Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Police storm troopers raid the homes of political activists and harshly interrogate them. What country is this in? China? Syria? New York City?   (gawker.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, May Day, raid, Occupy Wall Street, activists, open container, National Convention  
•       •       •

3893 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2012 at 3:18 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



307 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-02 03:32:41 PM  

skullkrusher: They wanted to radicalize the efforts. However, there is no denying that they are connected with OWS because even Occupy Cleveland admits that they are.


Lie a little harder why don't cha?

The men *had been* (past tense) associated with the anti-corporate Occupy Cleveland movement but don't share its non-violent views, organizer Debbie Kline said.

"They were in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland," Kline said in an email canceling the group's May Day protest at a GE Lighting plant in view of the arrests of the "autonomous group" of five.

The alleged plotters were frustrated that other anti-corporate protesters opposed violence, according to Dettelbach, citing the criminal complaint filed in the case.

"It talks about the anger and frustration that these five individuals felt that other people would not support their violent aims," Dettelbach said.
 
2012-05-02 03:35:56 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: And how comfortable would you be if the Police came in and busted up your peaceful protest of a grave injustice? How would you feel if you were herded into a "free speech zone" miles from the target of your protest?

Well in the first case if it is legal you have recourse. In your system of mob rule, you don't.

In the second, youhave no right to "have access" to the target of your protest. While you think this may be a terrible thing you probably wouldn't feel the same if you were the target and a mob could follow you to your homw stay outside making noise 24/7 and keep you from ever driving out, as they could under your proposed system of mob rule.

Philip Francis Queeg: How would you feel if you were unjustly denied entry to the hosp[ital and the government would not grant you permission to protest?

No idea how you would be blocked entry into a hospital under the current system, but if you were you could sue. Whereas there is nothing to prevent in your proposed system of mob rule, and there woudl be no recourse.


Philip Francis Queeg: Given what you think he restriction should be and a little time I could come up with way more

You spelled "shsould" and "coudl" wrong.

You came up with BS or trivial complaints that had recourse. I came up with things that would be perfectly legal under the system you have advocated. I am sorry you don't like the implications of the mob rule system you have advocated.


So saying that the government should not restrict and regulate non-violent and non-destructive gatherings and protests is the same as rejecting the legal system all together and subsitituing complete anarchy?

We're back to where we were yesterday, and your silly false dichotomies.

All of the examples I gave are historic instances of ways that governments in this country have abused the power to regulate gatherings and protests. You may think being denied access to public services and the right to protest the denial, or having your peaceful protest violently attacked by police are "BS" or "trivial", ( and I won't even go into how that compares to your concerns about losing a nights sleep), but I do not.

.
 
2012-05-02 03:37:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, I'm sure the FBI is in the bag for OWS and completely falsified the record to show that the only connection was negative


I am shocked you're lying again. Utterly shocked.

Philip Francis Queeg: I bet they cancelled the protest so as not to give away their plans to mug grandmothers and rape babies. The conspiracy is vast. Do you think it reaches all the way to Obama? Or does it go even higher?


skullkrusher: It is not fair to impugn the whole movement by the actions of a few but don't be a lying jackhole.


Philip Francis Queeg: Keep being the classy, honest guy you are Mr. Cumwad.


I shall. Take notes. You wouldn't appear so foolish all the time if you learned a thing or two from me.
 
2012-05-02 03:39:01 PM  

skullkrusher: PsiChick: 1) We're both talking about that article that was complaining about May Day protests, yes? That was biased. It was biased from the outset, it was heavily anti-OWS, and it was so biased as to be distrustworthy. I do not trust what they said about those terrorists' connections because once you start off an article with bias, you lose your right to be trusted. It's not a denial--your side farked up their proof, and if you want to prove something you need a different article.

I am talking about the bomb plot

PsiChick: 4) As Philip Frances Queeg was kind enough to note, those people were not only not connected with OWS, they hated OWS.

no, they were dissatisfied with the leadership. They did not believe in peaceful protest. They wanted to radicalize the efforts. However, there is no denying that they are connected with OWS because even Occupy Cleveland admits that they are.

If a pro-lifer is dissatisfied with picketing and letter writing and decides to take direct action and blow up an abortion clinic, are we gonna say he isn't associated with the pro-life movement?

The overwhelming majority of they don't commit acts of violence in the name of the cause either.


Occupy Cleveland kicked them out. That hardly indicates a connection--if an abortion bomber was kicked out of his pro-life group, I would not class him (or her) as part of that pro-life group. Why shouldn't the reverse be true?
 
2012-05-02 03:42:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, I'm sure the FBI is in the bag for OWS and completely falsified the record to show that the only connection was negative

I am shocked you're lying again. Utterly shocked.

Philip Francis Queeg: I bet they cancelled the protest so as not to give away their plans to mug grandmothers and rape babies. The conspiracy is vast. Do you think it reaches all the way to Obama? Or does it go even higher?

skullkrusher: It is not fair to impugn the whole movement by the actions of a few but don't be a lying jackhole.

Philip Francis Queeg: Keep being the classy, honest guy you are Mr. Cumwad.

