.
Click to expand...

Again, your accusation isn't based on the content of their stories, or the stories themselves. You deem the Blaze as "not credible" because Glenn Beck is the owner of the site, even though he doesn't write for the site, or even take an active roll in running it.

I'm sorry, but determining that a website is not a credible source, citing the person who owns it as the sole criteria for that determination, is not only dishonest, but it's obviously based on political differences and a hatred/dislike for the owner.

When I call into question the credibility of certain websites, it's based on their content and their history, not politics.
 
Until the 'real' occupiers start being the vocal lead against these pathetic morons...sorry...you own it.
 
Grim17 said:
Again, your accusation isn't based on the content of their stories, or the stories themselves. You deem the Blaze as "not credible" because Glenn Beck is the owner of the site, even though he doesn't write for the site, or even take an active roll in running it.

I'm sorry, but determining that a website is not a credible source, citing the person who owns it as the sole criteria for that determination, is not only dishonest, but it's obviously based on political differences and a hatred/dislike for the owner.

When I call into question the credibility of certain websites, it's based on their content and their history, not politics.
Click to expand...

i don't really think that's true, grim. you are one of the most politically biased posters here.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Really? I thought we were done with this The Blaze BS. It's about a good a source of info as Alex Jones Infowars.com.
Click to expand...

why not add NYT and Huffington Post, Moveon, Greenpeace.....and the list is equal to any projected perception of maybe. It is about time to trace these string theories and strung along theologies back to the hub weaving the balls of confusion.

NOW, is that hub always present throughout history repeating itself here in the moment.
 
Last edited:
Once again, Grim keeping his proud traditions of fairness and objectivity alive...

/sarcasm
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
From the "American President".

Michael Douglas
Click to expand...
You would have made a better impact had you researched and found a real person who said something along those lines.

This one works: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire (1694-1778) French writer and historian.

Or this: Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.

Salman Rushdie (1948-?) Anglo-Indian novelist.

Or more to your point: To permit freedom of expression is primarily for the benefit of the majority, because it protects criticism, and criticism leads to progress.

- Harry S. Truman

Maybe some judicial input? "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

- Justice William O. Douglas "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of free speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."

- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

and a senator much better impact than hollywood: "The citizen who criticizes his country is paying it an implied tribute."

- J. William Fulbright, speech, April 28, 1966

Churchill took the words right from my mouth: "Everyone is in favor of free speech... but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."

- Winston S. Churchill, speech, October 13, 1943

The last one isnt in context to you, but I mean it towards the occupiers and their supporters..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom