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.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com) divider line 534
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7493 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 11:35:22 AM  

feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY
 
2012-08-26 11:35:46 AM  

PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.


OWS is still in Tampa, has been for months. They stay in a private park owned by a notorious strip club owner. He will be clearing them out as of September 15th however. Even the most vocal proponents of free speech get tired of their nonsense eventually.
 
2012-08-26 11:38:19 AM  

clowncar on fire: Infernalist: clowncar on fire: BronyMedic: feckingmorons: If anyone solicits another to commit a crime and it is witnessed by police (an on-view or probable cause arrest) they will most certainly be taken to jail. The police had a sweep of prostitutes last week in preparation. If anyone, delegate or not, breaks the law they will be arrested. No get out of jail free cards for anyone. Tampa's mayor is a Democrat and the police chief is as well ( and her domestic partner is too). They are as no nonsense on crime...

Liberal gays don't need to advertise on CL. They tend to congregate in locations that cater to them. Publicly.

Gay GOPers, on the other hand, hide their preferences and lie about it publicly. That's why they're constantly getting busted and caught on CL and bus stations and airport restrooms and rest stops and all the other spots that gays used to hang out before the majority started taking pride in their preferences.

In short: ONLY GAY REPUBLICANS WOULD BE ON CRAIG'S LIST.

You seriously need to read "Freakonomics" more than anybody else I know at the moment.

I'm sure the few closeted gay republicans in attendance would have the resources to hook up outside of Craig's list. I'm postulating that the increase in support staff, protesters, gawkers, etc would probbly make this a target rich environment for gay Craig's List posters. I'm sure that there are some significant surges in a variety of other services provided such as baby sitting, room cleaning, home rentals, car rentals and catering as well.


And I'm postulating that vast majority of gays advertising on CL are closeted men who are hiding their preferences from family, friends and coworkers. And I'm also postulating that vast majority of those who are in hiding are also GOPers who publicly hate on gays.
 
2012-08-26 11:38:48 AM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY


You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.
 
2012-08-26 11:40:27 AM  

Alphax: PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.

I don't think OWS is gone, but I've heard nothing to suggest they'll be anywhere near Tampa. They seem to be after the puppet masters, not the puppets.


Nah, they aren't gone, but they're irrelevant unless they can do something spectacular. I don't see it happening just yet.
 
2012-08-26 11:41:14 AM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.


What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?
 
2012-08-26 11:42:22 AM  

TheGogmagog: [i630.photobucket.com image 318x476]

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]
/Not sure what the photoshopped symbol on the grill is, a militarized free speech unit is scary enough. 
//I suppose I could always host my own material.


Those are not from Tampa.
 
2012-08-26 11:44:02 AM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.

What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?


Bah, who cares what the law says? Just arrest him so we can crucify him already.
 
2012-08-26 11:45:31 AM  

pdkl95: - HST, in "Hell's Angels"


I still need to read that and dammit I wish he were alive for this election. I really want someone to accuse Romney of being an ibogaine addict.
 
2012-08-26 11:46:57 AM  

Infernalist: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: 've debunked the hyperbole of the linked article so now the only response is there might be closeted gay people. Yes, there might be, but is it proper to vilify people because of their sexual orientation? Wasn't Anderson Cooper closeted until recently?

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a social hour this evening in Ybor city, so I am fairly certain gay Republicans will be represented at the convention. Probably left handed people too!

Oh, and the rest stop sexual tryst with a minor childperson of legal age of consent arranged online by a legislator was a Democrat, but they won't file charges because it is OK to sodomize 17 year olds consenting adults in the eye of the law you meet on the internet in Minnesota.


FTFY

You can't strike out the parts you don't like. It was a minor child. The child had not reached the age of majority. You may not like the facts, but they are indeed the facts. I was quite clear that it is legal to sodomize 17 year old children at rest stops in Minnesota with their consent. It is disgusting, but oddly legal.

What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

Bah, who cares what the law says? Just arrest him so we can crucify him already.


Republicans: The Law & Order party. And by Law & Order, I mean the TV show where they repeatedly cornhole the First Amendment to get clues because finding the red herring suspect who didn't do anything is more important than the Constitution.
 
2012-08-26 11:48:06 AM  
Tonight on Security Theater...
 
2012-08-26 11:48:39 AM  

gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?


