so peaceful, yeah they arent doing anything wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/02...get-busy-port/
so peaceful, yeah they arent doing anything wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/02...get-busy-port/
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Totally non violent
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?cha...77702014889146
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Yes it is privately owned but the zoning requires them to have it open to the public 24hrs a day. There was no rule against people staying there as long as they wanted until last month when they changed the rule. Now the owner of the park can remove them but is choosing not to enforce that rule. Why don't you blame the owner for not having them removed from the property?Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Actually if you read the article you linked to, the owner said the biggest problem was the police barricades. How about just move the barricades so people can get to the restaurant easier. I don't really see your point in the end. Are you saying that people shouldn't protest if it is going to negatively affect any local businesses?
What is the point of slinging insults?
Fannie and Freddie did play a part absolutely, but they are not the ones primarily responsible. Also incompetence is not as infuriating as deceit.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...sing_markets_3
Vteck, do you think the existence of the black panthers means that the civil rights movement was wrong. I won't condone the violence in Oakland as it is only distracting from the real issues which are legitimate.
I wonder why the barricades are there?
My point is they are protesting not having jobs by impeding other people's businesses. That's like protesting a bank while you use your debit card......
You seen any of the Oakland video from last night? Mass violence vandalism etc? Peacefully LOL
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
It was described by everyone OTHER than Fox news as scattered acts of vandalism. But we all know Fox is fair and balanced right?
NY post agrees with Fox news.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...-rss&FEEDNAME=
So does MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941.../#.TrNUqLKa--U
I also checked huffington and there is no mention of it. That along gives fox news more credibility.
So, in light of the recent acts of civil disobedience, let me ask you regressives a little something.
In the 1960's, during the civil rights movements, it was AGAINST THE LAW for people black people to go to restaurants for white people or any kind of establishments for white people. It was also against the law for black people to sit in the front seats on public transportation vehicles. And, as today, the same rules apply for occupying public places. Do you think it was right back then to break the laws when they had the sit ins? What about when people broke the laws and sat in the front of buses? Was it not an outrage when you saw protesters and demonstrators being hosed down in the streets for standing up in something they believed in?
Alternatively, what would you think would have happened if all the blacks obeyed all of the laws? Didnt block off any streets, didnt take any seats on buses, didnt occupy any buildings, ate at their own restaurants, used their own toilets, their own water fountains, no strikes, obeyed curfews, and when the cops said disperse promptly at 11pm, everyone said "okay" and the streets were clear by 10:58. Where do you think society would be right now?
dont confuse personal responsibility with "regressive"
The fact you could even try to rationally compare the two parties and events , neither warrants a response from me nor the inclination that its even in the REALM of a plausible discussion.In the 1960's, during the civil rights movements, it was AGAINST THE LAW for people black people to go to restaurants for white people or any kind of establishments for white people. It was also against the law for black people to sit in the front seats on public transportation vehicles. And, as today, the same rules apply for occupying public places. Do you think it was right back then to break the laws when they had the sit ins? What about when people broke the laws and sat in the front of buses? Was it not an outrage when you saw protesters and demonstrators being hosed down in the streets for standing up in something they believed in?
When you compare truly PEACEFUL sitins of the 1960s, with pepole vandalizing businesses like they are doing in Oakland (just go watch any of the 20 videos from yeterday where they shut down the ports, wrote STRIKE on the side of a building , etc) it demeans the 1960s civil rights movement IMO. Anyone with any sense of intellectual capacity can see that.
The Civil Rights movement wasnt asking for handouts, they were asking to be treated equally. the Occupy people are asking for SOCIAL justice, income equality. That is not what the 60s were about. If you can honestly sit here and compare the 60s movement of giving everyone the same RIGHTS , to giving everyone the same amount of MONEY , then that is just a sad commentary on our society. The Occupy people have ALL THE SAME RIGHTS as anyone else, they can thank the 60s for that
Whatever you are reading on wikipedia about the civil rights movement i dont think you really understand. In many cases they did disperse, they did operate within what the police told them to do. No matter how racist it was .in the cases where they didnt cooperate, they did were arrested peacefully.Alternatively, what would you think would have happened if all the blacks obeyed all of the laws? Didnt block off any streets, didnt take any seats on buses, didnt occupy any buildings, ate at their own restaurants, used their own toilets, their own water fountains, no strikes, obeyed curfews, and when the cops said disperse promptly at 11pm, everyone said "okay" and the streets were clear by 10:58. Where do you think society would be right now?
Look what happened in Atlanta. they didnt have to use force to subdue any OCCUPY people, even though some were arrested. They stood their ground when asked to vacate, and were arrested without injury or force being used. In Oakland, when they were asked to disperse, they chanted fuck the police, through bricks and bottles at riot cops, and set off explosives (albeit it was fireworks).
You cannot compare the 2, no matter how bad you want to prove your point.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You can compare the two. Lol. A spade is a spade, a protest is a protest. This is apples and apples bro, regardless of what your opinion is on the two. Facts are facts.
Your answer tells me that you don't know much about either movement.
Which one actually changed something? I will bet anyone any amount of money the Occupy thing doesnt turn into ANYTHING. It wont accomplish anything, it wont change any laws, etc
Ill bet you im more educated on the civil rights movement than you are, ive been to more monuments and historical sites than you have, and ive participated in far more discussions on the matter.
We stil ldont even know if you even have a high school education............
you cannot compare the two, its not even in the same universe. Thats like comparing Basketball in a North Dakota Elementary school to the NBA.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
The funny thing is youre so dumb youll compare a sit in of the 1960s to Occupy Oakland destroying or vandalizing a bank.
The People who did the SIT IN were still using the restaurant. They whole POINT was to get service at the establishment (IE PAY THEM) to use their goods and or services. Or to be able to sit at the same counter as another race.
The OCCUPY people want to put people OUT OF BUSINESS not based on race color or creed, purely based on ECONOMIC STATUS. "youre rich, we arent , down with you!"
Blacks were trying to assimilate into the culture and have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (see constitution and bill of rights). Occupy doesnt want to assimilate, it wants to tear it down because they feel they cant achieve success on their own. they want free stuff. African Americans wanted the right to participate.
There is NO RIGHT TO A JOB, AND NO RIGHT TO WEALTH.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I still see you don't know much about either movements, and now you're slinging insults, possibly because I have a point and your principles won't let you acknowledge it. Would you like to know more about either of the movements?
It seems as if you do a lot of assuming. Do you know what happens when you assume?
Not insults, facts. I know plenty more about both movements and i dont have to use Wikipedia
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Hmmmm. Ok.
lol interesting
lol @ comparing this to the civil rights movement.
Civil rights (those inalienable rights we all have as human beings) =/= social "rights".
Like I said before, if you want to fix the broken system, you need to be in DC protesting congress and all the sleazebags that are riding that gravy train. I still have yet to see a good explanation as to why these people are only protesting one half of the broken system. You want to blast the banks for lobbying and getting bailouts, yet you aren't blasting the politicians who are taking the kickbacks and going on this massive bailout spending spree.
Rights are rights. Since times has changed, the setting is just a little different, thats all.
I keep seeing this reference to them being in the wrong venue. That they should be protesting in DC...
It only took me a few keystrokes to come up with these links. Why do you guys make these "claims" and then not do the research to see if what your saying is correct? I dont understand. This is why #Occupy is getting a bad rap. No one is taking the 2 seconds to look it up themselves. Is this what conservatives do? Can someone fill me in? Am I missing something? If you went to school and wrote a paper, and use any sources and cite them, they'd fail you out of the class.
http://occupydc.org/
http://occupydc.org/to-the-media-and...cern/#more-125
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html#photo=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...LQL_story.html
Since everything is usually wrong unless it comes from Faux news, here is a link from Faux news.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/19...for-occupy-dc/
^per your own words.lol @ comparing this movement to another movement.
That's nice that you classify the civil rights movement as just "another movement".
As far as "rights are rights" goes, a right to be treated as an equal person and given an equal opportunity to achieve success no matter race, sex, creed etc. (i.e. civil rights) is NOT the same as economic or social equality (i.e. social rights), no matter how you try and spin it.