I shall. Take notes. You wouldn't appear so foolish all the time if you learned a thing or two from me.


Yeah, I really have no interest in picking up the skill of being a dishonest asshole, but If I ever do have an interest I know you are the expert..
 
2012-05-02 03:45:46 PM  

KiplingKat872: skullkrusher: They wanted to radicalize the efforts. However, there is no denying that they are connected with OWS because even Occupy Cleveland admits that they are.

Lie a little harder why don't cha?

The men *had been* (past tense) associated with the anti-corporate Occupy Cleveland movement but don't share its non-violent views, organizer Debbie Kline said.

"They were in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland," Kline said in an email canceling the group's May Day protest at a GE Lighting plant in view of the arrests of the "autonomous group" of five.

The alleged plotters were frustrated that other anti-corporate protesters opposed violence, according to Dettelbach, citing the criminal complaint filed in the case.

"It talks about the anger and frustration that these five individuals felt that other people would not support their violent aims," Dettelbach said.


Debbie Kline from Jobs with Justice. One of the suspects, Brandon Baxter, attended a Jobs for Justice "Spring Training" exercise. This event was held on April 10, 2012. You are correct. That is "past tense".
 
2012-05-02 03:46:41 PM  

PsiChick: Occupy Cleveland kicked them out. That hardly indicates a connection--if an abortion bomber was kicked out of his pro-life group, I would not class him (or her) as part of that pro-life group. Why shouldn't the reverse be true?


"When you're in a movement, you can't kick people out when they are volunteers," Kline said. There is absolutely zero indication that they were kicked out of OC.
 
2012-05-02 03:46:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So saying that the government should not restrict and regulate non-violent and non-destructive gatherings and protests is the same as rejecting the legal system all together and subsitituing complete anarchy?


Complete anarchy no.

But it is a system where whenever you have a group of people with enough numbers and time you can shut down any public space. Roads (and anythingt hey connect to) parks, etc. That can all be done "non-violently and non-destructively". That isn't complete anarchy but does mobs to effectively shut down any business or govt facility they don't like.

If the govt can't restrict non-violent and non-destructive gatherings how could they preven things that i mentioned? We have beent hrough this a number of times and you have never been able to answer this. Your ideal system would blow, and only a simpleton couldn't figure it out.

Philip Francis Queeg: We're back to where we were yesterday, and your silly false dichotomies.


No we are back to you being too simple minded to understand the implications of your beliefs.


Philip Francis Queeg: All of the examples I gave are historic instances of ways that governments in this country have abused the power to regulate gatherings and protests.


They said people can't got to hospitals? Really?


Saying you can;t have access to anyone you want to protest is abuse of powers? Really?
 
2012-05-02 03:47:44 PM  

PsiChick: Occupy Cleveland kicked them out. That hardly indicates a connection--if an abortion bomber was kicked out of his pro-life group, I would not class him (or her) as part of that pro-life group. Why shouldn't the reverse be true?


This didn't even rise to "kick them out"

These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.
 
2012-05-02 03:48:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, I'm sure the FBI is in the bag for OWS and completely falsified the record to show that the only connection was negative

I am shocked you're lying again. Utterly shocked.

Philip Francis Queeg: I bet they cancelled the protest so as not to give away their plans to mug grandmothers and rape babies. The conspiracy is vast. Do you think it reaches all the way to Obama? Or does it go even higher?

skullkrusher: It is not fair to impugn the whole movement by the actions of a few but don't be a lying jackhole.

Philip Francis Queeg: Keep being the classy, honest guy you are Mr. Cumwad.

I shall. Take notes. You wouldn't appear so foolish all the time if you learned a thing or two from me.

Yeah, I really have no interest in picking up the skill of being a dishonest asshole, but If I ever do have an interest I know you are the expert..


b-b-b-but the FBI isn't investigating OWS or accusing the organization of being involved! Therefore, there is no connection between OWS and the would-be bombers!
 
2012-05-02 03:49:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.


Citation forthcoming?
 
2012-05-02 03:56:35 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: All of the examples I gave are historic instances of ways that governments in this country have abused the power to regulate gatherings and protests.

They said people can't got to hospitals? Really?




legacymuseum.org

"How much difference can one person make? Dr. Milton Douglas Quigless defied the odds and the conventions of his time to make medical care available to African Americans in Edgecombe County.

In 1936, just out of medical school, he arrived in the small town of Tarboro with $7 in his pocket and a desire to care for people. The need was certainly there. Tarboro's only hospital was restricted to whites. Local white doctors did not usually treat African Americans, and the town's only black physician had died years earlier.

Denied privileges at the hospital, Dr. Quigless set up an office in an abandoned fish market. He struggled to provide adequate care and perform surgery, not only in his meager office but also in patients' homes. Many were tenant farmers with no electricity and poor sanitary conditions that bred typhoid, dysentery and tuberculosis. To give the best care possible, Quigless consulted with specialists around the state. And, as most country doctors did in the days before penicillin, he improvised and occasionally used folk medical treatments he'd learned

Trivial? BS?
 