No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?
 
2012-08-26 11:49:54 AM  

shotglasss: enry: shotglasss: gimmegimme: enry: Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: GAT_00: Just how bad of a person am I for kinda hoping a RNC delegate has a crime committed upon them because of this?

That makes you normal for a liberal.

the difference is the self awareness. a "conservative" would never worry about how bad a person they might be for thinking the same thing about a liberal

And get applause at an RNC debate.

Hey, don't stereotype. Sometimes GOP audiences boo. Like when they see a gay soldier.

Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

[citation needed]

Here you go.


I was at church when you let loose this pile of poo. I see others have already made their comments so I'll just let those stand.
 
2012-08-26 11:55:24 AM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?


No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?
 
2012-08-26 11:58:24 AM  

Hobodeluxe: BronyMedic: Hobodeluxe: Protesters should remember that you can stand your ground and have no responsibility to retreat. You can shoot to kill if you think your life is threatened.

Since we're not talking about the NYPD, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're probably better armed, and have better aim.

And, as the NYPD has proven, bystanders are fair game.

it was a sarcastic joke. I was merely pointing out how stupid the law was.


It's optional.

Feel free to lay down and let someone beat you.
 
2012-08-26 12:02:32 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?


Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?
 
2012-08-26 12:05:41 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?


I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:12 PM  

clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?


ournewsviews.com
 
2012-08-26 12:07:38 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?

Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?


My concern is that many police officers are less this:

appalachianleadershipacademy.files.wordpress.com

And more this:

i41.photobucket.com

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-26 12:11:38 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: What right do you have to judge consensual sex between two people who know what they are getting into? Minnesota law does not agree with you that a 17-year-old is a child. Why do you hate personal responsibility and accountability?

No Minnesota does agree that a 17 year old is a child. If there were pictures taken of their rest stop liason it would be a felony because the 17 year old is a child. You seem to have the age of consent confused with the age of majority. Had he crossed state lines he would be facing federal charges, however this dirty old pervert got lucky - or is very practiced in soliciting children for sex online and knows the law all too well.

Just to be clear, you are defending a 56 year old man who made arrangements over the Internet to sodomize a 17 year old boy in a public area at an interstate rest stop. You're OK with that right?

No, I am striking against your Puritanical bullshiat tone.

Are you posting from the Miniluv?

I don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. I simply find 56 year old men meeting children for sex at rest stops repulsive. Apparently you don't.


The reference comes from the book Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Four by George Orwell. You should read it. You may even be inspired to start a chapter of the Junior Anti-Sex League.
 
2012-08-26 12:12:04 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]


Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?
 
2012-08-26 12:13:27 PM  
Pulling the Dubya-era jackboots out of the closet before the election? That's ... gutsy.
 
2012-08-26 12:14:34 PM  

clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?


Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?
 
2012-08-26 12:18:42 PM  

clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?


home.earthlink.net
 
2012-08-26 12:19:27 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: How are you defining unprovoked?

[ournewsviews.com image 375x267]

Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?


It would have been a blow to Tubby McRentacop's fragile ego.
 
2012-08-26 12:19:38 PM  
just herd them all into those lame "free speech zones" that is prolly the most farked up thing
 
2012-08-26 12:20:53 PM  

gimmegimme: Really? You're defending that guy? Can you make any argument that those students posed any threat whatsoever to anyone?


From civil rights to the labor movement the police have been used as the bludgeon to keep the people from longing for more of life's blessings, and since that time people like clowncar have been defending them.
 
2012-08-26 12:21:31 PM  

Graffito: shotglasss: Liberal audiences boo, too. Like when they see an American flag that isn't burning.

Dear gawd! You were serious? I flagged you as funny because I thought it was sarcasm.


You don't read "shotglasss" too much, do you?
 
2012-08-26 12:21:42 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: Protesting is no a crime, throwing rocks and burning shiat is.

Watching My Little Pony re-runs ought to be (criminalized).

Do you believe it's a crime for a police officer to assault protestors without provocation?

Yes I do.

Provocation has many interpretations, however.

Obstruction of a throughway or traffic could be defined as provocation enough to land you an obstruction or tresspassing violation. To avoid this, the protesters need to keep moving instead of holding up in one spot- particularly in front of a point of egress. for what its worth- this type of provocation will get you a few hour visit to jail, long enough to be booked and released.

Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat. Again, back to the pokey for another couple of hours of booking and release.

Assisting a fellow protestor during their arrest- obstruction of justice. Definitely a free ride to the pokey, more likely an overnight stay with the neighborhood drunk.

Bumping up against a police officer- once or twice is forgiveable (you're toe to toe with an officer being pushed from behind), but take heed when he warns you not to do it again. Probably best to let the guy behind you take your spot.

Raising fist, spitting, or verbal threats. Generalized fist waving will go unpunished- specifically directed toward someone is considered assault and might get you a tasing, a thump from a nightstick and a chance to kiss concrete.

Throwing shiat or spraying noxious liquids- assault for starters, battery if your aim is true. Destruction of private property, littering, and a litany of other charges. Expect a little more than a couple of hours of processing.

How are you defining unprovoked?

My concern is that many police officers are less this:

[appalachianleadershipacademy.files.wordpress.com image 320x240]

And mor ...


You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.
 
2012-08-26 12:21:57 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]


Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.
 
2012-08-26 12:24:47 PM  

clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.


Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.
 
2012-08-26 12:27:50 PM  
Real nice. if one of those released commits a major crime there is gonna be an epic stink.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:23 PM  

gimmegimme: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]

Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.


Ohio State was months of tension finally culmonating in an act of brutality.

Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

What's messed up would be your inability to see the difference.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:41 PM  

clowncar on fire: I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos


www.minnpost.com
 
2012-08-26 12:33:00 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Can we see the part where they were first asked to move along several times, then warned a few more times, before I get to answer?

[home.earthlink.net image 209x200]

Wow, that one's messed up. It reminds me of the awful psychological damage to the victims of the Kent State shooting. Those poor cops were forced to listen to young people protesting before they took care of the situation.

Ohio State was months of tension finally culmonating in an act of brutality.

Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

What's messed up would be your inability to see the difference.


You mean Kent State.

What evidence do you have the students were verbally abusive? Can you demonstrate that the police were right to ask the students to leave? Were they hurting anyone? Were they a danger to public safety? Have you even seen the many videos of the incident?

More importantly, why don't you care about the rights of the students peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
 
2012-08-26 12:38:00 PM  

clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.


The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.
 
2012-08-26 12:40:00 PM  

Sudlow: I just spent a few minutes at the Occupy Tampa page on FB. They are not planning for a peaceful time.


Duh.
The cops never keep it peaceful.
If you know you're going up an armed terrorist gang that's going to assault or kidnap you for exercising your rights, then you prepare accordingly.
Anyone planning for a peaceful time at a major protest, particularly the RNC of all things, is naive as hell if they think they won't be assaulted even while completely obeying the laws. Your pacifism won't save you.
 
2012-08-26 12:44:42 PM  

m2313: Your pacifism won't save you.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

― Mahatma Gandhi
 
2012-08-26 12:45:14 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.


I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.
 
2012-08-26 12:49:13 PM  

smitty04: Democratic Convention 1968 Chicago


Now ask the people of Iraq how much more civil the Republican Party is compared to US protesters. Then ask the people of Vietnam how civil the Democratic Party was to them.
 
2012-08-26 12:52:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.


I forgot to ask- Did that SWAT guy eventually shoot the guy with the sign, or did he eventually move along?

Pictures only capture a moment in time: they evoke emotion and are thought provoking capturing the moment that their author wants you to share- but not necessarily the real story behind them.

Sort of like sound bytes.
 
2012-08-26 12:53:44 PM  

clowncar on fire: However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind.


They are called agent provocateurs.

In that whole post you theorize that one can never know if one side is right or wrong so one should not take a side. You then take a side.
 
2012-08-26 12:54:18 PM  

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Happy Hours: This is bullshiat- if the convention were in Denver I'd show up to protest but not necessarily in line with the Occupy people. I'd like to protest the fact that the Republican party has gone batshiat insane and no longer represent the values of true conservatives.

Fark Romney and the other idiots they considered nominating this year.

Where the hell is this OWS stuff coming from? They've fizzled out already. The entire place is going to be people like you, or liberals agreeing with you.

/You guys won. OWS is completely irrelevant. Good job. Now please STFU about it, we don't need another boogieman. We've got enough already.

