Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

What witnesses extra? You know as well as I do that they didn't go running in "cracking heads". They went in and the protesters got in their faces wanting to push the cops around. Like I said earlier, the police showed restraint that ordinary people couldn't. Why do they need to put up tents and trash public property, and who is protecting them while they do that?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously didn't watch the video. There were interviews that stated the police moved in to remove tents and began assulting those in them. That provoked the crowd. Remember, the crowd are the citizens, you know, "we the people."

 

The only problem is "we the people" have laws that we obey. I am not against the OWS crowd protesting. But, there's a civilized way to do that. Refer to all the TEA Party protests.

Originally Posted by ferrellj:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

What witnesses extra? You know as well as I do that they didn't go running in "cracking heads". They went in and the protesters got in their faces wanting to push the cops around. Like I said earlier, the police showed restraint that ordinary people couldn't. Why do they need to put up tents and trash public property, and who is protecting them while they do that?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously didn't watch the video. There were interviews that stated the police moved in to remove tents and began assulting those in them. That provoked the crowd. Remember, the crowd are the citizens, you know, "we the people."

 

The only problem is "we the people" have laws that we obey. I am not against the OWS crowd protesting. But, there's a civilized way to do that. Refer to all the TEA Party protests.

 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ferrell,

 The Constitution states that we have the right to peacefully associate and adress our government for grievances. The Constitution does not say that you can only do that between 6:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. monday thru friday as many of these towns are attempting to pass ordinances on the fly in an attempt to discourage and disperse the protesters.

 When people are exercising their Constitutional rights, city ordinances take a back seat.

 

Ho hum. Again, that "permit" doesn't give them the right to %$#@ on the ground, trash and ruin public property, harass people that actually do work for a living, and get in the faces of law enforcement. People that belittle the police should have to ride along with them for a few days and see what they put up with. This bunch should have a mob camping on their lawns, (well, their parents lawns) and see how they like it.

Amen to the ho hum. How is that this is our permit thing working out for them? lol, I see where Atlanta and some other major cities has put a halt to this foolishness crap. Good Job on the local PD on this issue. Sounds like they need to spend all this energy and find themselves a job .

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Ho hum. Again, that "permit" doesn't give them the right to %$#@ on the ground, trash and ruin public property, harass people that actually do work for a living, and get in the faces of law enforcement. People that belittle the police should have to ride along with them for a few days and see what they put up with. This bunch should have a mob camping on their lawns, (well, their parents lawns) and see how they like it.



You are not fit to be a American.

Dont mock the Constitution when you obviously have no clue to its meaning. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Ho hum. Again, that "permit" doesn't give them the right to %$#@ on the ground, trash and ruin public property, harass people that actually do work for a living, and get in the faces of law enforcement. People that belittle the police should have to ride along with them for a few days and see what they put up with. This bunch should have a mob camping on their lawns, (well, their parents lawns) and see how they like it.



You are not fit to be a American.

Dont mock the Constitution when you obviously have no clue to its meaning. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Ditto,

 There is not any group more hostile to the Constitution than the neo-con conservatives on this board.

 That is exactly why I quit the Republican party. I used to be actively involved in Colbert Co, in this regard.

 

 The neo-cons want war with anyone they don't like and tax cuts for the rich, everyone else can go to hades.

 

Ditzy,

 

The right to assemble and of free speech, does not include the right to sequester public property for your indeterminate use, to trash the property, or to impede commerce in the general vicinity. 

 

You do have the right to demonstrate in public, while not impeding others right to transit thru the area.  You have the right to hire a hall, assemble and say the most logical, or the most crazy things.  

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Ho hum. Again, that "permit" doesn't give them the right to %$#@ on the ground, trash and ruin public property, harass people that actually do work for a living, and get in the faces of law enforcement. People that belittle the police should have to ride along with them for a few days and see what they put up with. This bunch should have a mob camping on their lawns, (well, their parents lawns) and see how they like it.



