Relic Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Clearly the use of force was about more than just sanitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mor2 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I'm sure that if the OWS limited their protests to funerals on private property while ridiculing the loved ones of the dead, they too would become a national joke loathed by all. Nobody takes them seriously, nobody views them as a threat. People screaming obscenities at you and saying that your son was killed by God for abortion clinics they can be easily written off. When over half of a country supports a movement that agrees solely upon limiting your power, you are in deep shit.It depends when your elections is, because it's very likely you are one major event away from loosing the momentum.Also while some say that there is not bad publicity, I am not sure it's applicable in this case, all I can see here is rotesters clash with cops, it's like discussion and anything effort to move things have been forgotten.btw did anyone in the OWS movement made a cliché viral video by billy joel, we didn't start the fire or the like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verboten Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I'm Canadian. And considering how long this has been boiling I'd be very surprised if people lost momentum anytime soon. Honestly the cops are only helping cement the idea that the government is in the pockets of corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Clearly the use of force was about more than just sanitation. It would be hard to argue otherwise..What I don't understand is what it IS about. What could the city of Oakland be hoping to accomplish by rolling out the cops in riot gear? I know the common theme is 'they are threatened', but given the nature of the protests, I doubt they are very worried about their power being usurped anytime soon.So... Why? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mor2 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Have you read the posts? The issue is not about if the cops were right to evict the protestors the issue is that the cops decided unprompted violence was necessary.yes just like in Egypt... admittedly I forgot the *role eyes Icon* before.other than that I am just placing thing in context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verboten Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You are making no sense. What are you trying to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Bale,If fine points are in contention then agreement is not complete and there are points of disagreement to discuss.So then you're saying that the people who have congregated at these protests - many for over a month - are not actually discussing with each other why they are there protesting? ETA: The Board is being too fickle right now. I'm out of patience.Later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Obama is a pitiful, slimy person. I'm glad I didn't vote for the asshole.Oh, come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underfoot Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 The Oakland Police Department issued this press release today: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca/groups/cityadministrator/documents/pressrelease/oak031911.pdfFrom this article: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/police_tear_gas_protesters_to.html"According to an Oakland Police Department press release, officers used only "a limited amount of tear gas for a small area as a defense against protesters who were throwing various objects at Police Officers as they approached the area." Despite appearances to the contrary, police contend that no rubber bullets or flash-bag grenades were used, but that "the loud noises that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown ... by protesters." Their account does include the use of "four bean bag rounds." The press release notes, "At this time, there are no reported injuries." (Update: The New York Post cites city officials now reporting that two officers and "several others" were injured.)"It doesn't sound like anyone believes this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 In ancient Greek society, the agora was a central place for citizens (read: male land owners) to meet to discuss politics and sell goods. The Romans had the Forum. It's function was similar.Parts of urban architecture, typically the central public square, are designed to be occupied by people that live there.By your logic, if a bunch of people in Rome had decided to camp out permanently in large numbers in the agora or forum, pitching permanent tents, building kitchens, and sleeping there for months on end, that would have been fine. I very strongly suspect that would not have been the case. Because once a particular group of people take up residence there, it is no longer a place "to discuss politics and sell goods" for all citizens. It becomes a campground for the particular group of squatters who decide to take up that space and not leave.The square is *meant* as a place for people to congregate. Creating a space for public discussion of the society you live in is as old as politics itself.Nobody is saying you can't congregate there. They're saying you can't turn it into a campground in which some people bring all their shit like a bunch of hobos and make appropriate it as a personal living space for themselves.Protest, congregate, gather, sing songs, whatever during the day, and then at night, go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Nobody is saying you can't congregate there. They're saying you can't turn it into a campground in which some people bring all their shit like a bunch of hobos and make appropriate it as a personal living space for themselves.Protest, congregate, gather, sing songs, whatever during the day, and then at night, go home.Why? If it's a public space, then the public owns it, correct? It was paid for with public taxes for public use. Who are you or anyone else to say that it can only be used for specific purposes? That would be akin to being told you can only drive certain cars on the roads that tax money paid for. Of course, I don't expect you to stop being terrified of the movement long enough to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mor2 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You are making no sense. What are you trying to say?I am saying that comparing this to egypt is BS, that if you think this is violent it's only because you didnt consider what other means they have.that you was allowed to protest like anyone else, that while claiming your civil right are trampled you trampled the civil rights of other around you, that they waited two weeks trying to warn you and resolve this, that you ignored all of them, that you came for confrontation, that the alternative of tear gas is (I am guessing) buttons and water cannons(I am sure it's would be nice in the night cold for people who live in tents). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 and then at night, go home.And if they dont? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.