2012-05-02 03:58:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?


Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?
 
2012-05-02 04:10:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?


No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.
 
2012-05-02 04:13:39 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?

No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.


Your flailing in this thread really is amusing. Keep going. You are out doing yourself.
 
2012-05-02 04:19:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?

No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.

Your flailing in this thread really is amusing. Keep going. You are out doing yourself.


"The whole group appeared to be together and was constantly
moving throughout the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd's unwillingness to act
violently. During a briefing between the protestors and organizers, the organizers explained
who would be arrested emphasizing that they wanted everyone to conduct peaceful civil
disobedience
. One of the original four men tumed away and said that f--k" before the group
of men walked away."

apparently translates to "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". Flailing indeed.
 
2012-05-02 04:22:45 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?

No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.

Your flailing in this thread really is amusing. Keep going. You are out doing yourself.

"The whole group appeared to be together and was constantly
moving throughout the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd's unwillingness to act
violently. During a briefing between the protestors and organizers, the organizers explained
who would be arrested emphasizing that they wanted everyone to conduct peaceful civil
disobedience. One of the original four men tumed away and said that f--k" before the group
of men walked away."

apparently translates to "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". Flailing indeed.


Oh man, you are just killing me in this one. My sides are gonna start hurting if you keep up this level of laughable post.
 
2012-05-02 04:29:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?

No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.

Your flailing in this thread really is amusing. Keep going. You are out doing yourself.

"The whole group appeared to be together and was constantly
moving throughout the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd's unwillingness to act
violently. During a briefing between the protestors and organizers, the organizers explained
who would be arrested emphasizing that they wanted everyone to conduct peaceful civil
disobedience. One of the original four men tumed away and said that f--k" before the group
of men walked away."

apparently translates to "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". Flailing indeed.

Oh man, you are just killing me in this one. My sides are gonna start hurting if you keep up this level of laughable post.


virtually everything you've said has proven to be false and you're laughing? Every post has been with the plan to design a narrative, this referenced one included. A narrative that isn't supported by anything and is in fact directly contradicted by the organizers of Occupy Cleveland. Forgive me if I don't believe that you're laughing. Unless it's one of those embarrassed, self-conscious laughs. Is that it?
 
2012-05-02 04:46:32 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: These assholes showed up at an OWS event and started talking about using violence. Apparently the reaction was pretty much "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". At which point the assholes wandered off muttering about corporate stooges.

Citation forthcoming?

Already given. Was the FBI complaint too difficult for you to read?

No, it wasn't difficult at all. However, it doesn't describe the reaction the other OWSers had so I assumed you had a different citation. That was silly. I should've known you were making things up again.

Your flailing in this thread really is amusing. Keep going. You are out doing yourself.

"The whole group appeared to be together and was constantly
moving throughout the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd's unwillingness to act
violently. During a briefing between the protestors and organizers, the organizers explained
who would be arrested emphasizing that they wanted everyone to conduct peaceful civil
disobedience. One of the original four men tumed away and said that f--k" before the group
of men walked away."

apparently translates to "What the fark is wrong with you and get the fark outta here with that shiat". Flailing indeed.

Oh man, you are just killing me in this one. My sides are gonna start hurting if you keep up this level of laughable post.

virtually everything you've said has proven to be false and you're laughing? Every post has been with the plan to design a narrative, this referenced one included. A narrative that isn't supported by anything and is in fact directly contradicted by the organizers of Occupy Cleveland. Forgive me if I don't believe that you're laughing. Unless it's one of those embarrassed, self-conscious laughs. Is that it?


TJhey wandered through a demonstration and reacted negatively to instruction to be non-violent. That completely blows away my claim that they went to a meeting and went away angry because OWS wasn't interested in violence.

Yep, I'm in on the conspiracy with the FBI to hide the close connections between these guys and OWS. We'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids and that dog.

/You are just trolling for laughs now, right?
 
2012-05-02 04:50:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: TJhey wandered through a demonstration and reacted negatively to instruction to be non-violent. That completely blows away my claim that they went to a meeting and went away angry because OWS wasn't interested in violence.


oh but that wasn't your only claim, was it?

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, I'm in on the conspiracy with the FBI to hide the close connections between these guys and OWS. We'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids and that dog.


no, there's no conspiracy. The FBI doesn't believe OWS is responsible and nor do I. These guys were clearly associated with OWS as volunteers and participants - and at least one of them even attending an OWS related workshop less than a month ago - and instead of just going with the tried and true "a few bad apples" you've tried to deny any connection at all. Why? Probably because you're a farking mook.
 
2012-05-02 05:07:07 PM  

skullkrusher: no, there's no conspiracy. The FBI doesn't believe OWS is responsible and nor do I. These guys were clearly associated with OWS as volunteers and participants - and at least one of them even attending an OWS related workshop less than a month ago - and instead of just going with the tried and true "a few bad apples" you've tried to deny any connection at all. Why? Probably because you're a farking mook.


If you visited Notre Dame or the Vatican, does that automatically make you Catholic?
 