You are not fit to be a American.

Dont mock the Constitution when you obviously have no clue to its meaning. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Show me in the constitution where it is allowed to do the things I listed. You might like to see people acting like animals, that may be how you live and what you're use to, but decent people don't like that kind of stuff and when you do it, and try to wrap yourself up in the constitution to support that behavior, it shows that it's you that isn't fit to live here.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The Denver city government allowed the protestors to demonstrate in the park, serve food their and sleep in the civic center.  They were expressly forbidden from pitching tents in the park.  When they did so, the police warned them.  When the protestors didn't take the tents down, the police proceeded to enforce the law.

 

Break the law, suffer the consequences. 

 

http://rt.com/news/denver-poli...testers-weapons-163/

 

 

 

"The Denver city government allowed ..."

 

"They were expressly forbidden ..."

 

"When they did so, the police warned ..."

 

" ... the police proceeded to enforce the law. Break the law, suffer the consequences."

 

Nobody needs to be "allowed" access to their First Amendment rights.


Nobody can be "forbidden" their First Amendment rights.


A police warning about something that is not a crime, as First Amendment rights definitely are not, could and should be ignored, despite the fact that the police will proceed to beat you up for not doing what they say.


The police did not "enforce the law." They enforced a decree handed down by those in the Denver city government that thought it within their authority, which it was not, to limit First Amendment rights. Police seem to think that all they have to do is tell you to do something -- anything -- and you are obligated to obey. 


What were the protesters brutalized and arrested for? For not acting like good little boys and girls and doing what Mommy and Daddy told them to do.


An unjust law is no law at all.


"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson

 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The Denver city government allowed the protestors to demonstrate in the park, serve food their and sleep in the civic center.  They were expressly forbidden from pitching tents in the park.  When they did so, the police warned them.  When the protestors didn't take the tents down, the police proceeded to enforce the law.

 

Break the law, suffer the consequences. 

 

http://rt.com/news/denver-poli...testers-weapons-163/

 

 

 

"The Denver city government allowed ..."

 

"They were expressly forbidden ..."

 

"When they did so, the police warned ..."

 

" ... the police proceeded to enforce the law. Break the law, suffer the consequences."

 

Nobody needs to be "allowed" access to their First Amendment rights.


Nobody can be "forbidden" their First Amendment rights.


A police warning about something that is not a crime, as First Amendment rights definitely are not, could and should be ignored, despite the fact that the police will proceed to beat you up for not doing what they say.


The police did not "enforce the law." They enforced a decree handed down by those in the Denver city government that thought it within their authority, which it was not, to limit First Amendment rights. Police seem to think that all they have to do is tell you to do something -- anything -- and you are obligated to obey. 


What were the protesters brutalized and arrested for? For not acting like good little boys and girls and doing what Mommy and Daddy told them to do.


An unjust law is no law at all.


"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson

 

There is no right to sequester public property for your personal bedroom.  Neither tourists, or demonstrators have the right to camp out, or tear up the landscape. 

Extra,

 

An example of the chaos and destruction, in the name of freedom of speech, I'm sure you approve!   

 

"Around 3,000 people converged on the Port of Oakland, the nation's fifth-busiest harbour, swarming the area and blocking exits and streets with illegally parked vehicles and chain-link fences.

 

Port officials said they had to cease maritime operations, citing concerns for workers' safety - but hope to resume operations on Thursday and that their workers can get to their jobs safely.

Continued missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region,’ a port spokesman said.

One of the protest leaders, Boots Riley, touted the day as a success, saying ‘we put together an ideological principle that the mainstream media wouldn't talk about two months ago’.

His comments came before a group of demonstrators moved to break into the Travelers Aid building in order to, as some shouting protesters put it, ‘reclaim the building for the people’.


The port sends goods primarily to Asia, including wine as well as rice, fruits and nuts, and handles imported electronics, apparel and manufacturing equipment, mostly from Asia.

