"Calmly pepper spraying a bunch of non violent young men and women sitting on the ground is one thing, trying to do the same against angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun is another. "
I can go back and reread what’s being said so…I’m not sure what you think you’re doing.
I just quoted exactly what you responded to up above, it’s there in quotations. I don’t see any mention of Tea Baggers or Occupiers.
Yet you SOMEHOW knew exactly which group was being referred to as “angry extremists”
Now, two possibilities: you remember all the "We came unarmed (this time) signs and actual rifles present at Tea Bagger rallies and are playing dumb to suit your cause.
Or you’re the new evolution in humankind that’s unlocked the mysterious human brain and have harnessed it’s awesome power to read mens minds, nay their very soul, and we should all bow BOW BEFORE YOUR MIGHTY MIND POWERS FOR YOU ARE DOCTOR BRAINO, MAN OF THE FUTOORE!!
Honestly I just wanna know if we even need elections or if you’ll be holding mankind’s puny fate in your magnificent grasp.
But not the kind of “angry extremism” that would provoke or prevent a police response, which was the entire point.
No, the point is one side is angry and armed, the other is angry and has drum circles and the police response is overwhelmingly heavy handed toward the non-armed than the other. The kind of eye-rolling-obvious-but-still-funny observation people are going to make
Then you’re either being massively disingenuous or you’re literally one of the stupidest people I’ve ever come across.
Or I read the one sentence that you deliberately cut out:
Or I read your earlier post:
Yes, I have developed the awesome power to read what is written. Amazing!
No, the point is that one group is obeying the law, and the other group is defying the law. You ignore that fact, then act incredulous that the police respond differently to the two groups. That’s your own disingenuousness, not any sort of police conspiracy.
That’s your totally arbitrary framing of the question, Andy, not mine. I’m not sure why you think the only possible valid way to make a connection between the two groups is if the current one, I don’t know, burned down a EPA office or something. They chose the name deliberately to invoke the anger at their (wrongly) perceived tax burden; the name “Tea Party” is supposed to convey to the people they think are in power to watch it, or the people will rise up. Why do you think they chose the name?
I mean, I suppose they could just be fans of bad Canadian rock groups, but I sorta doubt it. I sorta doubt they even know where Canada is.
Let’s remember, before you decided to start heaving goalposts up and down the field, I was responding to your claim that the Tea Party is characterized as “angry extremists”. If they didn’t want to be thought of as angry, then they should have called themselves “The Ladies Auxiliary Tea Time Luncheon & Social”. Because I think the original Tea Partiers were kinda angry.
Because it was argued that police were afraid to act against Tea Partiers because they are afraid of “angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun.” I pointed out, accurately, that the current Tea Party does not have any history of acting against police, or disobeying the law through any sort of resistance, and in fact they make sure to get legal permits before any sort of event or protest. If your only argument is, “Well, the original Boston Tea Party involved people breaking the law,” that is no kind of argument whatsoever.
Given that the Boston Tea Party did not involve threatening or resisting police officers, I’m sure they didn’t choose it to threaten police.
So you’re saying that police feel threatened by Tea Partiers, because they feel threatened by the name of a 200-year-old political event? Okay, good luck with that.
Or I was being deliberately obtuse to prove a point!
You see how your options just open up when you’re not so close minded! That should be a lesson to you.
However, the simple fact remains that you can clearly tell whom I’m talking about in that paragraph even taken out of context “One side is angry and has guns and threats, one side is angry and has drum circles and Star Wars themed protest signs”
Which group would you be more comfortable around?
But wait! One side is…is…in a park for longer than the owners wish!!! Oh those terrible, terrible criminals and their terrible, terrible right to assemble! How can you possibly feel safe around them??
All this bombastic talk of “criminals” and “illegal activity” is wildly over the top language.
Most of these people don’t NEED “permits” or “permission”, most are in PUBLIC parks or on public streets.
The group that’s not violating the law.