2012-05-02 05:14:02 PM  

KiplingKat872: skullkrusher: no, there's no conspiracy. The FBI doesn't believe OWS is responsible and nor do I. These guys were clearly associated with OWS as volunteers and participants - and at least one of them even attending an OWS related workshop less than a month ago - and instead of just going with the tried and true "a few bad apples" you've tried to deny any connection at all. Why? Probably because you're a farking mook.

If you visited Notre Dame or the Vatican, does that automatically make you Catholic?


weren't you the one biatching about "derptastic" analogies earlier?
 
2012-05-02 05:30:45 PM  

skullkrusher: KiplingKat872: skullkrusher: no, there's no conspiracy. The FBI doesn't believe OWS is responsible and nor do I. These guys were clearly associated with OWS as volunteers and participants - and at least one of them even attending an OWS related workshop less than a month ago - and instead of just going with the tried and true "a few bad apples" you've tried to deny any connection at all. Why? Probably because you're a farking mook.

If you visited Notre Dame or the Vatican, does that automatically make you Catholic?

weren't you the one biatching about "derptastic" analogies earlier?


Yeah, your were shiatty. Mine is pointing out what you are saying: just one member of this plot walking into one OWS meeting means they were OWS member ergo, OWS is respinsible for this in someway.

You wouldn't keep hammering the connection is that wasn't what you were trying to imply.

I bet more than one of them have walked into a prostestant church in their lives, so why isn't anyone calling this a christian plot?
 
2012-05-02 05:32:40 PM  
After all Jesus whipped the moneychangers in the temple, that dirty hippie socialist terrorist.
 
2012-05-02 05:48:26 PM  

KiplingKat872: Yeah, your were shiatty. Mine is pointing out what you are saying: just one member of this plot walking into one OWS meeting means they were OWS member ergo, OWS is respinsible for this in someway.


there is virtually nothing true about this sentence

KiplingKat872: You wouldn't keep hammering the connection is that wasn't what you were trying to imply.


I am only "hammering" the connection because A) shiatheads like you are desperate to deny the obvious and B) because I like to argue.

I have already made it clear that the actions of these individuals doesn't not speak to OWS as a whole.

KiplingKat872: I bet more than one of them have walked into a prostestant church in their lives, so why isn't anyone calling this a christian plot?


no one is calling it an OWS plot either.
 
2012-05-02 05:49:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: All of the examples I gave are historic instances of ways that governments in this country have abused the power to regulate gatherings and protests.

They said people can't got to hospitals? Really?


BS that has nothing to do with gatherings and protests


Yes our govt isn't perfect, but going on about slavery has about much place in a conversation about gatherings as the tidbit you dropped.

Try and stay on topic.

And how about you answer the bolded question.

If the govt can't restrict non-violent and non-destructive gatherings how could they prevent things that I mentioned?

So yes our govt isn't perfect, but the system you propose for gathering is far worse. The fact you won't answer the above question shows you know this but are once again too dishonest/obtuse/stupid to recognize the reality of what you propose.
 
2012-05-02 06:02:43 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: All of the examples I gave are historic instances of ways that governments in this country have abused the power to regulate gatherings and protests.

They said people can't got to hospitals? Really?


BS that has nothing to do with gatherings and protests

Yes our govt isn't perfect, but going on about slavery has about much place in a conversation about gatherings as the tidbit you dropped.

Try and stay on topic.

And how about you answer the bolded question.

If the govt can't restrict non-violent and non-destructive gatherings how could they prevent things that I mentioned?

So yes our govt isn't perfect, but the system you propose for gathering is far worse. The fact you won't answer the above question shows you know this but are once again too dishonest/obtuse/stupid to recognize the reality of what you propose.


What do you suppose would have happened if the blacks of Edgecomb country had tried to gather to protest the fact that they couldn't be admitted to the hospital? Do you think the kind and benevolent local government would have granted them permission? If you were one of those blacks would you feel that protesting anyway was mob rule? Would you feel the issues involved were "BS" and "trivial". Would you want the law to side with your right to protest or the government's right to regulate your protest?


But surely we live in a modern age where people would never have to protest for the right to enter a hospital, right?

Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

But yet that's all trivial as compared to important things like insuring that people get a full night sleep, right Liam?

If the govt can't restrict non-violent and non-destructive gatherings how could they prevent things that I mentioned?

So what if the things you mention happen? Those very same things can happen for many reasons that are worthy of protest. It may be the government causing those very same things to happen. In fact, history has shown that those terrible things you worry so much about have been more often the result of government action that of protesting "mobs".
 
2012-05-02 06:58:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What do you suppose would have happened if the blacks of Edgecomb country had tried to gather to protest the fact that they couldn't be admitted to the hospital?


And do you think if we had the system you want in place it would have applied to black people before the civil rights movement?

Do you think it would have applied to slaves before they were emancipated?

Once again we are talking about gatherings and protests and bringing up issues like this aren't relevant to them today.


Philip Francis Queeg: So what if the things you mention happen?


People will die because they can't get to hospitals, any business that becomes unpopular to more than a handful of people can be shut down if they have some time on their hands, and you are fine with that because since the govt isn't perfect mobs should be legally allowed to do whatever they want (as long as there is no violence or intentional destruction of property).

