Reply With Quote
Hey, you asked me to name one. I did.
It's a park. Other people want to use the park. Protesters in the park would be blocking the rights of other people to use the park for their own desires. Therefore, illegal, infringing, pepper spray and arrest them.
These are the exact same words you've posted to the forum ad-nauseam ad-infinitum.
Hey, you asked me to name one. I did.
How else is an unruly mob of disreputable malcontents to be dealt with? Mediation?
Reading is fundamental. Thanks for admitting that you effectively support abrogating the first amendment.
The PDs do negotiate, but apparently have reserved the right to draw hard, arbitrary lines.
Is that what you mean? "obstruction," or "blocking?"
Are you suggesting that illegal activity is peaceful?
Are you suggesting that a group of people gathered together in one location is illicit activity by the nature of the fact that they are a group?
Are you suggesting illegal activity is inherently volent?
In the civil disobedience situation, there are going to be arrests. The challenge for PDs is to maintain order without losing the PR war.
When they interfere with day to day activities of other free citizens, then yes.
You and LNG must be anarchists.
This is true, and when they have probably hundreds of people with cell phone video cameras trying to catch a view that they can spin, they have to be extra careful. I think the fact that there are so few instances shown, is testimony that they are doing rather well.
I have to wonder, how much footage these people take that they delete, because it shows the protesters initiating the violence.
In that case, every single member of the tea party movement who protested in DC should have been arrested. They completely DESTROYED the commute that day. I couldn't even get downtown because of how crushed the metro was, to say nothing of the fact that I tried to go to a museum and had to walk 10 minutes out of my way to avoid the swarms.
Nice to know you supported the arrests of the Tea Partiers, WC. Surprising that you would term them "trash" or "s ", but I'll forego your admittance here in order to admire your consistency.
Spin... spin... spin... again LNG...
Between any two points, are areas in between. You do realize that, don't you?
When I use the term "peaceful" in saying they are not, it is a reflection to the 1st amendment. Maybe you are firmiliar with these words:
They are not peaceably assembling. They are causing implications on other people's lives.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
The footage I've seen seems otherwise, but I've hardly been glued to it. What you been watchin?
I sat and watched some of the live streaming occupy footage on the internet some days back. Amazing how they would cut the feed when the occupiers started getting less than peaceful.
No footage of the provocations? How insidious.
Where did I say there was no footage?
you said feeds were cut
I see...
You think the live feeds are the only footage out there. I'm beginning to understand you now.
oh well then share. what you been watchin?
you obviously got a strong opinion about it
I haven't gone to the link for several days. It is in one of the occupy threads. You can find it as easily as I can. You can go to any one of several listed cities, and watch the live feed.
you were evidently PO'ed about the insufficient video coverage of outrageous manifestations against LE
but that's ok, i'll just take your word for it
If I'm PO'd about anything in this manner, it's that people here are too sympathetic to slimeballs. Reminds me of one of the first threads here I participated in, regarding the Jenna Six.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions