Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by CatBuilder, Sep 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    I saw the video on the news. The officer with great dedication to doing a good paint job walked along the line of demonstrators and sprayed each one. So what. They were infringing on others right to free passage and commerce( i.e. getting the services they paid for as students on campus.) Consumers have rights too, even if it the right to be indoctrinated on a college campus without fear of having their day disrupted by scofflaws.
     
  2. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Hoyt was the Pennsylvania Dutch family that gave me my name.
     
  3. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    First, I wasn't the one who tracked down all of those statistics. Second I do know that various incidents of pepper spraying occurred. I don't automatically think that the police were being brutal because they pepper-sprayed someone.

    If you read the linked articles, they will answer your questions. Look under the "**** and sexual assault" section.

    As opposed to your sweeping dismissal of the millions of Tea Partiers as "mostly clueless tools, being used to promote the interests of big corporations and the super-rich" just a few lines down? Do you ever make any attempt at all to ensure that you are not being partisan and hypocritical? Or do you just admit that you are spouting paranoid nonsense yourself?

    So we both make sweeping claims about the movement. What evidence to the two of us have? Well, you have the evidence that the Koch brothers gave some funding to a few Tea-party candidates and some institutions that support the Tea Party. Against that, I can point out that George Soros alone has given far more money to leftist causes, and that when you add up his contributions and those of all of the other leftist rich people, it makes the Koch brothers look like a couple of flees in a heard of elephants. These leftists have tried a half a dozen times now to use their money to start up a anti-Tea Party (of which the Occupy movement is just the latest), and they haven't gotten close. So if this is all money, how come the far greater amounts of money spent by the Left haven't gotten anywhere?

    The left has a long history of faking grass-roots movements, none of them have every come close to the size and influence of the Tea Party. So your theory is that these two amateur minor players --that almost no one on the right had ever heard of before the Left started playing them up as the Grand Villains-- have had a success several orders of magnitude better than the hundreds of trained professionals on the Left have been able to accomplish.

    In addition to this ridiculous premise, the Tea Party has an easily tracked history on the internet. You can google to see who the early Tea Partiers where and almost none of them had any connection to the Kochs.

    OK, let's look at my evidence now. I've almost never seen an Occupy mob that wasn't peppered with socialist, communist, and/or anarchist signs and symbols. I've seen a dozen interviews with Occupy protesters who explicitly said that they were one of these three. I've seen a dozen more where they wouldn't own the name, but were happy to use the language, including talk about "social justice" and bashing capitalism.

    Among the hundreds of Tea Party protests, many of which were larger than these Occupy protests, the press found a couple of signs that could be interpreted as racist, and that was enough for them (and you) to tar the whole movement as racist, even though they all openly condemned racists and racism and openly welcomed minority members into the group.

    A large majority of the press is openly in favor of socialist policies, even if they won't admit to being socialist.

    You need to do a little studying-up son. First, theoretical Communism is anarchist, in the sense that they believe the new communist man does not need government. Maybe these guys are just dumb enough to believe in that crap. Second I can't be held responsible for the consistency of those protestors. If you think they are being inconsistent, go tell them.

    Your socialist prejudices have caused you to completely miss the point of what I said: the Tea Party is against unfair exploitation by the rich. The phrase "unfair exploitation" in there isn't just filler, it has meaning. The Tea Party isn't against all rich people, they are against rich people who use political power to extract tax money for themselves to become richer. People like Obama and Nancy Pelosie, for example, and all of their cronies and fund raisers who they have transferred tax money to. The Tea Party has no problem with rich people who get rich on their own without the use of tax money that was taken by force from other people.

    First, that's just a name, not a complete and exhaustive account of their political goals. Second, federal income taxes are not the only taxes. Third, Reagan didn't have control of the tax rates; he had to compromise with Congress. Fourth, Reagan was able to lower the tax rates from what they were when he came into office, but that doesn't mean that he was able to lower them enough. Fifth, just because they like Ronald Reagan doesn't mean that they have to like everything that he did. Any one of those obvious points is enough to render your point pointless. Could you really not think of any of them when you wrote that?
     
  4. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Thanks, Hoyt. I'll take your word for it. As to whether it was justified or not, I'd need to know more about the situation. I'm certainly not willing to condemn a police action just because it looked mean. That's what the police are there for, after all, to do the mean things necessary to protect us from other people who would do lots worse things.
     