Lets go back to your BS example. So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike.
 
2012-05-02 07:00:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

But yet that's all trivial as compared to important things like insuring that people get a full night sleep, right Liam?


First off, if we had your laws on protests any gay people in areas that would elect a scumbag like Gov Walker could be prevented from going to work, going to hospitals, driving tot he store, etc.

Secondly just getting a good nights sleep is the very least of the problems your laws would cause.
 
2012-05-02 07:22:50 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

But yet that's all trivial as compared to important things like insuring that people get a full night sleep, right Liam?

First off, if we had your laws on protests any gay people in areas that would elect a scumbag like Gov Walker could be prevented from going to work, going to hospitals, driving tot he store, etc.

Secondly just getting a good nights sleep is the very least of the problems your laws would cause.


But the Police in the State run by a scumbag like Walker and populated by people who elect them can be fully trusted to evenhandedly regulate the right to protest regardless of the views of the protestors, right? The scumbag could never use that power to thwart those who disagree with his actions and who legitmately want to protest to asert their rights.
Nope. The gay people of Wisconsin can rest assured that the Government is there to protect them.

Oh wait....
 
2012-05-02 07:38:42 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

But yet that's all trivial as compared to important things like insuring that people get a full night sleep, right Liam?

First off, if we had your laws on protests any gay people in areas that would elect a scumbag like Gov Walker could be prevented from going to work, going to hospitals, driving tot he store, etc.

Secondly just getting a good nights sleep is the very least of the problems your laws would cause.

But the Police in the State run by a scumbag like Walker and populated by people who elect them can be fully trusted to evenhandedly regulate the right to protest regardless of the views of the protestors, right? The scumbag could never use that power to thwart those who disagree with his actions and who legitmately want to protest to asert their rights.
Nope. The gay people of Wisconsin can rest assured that the Government is there to protect them.

Oh wait....


Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say, who are only bound to be "non-violent, and non-destructive", and there is no recourse.

Still like to see how you think your first hospital example would have turned out had the laws you want been in place.

"So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike."
 
2012-05-02 10:06:53 PM  

liam76: Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say, who are only bound to be "non-violent, and non-destructive", and there is no recourse.

Still like to see how you think your first hospital example would have turned out had the laws you want been in place.

"So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike."


Yep Like you'd I'd put my full trust in Bull Connor to do the right thing and protect the protestors against the Klan. American history has conclusively shown that local government is looking out for oppressed minorities everywhere. That's always worked out well in the past. Everyday Americans protesting has been the persistant threat to freedom and equality in this country. An Iron fist really is needed to keep those unethical protestors in line.

Great Moments in American History with Liam76....

www.xtimeline.com

sixties60s.com

evresourcesite.wikispaces.com

law2.umkc.edu

www.hippy.com

analepsis.files.wordpress.com

mikeely.files.wordpress.com

www.nppa.org

Look at all those great victories against the scourage of mob rule by the forces of freedom!
 
2012-05-02 10:13:32 PM  
liam76
Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say

Bullshiat piled on top of bullshiat. You think the laws, courts, and government are somehow bound by rules? For you, they are- but only because YOUR mob is dominant. For most people, proletarian justice would be the first justice they've ever known!
 
2012-05-03 07:29:23 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say, who are only bound to be "non-violent, and non-destructive", and there is no recourse.

Still like to see how you think your first hospital example would have turned out had the laws you want been in place.

"So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike."

Yep Like you'd I'd put my full trust in Bull Connor to do the right thing and protect the protestors against the Klan. American history has conclusively shown that local government is looking out for oppressed minorities everywhere. That's always worked out well in the past. Everyday Americans protesting has been the persistant threat to freedom and equality in this country. An Iron fist really is needed to keep those unethical protestors in line.

Great Moments in American History with Liam76....

Look at all those great victories against the scourage of mob rule by the forces of freedom!


Bull Connor is the Govt now?

As I have said many times, yes the govt has done many farked up things, especially to minorities, but what you seminar too stupid to grasp is that even if we had your rules prior to the civil rights movement they would have done the same thing.

So under your proposed system on top of all the farked up things done to people in the civil rights movement we would also have kkk types legally shutting down churches, schools and hospitals that supported them.

That is what you are for. Kkk or any other hate group being given the legal right to harass people or groups they dislike by shutting down any roads or sidewalks they want to use. You can keep throwing up picturess of how our govy farked up, but I never said it was perfect and it doesn't make your obviously flawed system better.
 
2012-05-03 07:34:32 AM  

RanDomino: liam76
Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say

Bullshiat piled on top of bullshiat. You think the laws, courts, and government are somehow bound by rules? For you, they are- but only because YOUR mob is dominant. For most people, proletarian justice would be the first justice they've ever known!


Why am I not surprised that the guy who doesn't believe in personal property thinks a mob of kkk should be able to shut down whatever roads and sidewalks they want.

You have no understanding of rights.
 
