Peaceful Occupy protests degenerate into chaos

[Aunt Spiker]

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.

you undermine it as if it's casual Sunday morning or something.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

It's a crack in the damn, if you let them burn ****, then worse things happen, see canadian hockey riots for an example.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

some of these issues being protested against are NOT things the government can just snap it's fingers and fix

That's sorta the whole point.

and people are crossing the line in their efforts to force the piece to fit where it doesn't belong.

The general historical message in the US has been that extra-electoral political action is a terrible thing to avoid. People are finally waking up and realizing that the electoral system is broken and that they need to get out and act outside of the neat little box that the state has wrapped up politics into. Many people who aren't used to this are going to become terrified that this is a destabilizing force and could devolve into civil war; you are seriously overestimating the situation. The potential of a revolutionary seed being sown is there, but it's a long road to revolution from the street demonstrations currently taking place.

Really: the potential civil war that could errupt - all over some stupid ****ing corporatism and bad fiscal policies?

No, over capitalism.

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?

Of course not, attacks on property are categorized as "violent" all the time.

 

[Ikari]

you undermine it as if it's casual Sunday morning or something.

Nothing casual about rebellion, but it's a necessity from time to time. There isn't enough support from the People on the whole for actual revolt, so we won't see this aggregated up to that level. It will stay at most in the rebellion stage. And even then, I don't see it even actually getting to that point. The most we'll likely see is isolated riot.

 

[haymarket]

I'm well aware of history which is why I don't see a happy ending here.

Which is why we need to speak to the need for reforms and changes in society.

 

[mtlhdtodd]

Changes which benefits average working people instead of favoring those at the top?

:rofl:lamo:2rofll:

Yea rioting and destroying private property is a great way to "benefit" average people.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Yea rioting

I don't think you know what a riot is.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

:rofl:lamo:2rofll:

Yea rioting and destroying private property is a great way to "benefit" average people.

It is like what bloomberg said, and I have no love for the statist, but he is right here. Occupy wall st is not "occupying wall st" they are occupying a downtown neighborhood affecting businesses and residents alike.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't think you know what a riot is.

I do! impdaddy:

 

[Mycroft]

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.

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.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I do! impdaddy:

And I love you so it's ok.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

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.

 

[haymarket]

:rofl:lamo:2rofll:

Yea rioting and destroying private property is a great way to "benefit" average people.

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.

 

[What if...?]

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.

One and a half stories is about 15 feet. About the height of a pallet fire at the beach.

However, fires DO damage asphalt, and probably aren't advised or helpful to the movement as a whole. It just adds an element of danger and risk to private property that can be used against them.

Of course, recent reports of people being paid to disrupt the protests and make them look bad, as well as cops actually driving problematic homeless people TO the protests and dumping them there, call into question ANY action purported to have been commited by ACTUAL protesters.

Thanks to Grim for posting proof of this phenomenon.

 

[conservativeguy]

I think a true conservative wouldn't necessarily be opposed to all "riot".

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.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

You must have some information that is not included in the OP's link. Could you share that info with me?

 

[Grim17]

Thanks to Grim for posting proof of this phenomenon.

You're welcome... But you really need to accept the fact that ACORN paid people to protest, not disrupt the very protest they endorse.

The fact that you don't, just makes you look pathetic and shows the dishonesty of your beliefs.

 

[MaggieD]

"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."

I cannot support this. What a shame.

 

[mtlhdtodd]

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.

Social ills, come on most of what I have seen (I've been to and have seen first hand the Seattle and Vancouver WA occupy shows) is a bunch of people who want some one else to foot the bill for their existence. Social justice my a$$. They scorn equal opportunity and DEMAND equal outcome.

The flea baggers are like petulant children who have been told they can't have every thing they want. Start destroying property and using intimidation tactics of a lawless mob and the creditability they sought is lost, so they deserve whatever happens to restore peace and order. The onus is on them to start acting like responsible adults, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none and slim left town.

 

[Ikari]

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.

Wow...well thanks for the personal insults, I guess we now know the level of your debate skills and how far you're willing to sink to in order to make a point.

Riots are illegal, but true conservatism based on the limitation of government does reserve revolt and rebellion as proper tools of the People should the government act too grievously against our rights and liberties. 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.

 

[StillBallin75]

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.

 

[Grim17]

No, but folks claiming to be conservatives have reserved the option of violent revolution. Don't tell me it hasn't happened.

You must be talking about our resident Mullah, the liberal in conservative clothing.

 

[iliveonramen]

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....

 

[Ikari]

What is it Conservatives say about their gun ownership....

Indeed. And I'm not unsympathetic to the logic either. Revolution and rebellion are rightful powers of the People to combat the government should the government err to grievously against our rights and liberties for too long. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily endorse ALL riots/rebellion. But there is certainly a set of circumstances under which it is authorized.

 

[apdst]

No, but folks claiming to be conservatives have reserved the option of violent revolution. Don't tell me it hasn't happened.

And, the peace loving non-violent Libbos are excercising the option of violent revolution, as usual.

At this rate, it won't be long befor they're burning down peoples's homes.