Why #OWS Spells Trouble for the GOP

The police are certainly not denying that events unfolded as has been described. I think the only one who's doing that is you, CoinOKC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/occupy-oakland-scott-olsen-surgery

 

Where in your article does it say the police have admitted responsibility? The police have stated that the incident is still under investigation. Thus far, there is absolutely NO proof of what actually happened. I'll ask you the same thing I've asked Moen: Can you provide evidence of what happened? Until you do, you're just assuming what happened and jumping to conclusions. Please don't do that.

 

I said that the police were not denying that events unfolded as has been described. Care to point out where in this article or in any other that they have made such a denial?

 

You need to define "as has been described". Are you seriously saying that the police are agreeing with some Flea Party members that it was the police who attacked him? In the very same article you posted, it said the police are investigating the incident. That is neither a confirmation nor a denial. Wait for the investigation and the evidence to come out before you make assertions. The left really seems to be bad about doing that lately.

 

Uh huh:

"Her interim police chief, Howard Jordan, was similarly defensive when he spoke to reporters, denying that his men had used rubber bullets or flash-bang grenades, as some protesters alleged and adding: "It's unfortunate it happened. I wish that it didn't happen. Our goal, obviously, isn't to cause injury to anyone."

 

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-10-...ers-return-hundred-protesters-evening-protest
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/occupy-victory/
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...akland-clash-may-have-violated-police-policy/

We're getting to the truth. I doubt though that it will change in any significant way the Corporate Storm Troops operate going forward.

 

By "Corporate Storm Troops" I presume you mean the police? The same police the left is always so worried about and trying to help in their union collective bargaining negotiations? OK, whatever you say...

 

I don't speak for The Left. Whatever The Left is exactly. I don't think anyone does. The Left is not some monolithic entity with only one voice. Difficult for those who naturally gravitate to the authoritarian in their politics to understand. Like mono-voting Congressional Republicans. .

 

The same police BO & Biden said we needed additional funding for in order to prevent rapes in the street?
By the way, did you hear the story about another voiloent sexual attack taking place at the OWS/Flea Party encampment? Or the multitude of drug busts at Flea Party communes around the country? Or the sex trafficking of minors at another Flea Party protest?
Face it. What began as a legal protest has devolved into a a mob of violent radicals just looking for a place to assemble & wreck their havoc. These are the ones we call "Flea Party".

Oh yeah, it is your buddy moen who is always so "concerned" about the police. Like a typical far lefty, the police are pawns. As long as they are able to be unionized the left loves them but once they are called on to do their duty (remember the police officer in MA that BO had to apologize to?) they become "jack boots" and whatever other names the left calls them.

 

Are these the same police who are supposed to protect people and one reason we don't need to own guns? Or are their 2 different police...the jack boots under corporate and right wing control and then the public protecting, unionized saviors? How do we tell the difference and which one will show up at my house if something bad happens? Is there some special number I call to get the good ones? Is it 912 or something?

 

Good question. Some soldiers will side with our corporate masters, some with the people in the the street. Hard to know ahead of time which way it will go. And no, sadly the good guys don't have have a dedicated number.

 

Yawn.

 

Can you cite some sources for this, please? I understood that the police violence in Oakland was "provoked" when someone attempted to remove part of a chain link fence that the city erected to keep protesters off public property, correct? And the police aggression in Nashville came about when the protesters ignored a new curfew designed to make them instant "lawbreakers"? And the violence in Maine was due to a bomb being thrown AT the protesters?
Are you saying the police beat and shot the crowds because they got a report of a theft?

 

Does this help:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_perv_Qd8v3hCAnspzJ7VGC9nJZP

 

Is this a joke?

 

Not at all. There's nothing in that story to justify the claim that the cops were responding to anyone's actions when they attacked he protesters. I'd like some cites to prove the claim that cops were justified in beating up peaceful protesters or shooting them in the face or injuring them with pepper spray.

Your story points to two incidents which apparently were never even reported to police. Not even relevant.

 

It's all he's got. Relevance is irrelevant.

 

Just because the victim didn't report the crime doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited. does it? And shouldn't the police be proactive in dealing with potential threats rather than reactive especially in light of reports of criminal activity?

 

...and you're the biggest hypocrite on this forum. On one hand you pretend to have so much empathy for the police (when they are a dues paying unionized voting bloc for the left) yet you jump right off that bandwagon so quickly when other left wing actions are involved.

 

Are you deliberately trying to become the new Spinmaster of this forum by replacing Mr. Moen?

You say, "I'd like some cites to prove the claim that cops were justified in beating up peaceful protesters or shooting them in the face or injuring them with pepper spray."
First of all, please refer to any reputable news source that states "cops beat up peaceful protesters" or "shot in them in the face" or "injured them with pepper spray". Please don't refer to blogs or opinion pages, but actual news sources that prove your allegations.

If you're referring to Scott Olsen when you say "shot them in the face", please provide evidence that the police did it. Also, if you're referring to YouTube videos and such showing the police using pepper spray as crowd control, you'll have to do better than that. Pepper Spray is a legitimate substance and you'll have a difficult time proving that it "injured" any members of the Flea Party.

From the way all the left-wingnuts are reacting, I suspect they're chomping at the bit for not only violence, but violence that can be proven. So far, it hasn't materialized, but not for lack of trying on their part. There are laws in this country that must be obeyed for the good of all, you know. They can peaceably assemble, but when they start stealing, raping and committing acts of public outrage or causing health and safety concerns, well, the police need to stop them.