It also deals with cars and parts from Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai. An accounting of the financial toll from the shutdown was not immediately available."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...s.html#ixzz1ce9N5yHr

 

 

article-2056887-0EA4C54800000578-573_634x561

Attachments

Images (1)
  • article-2056887-0EA4C54800000578-573_634x561

I thought the supporters were for the little man, but yet they are keeping the little man from earning his living.  Typical leftist America hating garbage.  Why don't they all just go to Washington and shut it down.  That would be much better that keeping a crane operator from earning his living.  The protesters are against anyone that works for a living.

Originally Posted by mad American:

I thought the supporters were for the little man, but yet they are keeping the little man from earning his living.  Typical leftist America hating garbage.  Why don't they all just go to Washington and shut it down.  That would be much better that keeping a crane operator from earning his living.  The protesters are against anyone that works for a living.

Another ignorant post, unencumbered by the thought process.

Originally Posted by mad American:

I thought the supporters were for the little man, but yet they are keeping the little man from earning his living.  Typical leftist America hating garbage.  Why don't they all just go to Washington and shut it down.  That would be much better that keeping a crane operator from earning his living.  The protesters are against anyone that works for a living.


The mess is DC is the symptom.

The cause of the disease is the 1% that controls your life, and everything in your world.  The Occupy members are going to kill the disease. 

Originally Posted by mad American:

The occupy people are the root of the problem.  They think they should have access to what I have earned without working for it.  If you are so ignorant as to believe th 1% myth then you are beyond hope. 


Thats FoxNews talking.

Use your own brain and evaluate the the facts. 

The Occupy movement has nothing to do with increasing entitlements. 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

 

article-2056887-0EA4C54800000578-573_634x561

 

Those people in black are anarchists, not OWS.

 

Here they are at G8 protests in Rostok, Germany in 2007:

 

 

Here is a group of the at the 2008 RNC:

 

 

Hold on a minute.

 

Now, according to past media and liberal / Democrat  rantings, anyone at a Tea Party event is, well, Tea Party People. Right?

 

But, when it's a Liberal supported event, the wacky, anarchist , violent trouble makers are "outside elements"?

 

Nice and safe ,comfy, (hypocritical)  "zone" there isn't it?

And, its not just the anarchists!  the west coast Longs****men's union is in it, as well.  If you don't believe they were part of the violence, may i sell you a few shares in the Eiffel tower.  During Viet Nam, the west coast union stopped shipments, when munitions were in short supply.  I still remember scrounging for M16 magazines at the cannibilization point, where damaged vehicles were stored for spare parts.  Nothing but contempt for that union -- west coast, not east coast. 

 

"Several major labor groups, including local units of the International Longs**** and Warehouse Union, which represents port workers, have voiced support for the Occupy Oakland protests and the strike, though union officials have not authorized union members to strike."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d.../lastReply#lastReply

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

And, its not just the anarchists!  the west coast Longs****men's union is in it, as well.  If you don't believe they were part of the violence, may i sell you a few shares in the Eiffel tower.  During Viet Nam, the west coast union stopped shipments, when munitions were in short supply.  I still remember scrounging for M16 magazines at the cannibilization point, where damaged vehicles were stored for spare parts.  Nothing but contempt for that union -- west coast, not east coast. 

 

"Several major labor groups, including local units of the International Longs**** and Warehouse Union, which represents port workers, have voiced support for the Occupy Oakland protests and the strike, though union officials have not authorized union members to strike."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d.../lastReply#lastReply


Why would the USArmy be using commercial shipping resources?

I call BS.

While the Army does own transport ships, most of their materiel is shipped by commercial carriers. During Viet Nam, SeaLand container ships were the largest carrier.  Saw these ships coming and going all the time. Rumor was that Ladybird Johnson was a big shareholder.