Out of those links you posted I still don't see much of an outcry for removing the career politicians that have perpetuated the growing problems we've had for years, it's still a "tax the rich" message. Where are the people calling out against Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Clyburn, Specter, Leach, McCain, Boehner or a host of others who just seem to be part of the establishment? The class warfare rhetoric seems to be working pretty well with the OWS crowd.
Are you joking right now?
Did someone change the dictionary while I was asleep? Did you check the dictionary before you said "per your own words"? Would you like to define protest and movement for us out of your dictionary? Its cool. I'll wait.....
Nevermind, I'll take care of that....
move·ment
noun \ˈmüv-mənt\
Definition of MOVEMENT
1
a (1) : the act or process of moving; especially : change of place or position or posture (2) : a particular instance or manner of moving b (1) : a tactical or strategic shifting of a military unit : maneuver (2) : the advance of a military unit c : action, activity —usually used in plural
2
a : tendency, trend <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end
1pro·test
noun \ˈprō-ˌtest\
Definition of PROTEST
1
: a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
2
: the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval
3
: a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action
Here are some accepted definitions of both:
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.
Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and the extent of property rights. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society.
Hope that helps
So are you saying you would be in complete solidarity with the movement if you saw more of an outcry for the removal of career politicians or enacting some term limits? Or are you saying you haven't dug far enough to see such an outcry, and that the extent of your knowledge of whats going on comes from Hannity and friends?
LOL at you trying to wiggle out of a corner now
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Huh? I'm just making sure we're on the same page, because I can't find his "definition" of protest or social equality anywhere, in any dictionary, so I'm inclined to believe he doesn't know exactly what it means...
yeah totally genius group of people here.
So they storm a chase bank and vandalize it.
now they go inside a BURGER KING? are you kidding me?
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?cha...49229402258226
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
dont skew the issue or the argument.
THe Civil RIGHTS protest was about RIGHTS. Rights outlined in our constitution. Rights like people have the RIGHT to ride the same bus, use the same restroom, vote in the same elections, etc.
These OCCUPY people want SOCIAL JUSTICE, which is not the way our society runs. Everyone protesting has the same chance at making wealth as anyone else. Everyone has the same right to PURSUE happiness without being held back due to race or creed. There is nothing that says that "personX DESERVES" to make $XXXXX. ANd thats what these people and people like you dont understand. None of their RIGHTS are being violated. YOure not a millionaire, sorry, no rights were violated. YOu dont have a job? sorry, you arent GUARANTEED one. Dont have an education, sorry, you arent promised one either.
They also confuse "RIGHTS" with "DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT". they have the right to exercise free speech. But when you start impeding on OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS (like the right to run a business) then they deserve all the tear gas and rubber bullets hell has to offer.
If youre such a big proponent of this movement where is your picket sign buddy? why arent you out there standing in unison?
bill has been dead on right the entire time
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?cha...13767662615121
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I can't have a rational discussion with you because you keep using O'Reiley as your source for information. Lol. If you find the corresponding video in YouTube, I'll watch it. Lol
Oreilly is just as center as ANYONE. YouTube is more relevant than bill LOL
Watch the video, those are occupy people he isntvfaking that.
Hannity I wouldn't use, rush I would use, Stewart i wouldn't use , but oreilly is pretty center, he reports.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You're saying the exact same video of bill oreiley on YouTube isn't as credible as it is on his website? Are you serious? I'm assuming you're in the IT field, don't you know what a mirror is?
I'm saying ill take an award winning journalist post on his website over a random YouTube video which can be shot edited and depecited how they want.
I ACTUALLY watch oreilly and I'm telling you he's pretty fair and center. I wouldn't use videos from people like hannity or rush or Stewart because I don't consider them journalists.
Regardless you can search the video on YouTube if you want its not my joypto spoonfeed you.
The point is the video clearly shows so called occupy people attempting to shutdown a local business (IIRC BK is franchise). Shws a pattern.
Couple that with last nights "put the pigs in the sty we will occupy" chants covered by wsbtv at occupy Atlanta, and it shows how confrontational these people are.