2012-05-03 08:37:48 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say, who are only bound to be "non-violent, and non-destructive", and there is no recourse.

Still like to see how you think your first hospital example would have turned out had the laws you want been in place.

"So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike."

Yep Like you'd I'd put my full trust in Bull Connor to do the right thing and protect the protestors against the Klan. American history has conclusively shown that local government is looking out for oppressed minorities everywhere. That's always worked out well in the past. Everyday Americans protesting has been the persistant threat to freedom and equality in this country. An Iron fist really is needed to keep those unethical protestors in line.

Great Moments in American History with Liam76....

Look at all those great victories against the scourage of mob rule by the forces of freedom!

Bull Connor is the Govt now?

As I have said many times, yes the govt has done many farked up things, especially to minorities, but what you seminar too stupid to grasp is that even if we had your rules prior to the civil rights movement they would have done the same thing.

So under your proposed system on top of all the farked up things done to people in the civil rights movement we would also have kkk types legally shutting down churches, schools and hospitals that supported them.

That is what you are for. Kkk or any other hate group being given the legal right to harass people or groups they disl ...


liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Well we can rely on the govt who we can vote on, who are bound by certain laws, that allows us recourse of the court system, or we can rely on mobs where we have no say, who are only bound to be "non-violent, and non-destructive", and there is no recourse.

Still like to see how you think your first hospital example would have turned out had the laws you want been in place.

"So a great guy decides to start up a hospital to serve the black community. The local KKK, under your system could, completely legally, block all trucks when building it, block all patients and supplies when it was open, etc. And you think that is just peachy because, hey, the govt isn't perfect so mobs should be able to do this to whatever group they dislike."

Yep Like you'd I'd put my full trust in Bull Connor to do the right thing and protect the protestors against the Klan. American history has conclusively shown that local government is looking out for oppressed minorities everywhere. That's always worked out well in the past. Everyday Americans protesting has been the persistant threat to freedom and equality in this country. An Iron fist really is needed to keep those unethical protestors in line.

Great Moments in American History with Liam76....

Look at all those great victories against the scourage of mob rule by the forces of freedom!

Bull Connor is the Govt now?

As I have said many times, yes the govt has done many farked up things, especially to minorities, but what you seminar too stupid to grasp is that even if we had your rules prior to the civil rights movement they would have done the same thing.

So under your proposed system on top of all the farked up things done to people in the civil rights movement we would also have kkk types legally shutting down churches, schools and hospitals that supported them.

That is what you are for. Kkk or any other hate group being given the legal right to harass people or groups they disl ...


Yes I am for freedom of speech and assembly regardless of the message. You are not. Our difference is fundamental.The funny thing is I have something on my side that you do not.

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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Words that fill you with fear of "mob rule".
 
2012-05-03 09:32:40 AM  
Actually those words on my side.

Once you block traffic, occupy Parks etc you are no longer peaceably assembled. You may disagree but the supreme court is with me on this, as well as anyone smart enough to realize that giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual (which you want) isn't freedom.
 
2012-05-03 09:40:23 AM  

liam76: Actually those words on my side.

Once you block traffic, occupy Parks etc you are no longer peaceably assembled. You may disagree but the supreme court is with me on this, as well as anyone smart enough to realize that giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual (which you want) isn't freedom.


Yes, Freedom really is begging the government for a permit to protest their actions. That's clearly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
 
2012-05-03 10:19:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Actually those words on my side.

Once you block traffic, occupy Parks etc you are no longer peaceably assembled. You may disagree but the supreme court is with me on this, as well as anyone smart enough to realize that giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual (which you want) isn't freedom.

Yes, Freedom really is begging the government for a permit to protest their actions. That's clearly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.


You don't need a permit to protest. Keep up with the dishonesty.

When they wrote it they wanted people to be say whatever they want and assemble with whatever like minded people they wanted and the govt wouldn't have the right to stop them because of their message. That is what we have today. They didn't intend for them to be able to shut down traffic, markets, etc. The supreme court has continually backed up this interpretation.


I know you are for giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual but that isn't freedom, and that isn't what the founders wanted.
 
2012-05-03 10:29:54 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Actually those words on my side.

Once you block traffic, occupy Parks etc you are no longer peaceably assembled. You may disagree but the supreme court is with me on this, as well as anyone smart enough to realize that giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual (which you want) isn't freedom.

Yes, Freedom really is begging the government for a permit to protest their actions. That's clearly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

You don't need a permit to protest. Keep up with the dishonesty.

When they wrote it they wanted people to be say whatever they want and assemble with whatever like minded people they wanted and the govt wouldn't have the right to stop them because of their message. That is what we have today. They didn't intend for them to be able to shut down traffic, markets, etc. The supreme court has continually backed up this interpretation.


I know you are for giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual but that isn't freedom, and that isn't what the founders wanted.


Yep, this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment:

earthhopenetwork.net

Too few people realize like you do that the intent of the First Amendment is to protect people from protestors. That's why the Founders made it perfectly clear that the government had the firm right to herd protestors into tiny cage surrounded by cops so that Government official would never even have to see them.

