- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
you undermine it as if it's casual Sunday morning or something.
No, I do not see this as having the possibility of turning into full revolt. At most it would turn out to be a moderate rebellion.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's a little strange that creating a bonfire is being seen as an act of violence? The protesters weren't burning anything specifically. The fire was in the middle of the street, and was controlled. It wasn't going to spread to buildings, certainly not over a paved, blacktop road. There was no aggressive act that would justify the use of violence by the police in this instance. Nothing escalated beyond simply blocking the harbor until police attacked the protesters.
But all that aside, rights and freedoms aren't won by politely asking for them. They're won by starting some sh*t.
Aunt Spiker said:some of these issues being protested against are NOT things the government can just snap it's fingers and fix
and people are crossing the line in their efforts to force the piece to fit where it doesn't belong.
Really: the potential civil war that could errupt - all over some stupid ****ing corporatism and bad fiscal policies?
Paschendale said:Am I the only one who thinks that it's a little strange that creating a bonfire is being seen as an act of violence?
you undermine it as if it's casual Sunday morning or something.
I'm well aware of history which is why I don't see a happy ending here.
Changes which benefits average working people instead of favoring those at the top?
Yea rioting
:rofl:lamo:2rofll:
Yea rioting and destroying private property is a great way to "benefit" average people.
I don't think you know what a riot is.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's a little strange that creating a bonfire is being seen as an act of violence? The protesters weren't burning anything specifically. The fire was in the middle of the street, and was controlled. It wasn't going to spread to buildings, certainly not over a paved, blacktop road. There was no aggressive act that would justify the use of violence by the police in this instance. Nothing escalated beyond simply blocking the harbor until police attacked the protesters.
But all that aside, rights and freedoms aren't won by politely asking for them. They're won by starting some sh*t.
I do!impdaddy:
You just might be the only one...I don't know.
But consider flames reaching one and a half stories into the air... Don't you find that a little alarming? Plus, there were "fires"...not "a bonfire". And...how do you know those fires were under any kind of control?
Plus..according to the article, the police didn't arrive until the acts of violence: breaking and entering, vandalism...and, of course, setting fires.
:rofl:lamo:2rofll:
Yea rioting and destroying private property is a great way to "benefit" average people.
You just might be the only one...I don't know.
But consider flames reaching one and a half stories into the air... Don't you find that a little alarming? Plus, there were "fires"...not "a bonfire". And...how do you know those fires were under any kind of control?
Plus..according to the article, the police didn't arrive until the acts of violence: breaking and entering, vandalism...and, of course, setting fires.
BS dude, put down the crack pipe before you fry the last two functioning brain cells you have left. Riots are illegal, unlawful, harmful, etc. Nobody claiming to be a conservative would endorse an actual riot. I am all for peaceful demonstrations, that is our right.I think a true conservative wouldn't necessarily be opposed to all "riot".
The original bonfire was under control and was away from any private property. The other ones came after police attacked the protesters. Wanna arrest them at that point, no problem, though self-defense against police brutality is an important factor to consider. The legal standard that governs what force police can or cannot use is not "alarming", however. It needs to be proportional force. As has been happening over and over at these protests, police have escalated the level of force (often being the first aggressors). They are not allowed to do that. They are also only making things worse by doing so.
Thanks to Grim for posting proof of this phenomenon.
"Oakland Police responded to a late night call that protesters had broken into and occupied a downtown building and set several simultaneous fires," the statement read. "The protesters began hurling rocks, explosives, bottles, and flaming objects at responding officers. Several private and municipal buildings sustained heavy vandalism. Dozens of protesters wielding shields were surrounded and arrested."
Perhaps you are simply ignorant of history? Perhaps you lack the ability to put two things together and draw a conclusion?
Reforms and changes often come after periods of unrest and social upheavel. The heavy unrest and violence of the later Gilded Age helped create the tone for the Progressive Era which followed it. During that time, many reforms and changes were instititued around the nation as a way of speaking to the ills that the social unrest of the Gilded Age spotlighted.
There will be a test on monday.
BS dude, put down the crack pipe before you fry the last two functioning brain cells you have left. Riots are illegal, unlawful, harmful, etc. Nobody claiming to be a conservative would endorse an actual riot. I am all for peaceful demonstrations, that is our right.
BS dude, put down the crack pipe before you fry the last two functioning brain cells you have left. Riots are illegal, unlawful, harmful, etc. Nobody claiming to be a conservative would endorse an actual riot. I am all for peaceful demonstrations, that is our right.
No, but folks claiming to be conservatives have reserved the option of violent revolution. Don't tell me it hasn't happened.
While I do not claim a true conservative would endorse ALL riots, there are sets of circumstances wherein within the political ideology, rebellion is a valid response.
What is it Conservatives say about their gun ownership....
No, but folks claiming to be conservatives have reserved the option of violent revolution. Don't tell me it hasn't happened.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?