Most people realize that when you occupy a public place for an extended period of time, it is no longer available for public use. Most people have the common decency to not set up camp in a public place, just like most people don’t take all the pennies by the cash register or all the peanuts at the bar. Most people understand the idea of sharing public spaces with other people. Most people.
I’m not sure who you think argued that particular strawman, but it wasn’t me. You’re still playing solo.
Given that the Boston Tea Party did not involve threatening or resisting police officers, I’m sure they didn’t choose it to threaten police.
And yet another shifting of the goalposts. So now the name had to have been chosen to threaten the police? Since when? I eagerly await your next strawman argument that includes this new little chunk of misdirection.
So you’re saying that police feel threatened by Tea Partiers, because they feel threatened by the name of a 200-year-old political event? Okay, good luck with that.
And there it is! Who said the police feel threatened by the name? Oh, wait, you did, a few sentences ago. Congrats, Andy, the circle is unbroken.
And by the way, you still haven’t answered why you think the Tea Party chose their name. I’m curious to hear your rationale.
Octonoo
1690
All he did was what we have all, at one time or another, wanted to do to bonafide trolls.
And make no mistake, these Occupy protestors are bonafide trolls.
They need to recognize that the police force is extremely diverse and gender friendly to the point that they have made Martin Niemoller irrelevent and that their prime motivation for upholding the law is based on the indignity that no one should ever claim to represent 99% of a nation’s citizens.
Put the drums and libraries away, stop polluting the parks, for christ’s sake get the fuck out of people’s way, you will not have legal marijuana, continue to use corporation credit cards and search engines, stop whining and just go home.
That image is the best piece of Occupy propaganda I have seen. Bravo! This needs to be rushed onto T-shirts asap.
The best part of this whole thing is that the conversation about the absurd militarization of police has already started to peek out. I heard a segment on NPR about it this morning. I saw a piece on, I think, Time about small and medium size towns with freaking tanks and cops with paramilitary training. Hopefully it grows. Making these tinhorn dictators think twice about using brutality to subdue citizens is worth it, IMO.
Lum
1694
Are you literally insane?
“It may have been a revolution, but at least it was law-abiding!”
“Sure, they blew up a lot of property and tar and feathered people, but that wasn’t illegal. Somehow.”
Lum
1696
Meanwhile, Fox News with the take you knew they were going to take:
O’Reilly: “First of all, pepper spray. That just burns your eyes, right?”
Kelly: “Right. I mean, it’s a derivative of, actual pepper. It’s a food product, essentially! A lot of experts are looking at it, saying, was it diluted…”
O’Reilly: “They should have had more a reaction than that.”
Kelly: “That’s really beside the point. It was obviously something that was abrasive and intrusive, several went to the hospital…”
O’Reilly: “Right, they just wanted… them to get out of there! To stop blocking what they were blocking, to scatter them.”
Kelly: “Yes, this was on the Chancellor’s orders, the Chancellor ordered the police to get these students to disperse.”
O’Reilly on Bull Connor: IT’S JUST WATER I DRINK IT EVERY DAY
Fuck you, Fox News.
Octonoo
1697
Here’s a LINK to a small sound file that should be downloaded and played in accompaniment with reading any post in this thread by Lum the Sad or any of the other “Occupy Apologists.”
Ad Hominem: For All Your Trolling Needs
It was Murbella and Valentine, in case you’re wondering.
No, I haven’t made any claims about how the name “had to have been chosen.” You’re the one who erected those goalposts in the first place. Here, I’ll give you the Cliffs Notes, since you appear to have lost your way:
Murbella says that police would be less likely to pepper-spray “angry extremists” like the Tea Partiers.
I point out that the Tea Party does not have any history of violence, and certainly no history of resisting the police in any way.
You argue that they named themselves “after a historically famous violent protest.”
So, given that we’re talking about the police being afraid of the Tea Party for being violent, and you talk about what they were named after, your point is either A) the name would be enough to cause officers to feel threatened; or B) irrelevant to the discussion. So which is it?
If it had any relevance to the laughable claim that police are afraid to pepper-spray Tea Party members, I might offer it. As it is, the origins of the name are completely pointless to this discussion.