  5. Bamby
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 43, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 889
    Location: USA near Wheeling, W.V.

    Bamby Junior Member

    The American Revolution came about because of a lot of factors, many of which we as citizens are being subjected to again if you take the time to do some contemplating.

    An attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason.

    One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrant less searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrant less searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

    Expect that sweeping warrant-less searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used in attempting to disarm the people.

    Another of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a military tribunal.

    The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

    One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

    In response to the obscene new found growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

    Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers that was never granted.

    Another one of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law.

    Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

    During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have always enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

    Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

    Nobody should stand in the way or infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

    Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

    Therefore we should respect the rights of individuals to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, and petitioning governments for the redress of their grievances.
     
  6. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    And yet you continue to do it in this very post.

    Or maybe because I don't own a television and don't usually bother with video news unless I see a link that looks interesting.

    Catbuilder didn't give any clues about what to google for, which was one of the points of my original post on this. After that, I decided that this was getting people excited enough that if I kept expressing doubt, someone else would do the googling for me and save me the trouble.

    Here's more of you reading in your prejudices against me. I didn't "sneer" at her. You are the one who thinks that "homeless" is a sneer word, not me. To me it's a polite term to describe someone in very unfortunate circumstances, and in the picture, that was the impression that I got. I suppose if something in the picture had led me to think that she was physically handicapped and I mentioned it, you would have thought that was sneering too.

    You consistently read everything I write in the most negative possible way, no matter how many times I correct you. If that's not prejudice, what is it?
     
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    the facts would tend to agree with me, pesky as that may sound.

    The Brits did have a hundred year charter that was unique among such charters in that it allowed the colonists a tax free environment, in a day when most of parts of the British empire where paying out the nose.

    The charter was up and the Brits wanted to levy a tax, partly because it was just good business and partly because the French Indian war had cost them a small fortune.

    They did decide to levy a tax on a few imports.

    So the question is who would have been effected by the tax. Maybe the importer of those goods eh. Granted they would have just passed it along but they chose to smuggle instead.

    You might want to argue who fomented the revolution but the pre revolution series of events would lead to the inescapable conclusion that it was the smuggling trade that most directly influenced the colonists concerning the tax.

    The English responded by offering several high ranking colonists a place in the house of commons; a move unprecedented in they're actions with other colonies. The colonists refused to be represented and announced they would refuse to pay "any" tax.
    things escalated from there with each escalation causing more and more unrest among the colonists.

    So yes the whole thing was about taxes and it was the smuggling trade which led the way.

    I have a number of 1st source antique books that go over this part of American history pretty well.

    Unless you have some other series of events to share I'm going to stick with what the people wrote at the time the events transpired.

    cheers
    B
     
  8. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    On that we can agree. However, this is just pepper spray, they aren't going in there swinging yet.

    You aren't seriously suggesting that there is a danger that someone is going to nuke Berkeley, are you?

    I guess anyone who disagrees with you is evil, huh? Must make you feel like a very special person. Almost like God.

    Of course they were doing something illegal or the police wouldn't have been there. Furthermore, they were part of an extended group of people that have done many, many illegal things, including attacking police officers. Within the last couple of weeks, Occupy protesters in San Francisco and Oakland have set fires, trashed buildings, blocked traffic, and physically attacked police. Both of those cities are less than 15 miles from Berkeley, close enough that these very kids could well have been at those protests. The police had good reason to take them seriously.

    I don't believe that. These protests have been breaking the law in cities all across the country from the beginning: sleeping overnight and putting up tents in parks where it is not permitted, and marching on public streets without a permit. They have been daring anyone to do anything about it. And even in the unlikely case that in this one instance they were not breaking the law, once the police tells a mob to disperse, they are no longer within the law.
     
  9. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Blah!(to Boston)

    That old lady has probably been one of the usual suspects her whole life, or her grandson tricked her into the sit-in. Who knows? Who cares?
    She was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time, by her choosing.
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    always the intelligent response eh Hoyt.
     
  11. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

  12. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Never heard of it, and apparently, neither has Google. There wouldn't have been a single charter anyway. I know that several of the colonies had their own charter and it I expect that all of them did. Do you have a cite for this?