Tell us, why were the Delegates to the convention allowed to gather and move where ever they liked and the protestors were not? Why weren't the delegates herded into a tiny cage with hoards of riot police there confronting them? That couldn't possibly be message related, could it?
 
2012-05-03 10:38:00 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Too few people realize like you do that the intent of the First Amendment is to protect people from protestors. That's why the Founders made it perfectly clear that the government had the firm right to herd protestors into tiny cage surrounded by cops so that Government official would never even have to see them.


Why do you think they said "peaceably"?

Do you think shutting down a road fits that description? Do you think disrupting an event on private property or preventing travel on public roads fits that description?

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, why were the Delegates to the convention allowed to gather and move where ever they liked and the protestors were not? Why weren't the delegates herded into a tiny cage with hoards of riot police there confronting them? That couldn't possibly be message related, could it?


If a groups set up a gay rights parade and arrainged it through the democratically designed system that accepts parades with a city do you think a pro-prop 8 should be allowed to block their parade? Yes or no.

I know you are for giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual but that isn't freedom, and that isn't what the founders wanted.
 
2012-05-03 10:44:53 AM  
Eagerly awaiting queeg not answering the question, ignoring my point, and posting more pictures of free speech zones, civil rights era, etc.
 
2012-05-03 10:49:29 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Too few people realize like you do that the intent of the First Amendment is to protect people from protestors. That's why the Founders made it perfectly clear that the government had the firm right to herd protestors into tiny cage surrounded by cops so that Government official would never even have to see them.

Why do you think they said "peaceably"?

Do you think shutting down a road fits that description? Do you think disrupting an event on private property or preventing travel on public roads fits that description?

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, why were the Delegates to the convention allowed to gather and move where ever they liked and the protestors were not? Why weren't the delegates herded into a tiny cage with hoards of riot police there confronting them? That couldn't possibly be message related, could it?

If a groups set up a gay rights parade and arrainged it through the democratically designed system that accepts parades with a city do you think a pro-prop 8 should be allowed to block their parade? Yes or no.

I know you are for giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual but that isn't freedom, and that isn't what the founders wanted.


So the 2004 Democratic National Convention didn't shut down roads, impede travel or access to businesses?

Were the people behind that cage and police line free to wander to any business on that street?

So in your example, you believe that the Police should block the rights of the Prop 8 protestors to gather and protest because their message is different than that of the Gay Pride parade?

As much as you claim that you don't want the Government to be making message based decisions on protests, you keep insisting that the government should be making message based decisions on protests.
 
2012-05-03 10:52:05 AM  

liam76: Eagerly awaiting queeg not answering the question, ignoring my point, and posting more pictures of free speech zones, civil rights era, etc.


Yeah it really is terrible when I use concrete examples to dispute you fantasy that the Government can be completely trusted to regulate protests. I really should be like you and close my eyes to the past and present so that I can better focus on the hypothetical terrors of "mob rule".
 
2012-05-03 12:21:50 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Eagerly awaiting queeg not answering the question, ignoring my point, and posting more pictures of free speech zones, civil rights era, etc.

Yeah it really is terrible when I use concrete examples to dispute you fantasy that the Government can be completely trusted to regulate protests. I really should be like you and close my eyes to the past and present so that I can better focus on the hypothetical terrors of "mob rule".


Want to point to where I said that?

Philip Francis Queeg: So the 2004 Democratic National Convention didn't shut down roads, impede travel or access to businesses?


Was that a mob of people? Was there no warning? Did they not get permission through a democratically selected process? Was there no set date for it to end? Your continual dishonesty/stupidity to not admit the difference is truly stunning. This is even more absurd than your refusal to recognize your racist hiring preferences, or your claim that the weatherman were as bad as Al-Queda.


Philip Francis Queeg: So in your example, you believe that the Police should block the rights of the Prop 8 protestors to gather and protest because their message is different than that of the Gay Pride parade?


How farking stupid are you? Are you a pathological liar? It doesn't have fark all to do with their message.

It doesn't have fark all to do with their message.

It doesn't have fark all to do with their message.

It doesn't have fark all to do with their message.

Try and remember that. We have been through this a number of times.

We have limited public space. People, through the govt, has set a up system to decide how that space is used. If somebody uses that democratically approved up process to set up a parade, or reserve a park and another group stops them, that isn't freedom, that isn't democracy, that is mob rule.

Under the system you want you could never set up a sports league on public land, never resperve a park to have a bbq, on top of giving mobs the ability to shut down any business or impede the travel of any individual.


Philip Francis Queeg: As much as you claim that you don't want the Government to be making message based decisions on protests, you keep insisting that the government should be making message based decisions on protests


I have never made that point, not once.
 
2012-05-03 01:44:47 PM  

KiplingKat872: skullkrusher: how do you think "public" property works? By regulating its use. If your group is going to use it in a way that denies the general public its use - a march down a street, for example, you need to get a permit for it. Like OWS did for their march. You cannot just decide that you are going to protest in the middle of Broadway and go ahead and do it.