They aren't just "exercising free speech"
But I don't expect you to get that point
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Just wanted to mention that people usually don't protest when they like the way society runs.
I know the rights of free speech and assembly are in the first amendment. Which amendment is the right to run a business in?
Since you cant grasp my point, it was they arent protesting equal rights, they want special rights. They arent protesting the right to use the same bus, or eat at the same restaurant because their civil rights are being violated. they want social justice, which is not the way our society is made to run. If you want social justice move to Europe.
That whole pesky "pursuit of happiness" thing...........I know the rights of free speech and assembly are in the first amendment. Which amendment is the right to run a business in?
So since you couldnt really argue with me based on merits, you decided to try and advocate that its ok to mess with someones business because it isnt in the constitution? awesome morals you have there. The right to free speech is being exercised. They also have the right to assembly, which they are exercising. They however dont have the right to disrupt other citizens day to day activities, confront police, break laws, etc.
Its simple, you can protest, you just cant disrupt other peoples businesses and lives. I mean you can, but be prepared to deal with the consequences. You guys fail to grasp that their free speech ISNT being violated. Its their actions that are being held accountable. YOu want to make excuses for them saying its ok when they are not just merely protesting big corporations, they are rioting and enciting violence, provking police, squatting in public places, and disrupting people that are trying to earn a living . Small business owners arent millionaries and billionaires.
They provoke police, and then when the police retaliate they play the "brutality" card.
Dozens of arrests have happened in Atlanta and usually without any problem because the protestors arent advancing on police. They are just refusing to leave woodruff park and the cops arrest them.
Now this weekend there was a bunch of people who stormed Peachtree Street and were shouting things like "put the pigs back in their sty, we are here to occupy" and they got arrested pretty easily. WSBTV covered it. IMO Atlanta has done a great job controlling the protestors without having any violence. But the OCCUPY Atlanta people havent been advocating violence and they have been policing their own pretty well. The issued a statement first thing sunday morning saying that people who were uncooperative with the police Saturday night were not part of the movements peaceful agenda and they denounced anyone who didnt cooperate with police. That goes a long way with me.
Oakland isnt doing that.
Look, if a riot breaks out, WHICH CLEARLY IT DID in Oakland, and you are standing peacefully in the middle like the marine did, and you get injured, thats just the breaks man. Police arent going to differenciate between the Marine standing there doing nothing and the people advancing, throwing bottles/grenades, and causing mayhem. Their tactics are to take everyone out in the area they are told to police and vacate. So if you are in it, you are guilty by association.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
you guys clearly think that "freedom of speech" and "right to assembly" means= the right to do whatever we want no matter what. any attempt to stop us is "brutality"
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Stop using hyperbole. "Riots" are not going on.
And no protesters threw grenades.
When they refused to leave, they used tear gas to break them up. Many protestors threw the "grenades" back at police.
Riots are going on, they have set stuff on fire, provoked and advanced on police, vandalized businesses, threatened people who haven't agreed with them, etc
Watch any of 100 videos covering Oakland occupy
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
No, those aren't riots, that's civil disobedience, just like they used to do during the civil rights movement ya know.
/sarcasm
I see what you did there
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
It's not that I don't get your point, it's that we are arguing different things. You are arguing that since their goals are misguided, we shouldn't support their right to protest. I am arguing that people should protest for what they believe in even if I don't agree with their goals. Further I disagree that if you don't like what is happening in your home country you should just move. Right now our government spends money it doesn't have and its been like that for years. That doesn't mean we should just accept that's how things are and move to another continent. Everyone should fight for what they think is right.
Please refer where I said anyone's free speech was being violated or that I supported the violence in Oakland. I'm pretty sure I just posted a few days ago that I specifically disagreed with the violence in Oakland. Who are you arguing against because I never made such claims?
Also, it's quite a leap to get from "pursuit of happiness" to "don't do anything that negatively impacts a business or causes people commute to work to be longer". Aren't the protestors also pursuing their own happiness by trying to positively impact the country? Even if you disagree with what they want, you should see they are doing what THEY feel is right.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