    That doesn't even make logical sense. Taxes caused smuggling but the smuggling was the most direct influence? How does that work? The taxes led directly to higher prices. The smuggling would actually tend to lower prices (that's why people buy smuggled goods, after all). So people were more directly influenced by the lower prices than by the higher prices?

    Don't believe that either. Do you have a cite?

    Don't believe that either since the slogan of the revolution was "no taxation without representation". Do you have a cite?

    That doesn't make sense either. The interesting thing about smuggling is that smugglers benefit handsomely from the laws that they are breaking. If there were no taxes on imports, then the smugglers would have to compete directly with the legitimate importers. Any citation showing that smugglers supported the revolution?

    The people in the thick of things are often not the best situation to see the overall picture.
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Keep looking.
     
  14. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Here's a thought, Dave: maybe when I disagree with you it's because I think you're wrong, rather than because I have some sort of amorphous, irrational 'prejudice' against you.
    I don't have a television either, but I manage to keep up. Apparently I learned more about the UC Davis incident than you know, just from walking past newspaper racks and looking at the front page headlines and pictures. I also flip through google news and MSNBC at least once a day and follow up on a few important stories, fulfilling my role in the democratic process by remaining an informed citizen.
    How many clues do you need? I found the first article I linked, as well as the you tube video, simply by typing in 'seated students pepper spray.' I found the one about the old woman by (strangely enough) typing in 'elderly woman pepper spray.' Was that really too much for you to handle?
    Oh please... let's not get carried away.:p

    I know you like to throw around the 'prejudiced' card; you do it every single time we have a discussion, no matter what the subject. If we ever started swapping recipes, you'd likely accuse me of being prejudiced against black-eyed peas and cornbread -- even though I cook them both regularly.

    So you're telling us you weren't really sneering at the old lady, when you said she looked like a homeless person who had just barfed? You were simply expressing your polite and loving concern for the well-being of a possibly residence-challenged fellow American?

    Hold on.... I need to go get some hip boots. These rubber wellingtons I'm wearing obviously aren't going to be tall enough to do the job....
    Unfortunately, your 'corrections' don't usually correct anything; they just add weaseling to the list. And you know the drill: like a good Christian contemplating sinning and sinners, I hate the weaseling but love the weasel.:D

    edit: I do think you did a good job answering Boston and his claims about the Revolution, though. Thank you for that.
     

  15. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    I'm not talking about when you disagree with me. Why in the world would I consider that prejudice? I'm talking about when you give your version of what I said or meant. It is always wrong and always in a negative direction. Here is what I said:

    "The last photo looks like a picture of a homeless woman who just barfed. What is that supposed to prove?"

    The point was that that the photo was gruesome looking, but that there was no visible connection with police or pepper spray and due to Catbuilder's ridiculous anti-American comments about it, I didn't trust him enough to believe that it was what he implied. It is not hard to get sad pictures like that of real-life situations that have nothing to do with cops and pepper spray. I've seen similarly sad scenes on the streets of San Francisco several times.

    This is different from the other time I accused you of being prejudiced. That time it was because you were drawing broad negative conclusions about an entire class of people based on anecdotal evidence. This is different, it is a prejudice against a particular person (although it is surely inspired by the group of people that you associate me with).

    A non-prejudiced man would say, "Oh, that's not what you meant? OK, sorry I misunderstood." A prejudiced man says, "Oh, so you not only sneer at old ladies in pain, you're weaselly about it too." A man who reads with charity, genuinely respecting the humanity of the writer, would never get that far because he would read it and say, "Well, my first impression is that he is sneering at an old lady in pain, but obviously, Dave isn't the kind of cretin who would do that, so I must be misunderstanding.

    No, I was saying that due to my lack of faith in Catbuilder, I thought it was entirely possible that this might be just a picture of some poor homeless lady barfing in the street for reasons that had nothing to do with pepper spray. That's all I was saying --that I didn't trust Catbuilder's photos to be what he implied they were. Since my comment on the other photos talked about photoshopping, this should have been obvious.

    If I had known that the woman really was a protester who got sprayed, then your interpretation might make sense. But I did not know this and was explicitly expressing my doubt about it.

    You are welcome. But you may note that I was doing the same thing responding to Boston that I was in responding to Catbuilder. They both said something that was obviously politically motivated and poorly sourced, so I wasn't willing to take their word for it and said so. In either case, I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but there is so much dishonest anti-American crap on this forum, that I have learned to be very skeptical about it.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.