Technically yes, but isn't the point of protesting to fark things up so people pay attention? What happens if government denies your right to protest because they don't like your message.? What are you supposed to do then?

I agree there is a technical law vs. ethics issues at work here, but the technical law these days doesn't leave a lot of room for freedom of speech and assembly. I'm waiting for "free speech zones" to be placed in the next town over from the GOP conventions.

Declaration of Independence: When the government isn't working, the people have a right to abolish (or rebel against) it.


The reason you need to get a "parade permit" in advance if you want to protest on the street is so the police have time to schedule officers for traffic control, to keep the protesters safe from getting hit by cars (as well as to try to keep traffic flowing and some other stuff.)
 
2012-05-03 02:32:34 PM  

vinniethepoo: KiplingKat872: skullkrusher: how do you think "public" property works? By regulating its use. If your group is going to use it in a way that denies the general public its use - a march down a street, for example, you need to get a permit for it. Like OWS did for their march. You cannot just decide that you are going to protest in the middle of Broadway and go ahead and do it.

Technically yes, but isn't the point of protesting to fark things up so people pay attention? What happens if government denies your right to protest because they don't like your message.? What are you supposed to do then?

I agree there is a technical law vs. ethics issues at work here, but the technical law these days doesn't leave a lot of room for freedom of speech and assembly. I'm waiting for "free speech zones" to be placed in the next town over from the GOP conventions.

Declaration of Independence: When the government isn't working, the people have a right to abolish (or rebel against) it.

The reason you need to get a "parade permit" in advance if you want to protest on the street is so the police have time to schedule officers for traffic control, to keep the protesters safe from getting hit by cars (as well as to try to keep traffic flowing and some other stuff.)


You are just a jackbooted thug if you think mobs of people shouldn't be free to shut down sidewalks, parks and streets at will for however long they want (as long as they are non-violent).

/yes that was sarcasm, but there are a few morons in this thread who completely believe that.
 
2012-05-03 02:46:17 PM  

vinniethepoo: The reason you need to get a "parade permit" in advance if you want to protest on the street is so the police have time to schedule officers for traffic control, to keep the protesters safe from getting hit by cars (as well as to try to keep traffic flowing and some other stuff.)


Yes. I understand that. But that has given the state the power to approve or disapprove a rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment. And they have been expanding that power quite a lot in recent years (no matter what political party is in charge). Through U.S. history have been many, many, many peaceful protests that broke local ordinances. Again (the fourth or fifth time now) what OWS did is absolutely nothing new.

In fact:

The Bonus Army

But then I am sure people were bleating about "following the law" and "civil order" and "mob rule" when the Civil Rights protests were going on. And the suffragette movement, and, etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-05-03 06:26:33 PM  
liam76
Why am I not surprised that the guy who doesn't believe in personal property thinks a mob of kkk should be able to shut down whatever roads and sidewalks they want.

kkk types legally shutting down churches, schools and hospitals


They were already ABLE to do those things! Legal or illegal is irrelevant. Rights are irrelevant. The government is not neutral. It only appears that way to you because you are the sort of person it's set up to serve. Power is all that matters. You have the power, so of course you want things to stay exactly as they are now.

People, through the govt, has set a up system

lul!
tell me again about how democracy works sooo welll and how it's aaaalways the protesters' fault for breaking the compleeeetly faaaair rules.
 
2012-05-03 06:53:52 PM  

RanDomino: liam76
Why am I not surprised that the guy who doesn't believe in personal property thinks a mob of kkk should be able to shut down whatever roads and sidewalks they want.

kkk types legally shutting down churches, schools and hospitals

They were already ABLE to do those things!



And now they can't. Mostly because due tot he civil rights movement the law was applied more evenly.

You want to make it so they can do those things again.

What a chamion of freedom you are.

RanDomino: Legal or illegal is irrelevant. Rights are irrelevant. The government is not neutral. It only appears that way to you because you are the sort of person it's set up to serve. Power is all that matters. You have the power, so of course you want things to stay exactly as they are now.



Where did I say the govt is neutral? Stop making shiat up you dishonest shiat. I have said the govt isn't perfect, but at least we have a mechanism to fix it, and sue if they aren't being neutral. You are saying since it isn't absolutely perfect we should let mobs decide how all public spaces, including roads, bridges, etc are used.

You want to make it so the KKK and any other hate group can shut down any street and sidewalk they want, and by extension any business they dislike an prevent anyone they don't like from having a life, going to work etc. This is your belief. You have spent 20+ posts explaining how this is a good thing. Not even sure why I am wasting my time.

That is anti freedom, that is anti democracy, that is pro mob rule.

RanDomino: tell me again about how democracy works sooo welll and how it's aaaalways the protesters' fault for breaking the compleeeetly faaaair rules


Once again instead of addressing my point, acknowledging the implications of the system you want (mob rule, free reign outside of violence and vandalism for hate groups to harass groups or people they dislike, etc), you make shiat up and pretend I am saying the govt is perfect.

Keep lying about what I said.

Keep pretending a mob of people with no warning shutting down any roads, sidewalks, or parks for as long as they wish is the same as a political convention.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report