OWS is still in Tampa, has been for months. They stay in a private park owned by a notorious strip club owner. He will be clearing them out as of September 15th however. Even the most vocal proponents of free speech get tired of their nonsense eventually.


Fecking, I might acknowledge that OWS is no longer relevant, but they had a damn good point--our current economy is not sustainable. That is by no means nonsensical, and I don't particularly care who owns the land they occupy, even if you try to use big-kid words like 'notorious'.

/And, what, he's infamous for owning strip clubs? I live in NV. That entire concept is laughable. You might as well call someone infamous for owning a strip mall.
 
2012-08-26 12:54:30 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.

I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.


So it makes sense to release known criminals to make room for perceived ones?
 
2012-08-26 01:01:06 PM  

Magruda: clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.


Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.
 
2012-08-26 01:01:59 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: And mor ...

You realize that your are referencing Hollywood fiction to make your point. On top of that, from an adaption of a movie that was published in 1949 about events that might have ocurred nearly three decades ago.

I'm leaning pro law enforcement even I could take the time to gis "police abuse" and pull up a few current provocative photos.

Way to sidestep the real-life examples of brainless and cruel law enforcement personnel who clearly didn't give a shiat about the Constitution, protecting or serving.

I suppose you think that hippie in the tank top holding a sign is a huge threat to the cop in riot gear who just got out of a SWAT van and is holding a machine gun.

I'm not denying abuse occurs between the police and utter strangers- hell, kids get beaten and molested by their natural parents far too frequently.

It's just that I'm not rube enough to believe that every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting your definition of abuse.

You see protestors as being freedom fighters and defenders of a cause. Fine if they stuck with the agenda. Works great in a test tube.

However, in real life, there are individuals in that crowd with darker thoughts of other than civil disobedience in mind. You have rock throwers, authority haters, window breakers, instigators, bullies, thieves, pushers, and a litany of other criminal element who are just there for the spectacle. These individuals - and the ones who have more often then not mistakenly alligned themselves with them-- are the ones you usually see getting tazed or pepper sprayed and hauled off.


When did I say that "every occurence between the police and protestors is necessarily meeting [my] definition of abuse?"

If you were in Birmingham in the 1960s, would you be holding the fire hose?
 
2012-08-26 01:05:34 PM  

clowncar on fire: Magruda: clowncar on fire: Protestors being pepper sprayed after refusing to leave (and probably being verbally abusive as well) and continuing remain after being warned is a whole different ball of wax, and I expect, as an adult, you'd know the difference as well.

The guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who don't actively resist.

Right, because if some abusive language was used it is ok to then pepper spray someone for sitting "aggressively". History is full of police abuse when it comes to protest, you need only look to the amount of money St. Paul had to fork out due to lawsuits resulting from the last RNC convension where the police state cracked down. Or you could look at labor disputes in the 1920s, or civil rights marches in the 1960s. If you challenge the status quo you will get beat down by the blugeon. And sycophants like you will defend them.

Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.


Jesus Christ. If only there were some way to look up information.

You don't seem like the kind of guy who loves freedom enough to defend it at all.  Why do you bother living in America at all?
 
2012-08-26 01:06:56 PM  

clowncar on fire: Abusive language may have been one element- who knows the rest of the story that occured outside of that one photo? Hell maybe one of the protestors double dogged dared the officer to do it.

What was the outcome of this incident? Was there an investigation? Officer sanctioned? Was this a photo op moment for the protestors knowing full well the outcome? I see someone peper spraying from one end to the other and I'd be gone. Unless my intent was to remain and catch an eyeful of pepper juice.


You are a tool, you ask questions that you could easily answer yourself and your statement is full of logical holes.

One wonders what your take on the Boston Massacare would have been.
 
2012-08-26 01:07:23 PM  

shotglasss: dickfreckle: Pants full of macaroni!!: ALL LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY CRIMINAL

I'm glad you posted this. It means I don't have to read shotglass' multiple posts all but saying the same thing. We have to consolidate the message, and make sure it fits on a bumper sticker. I like the cut of your jib.

I don't think all liberals are criminals. 99% of them, yes, but not all.

And there's 3 Ss in the name. Do try to keep up.


count again
 
2012-08-26 01:17:01 PM  

smitty04:


Is that meant to be ironic? Tampa's a shiathole...
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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