 

I used commercial and military transport for years when I worked for the army.  You may call BS, but I call either ignorance of the subject, or stupidity -- your choice! 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

While the Army does own transport ships, most of their materiel is shipped by commercial carriers. During Viet Nam, SeaLand container ships were the largest carrier.  Saw these ships coming and going all the time. Rumor was that Ladybird Johnson was a big shareholder.

 

I used commercial and military transport for years when I worked for the army.  You may call BS, but I call either ignorance of the subject, or stupidity -- your choice! 


Let me get this straight...soldiers on the ground lack basic material like bullets, and the Armys sez "we cant ship them cause of those pesky longs****men on the west coast". That is your interpretation of the capability of the Vietnam era Army Material Command?

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

And, its not just the anarchists!  the west coast Longs****men's union is in it, as well.  If you don't believe they were part of the violence, may i sell you a few shares in the Eiffel tower.  During Viet Nam, the west coast union stopped shipments, when munitions were in short supply.  I still remember scrounging for M16 magazines at the cannibilization point, where damaged vehicles were stored for spare parts.  Nothing but contempt for that union -- west coast, not east coast. 

 

"Several major labor groups, including local units of the International Longs**** and Warehouse Union, which represents port workers, have voiced support for the Occupy Oakland protests and the strike, though union officials have not authorized union members to strike."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d.../lastReply#lastReply


Why would the USArmy be using commercial shipping resources?

I call BS.

 

 

Do you EVER research ANYTHING before you let your mouth  typing overload your a**?

 

 

"However, as a result of the Vietnam buildup, the actual cargo the Command was required to move totaled 20.9 million measurement tons. This increase in cargo exceeded the capability of the Command's fleet, and the Command petitioned the industry to provide additional shipping capability.

At the height of the military buildup more than 300 merchant ships were engaged in the sealift of materiel to Vietnam. The Coast Guard Merchant Marine Detail resolved merchant seaman problems and ensured that these ships moved in and out with as little delay as possible".

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.../sealift-vietnam.htm

Originally Posted by Roland Pfalz:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

And, its not just the anarchists!  the west coast Longs****men's union is in it, as well.  If you don't believe they were part of the violence, may i sell you a few shares in the Eiffel tower.  During Viet Nam, the west coast union stopped shipments, when munitions were in short supply.  I still remember scrounging for M16 magazines at the cannibilization point, where damaged vehicles were stored for spare parts.  Nothing but contempt for that union -- west coast, not east coast. 

 


Why would the USArmy be using commercial shipping resources?

I call BS.

 

 

Do you EVER research ANYTHING before you let your mouth  typing overload your a**?

 

 

"However, as a result of the Vietnam buildup, the actual cargo the Command was required to move totaled 20.9 million measurement tons. This increase in cargo exceeded the capability of the Command's fleet, and the Command petitioned the industry to provide additional shipping capability.

At the height of the military buildup more than 300 merchant ships were engaged in the sealift of materiel to Vietnam. The Coast Guard Merchant Marine Detail resolved merchant seaman problems and ensured that these ships moved in and out with as little delay as possible".

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.../sealift-vietnam.htm


Let me get this straight...soldiers on the ground lack basic material like bullets, and the Armys sez "we cant ship them cause of those pesky longs****men on the west coast". That is your interpretation of the capability of the Vietnam era Army Material Command?

You stated: 

Why would the USArmy be using commercial shipping resources?

I call BS.


The FACTS presented: 

"However, as a result of the Vietnam buildup, the actual cargo the Command was required to move totaled 20.9 million measurement tons. This increase in cargo exceeded the capability of the Command's fleet, and the Command petitioned the industry to provide additional shipping capability.

At the height of the military buildup more than 300 merchant ships were engaged in the sealift of materiel to Vietnam. The Coast Guard Merchant Marine Detail resolved merchant seaman problems and ensured that these ships moved in and out with as little delay as possible".


I addressed your BS statement. NOW, you want to deflect the FACTS on the SUBJECT by posing a question on Army policy?

Sorry, I'm not privy to policy during that time period.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×