I don’t have time to look into this right now, but the protest I’m thinking of is MUCH longer then one day. It’s like 40 days or something.
Well, until you find out what you are talking about, I can’t really respond, can I?
Well, no, Mr. Hostile. It was implied that when I had time to look into it further, I would, and I would post what I found. Until then, our conversation is suspended. Sorry I didn’t spell it all out for you.
I’m not the one that asked how one was different from the other without specifically stating what the other was in the first place. Your descriptions changed from abortion protesters to The March For Life to some unnamed event at some unnamed time at some unnamed place that lasted for “like 40 days or something”.
Well, when a police officer asks tea partiers to move back behind a line for their safety, they say, “ok, thanks” and move back.
When a police officer asks douchebag marxists to move back behind a line for their safety, they:
- sit and refuse to move
- call the cop a fascist, racist, corporate robot
- have their friends come over and yell and scream at the cop
- get in the cops face and yell some more
- pull out their cellphone and see how far they can push the cop so they can get their city payoff in a lawsuit.
It’s not really that hard to understand why they may be treated a little differently.
The fact that the occupy wall street douches break laws and tea partiers don’t is another big factor.
Cite, please?
They don’t have much of a choice. The police know full well that if things get ugly they could (and probably would) get mobbed quickly. Beyond that, the police are perceived as the thug arm of the 1%, and to a degree that opinion is not entirely incorrect. Clashing violently with the protestors would turn the wounded protestors into heroes, and result in more violence. So they will tread the line, arrest a few people and engage as much as they can as a show of enforcement without tipping the protests into riots.
CMC fnord!
Okay. That cite showed that during a protest where the vast majority of demonstrators had no problems with police a small group of professional protesters got arrested. Let’s remember who Randall Terry is.
Sure. What part are you having trouble believing?
BTW, I will not criticize TPM for this story, since they made clear who the protesters were in updates to the original story. I think it was a bit dishonest, though, for CMC to quote it as though these were ordinary tea party protesters and not, as the article made clear, Operation Rescue.
If I were to single out certain fringe elements in the Wall Street protest, and imply that their behavior was generally seen, this would be considered wrong. It is wrong here as well.
I am equally sure Adams would have been thoroughly disgusted with the dumbass hippies in the OWS movement. Not every rebel deserves honor, and not every rebellion deserves to be placed on the same moral plane as the revolution of 1776.
Most of us have no real problem with that slur, outside of explaining it to our grandchildren.
“Dumbass?”
Umm, I’d think that if everyone involved in this protest was part of Operation Rescue, there wouldn’t have been any confusion about why there were arrests,
Oh, and I found this,
so, same event,
Operation Rescue event or Tea Party event . . . that included people that were also part of Operation Rescue?
CMC fnord!
Ah, I got it. So your side doesn’t call the other side inflammatory names; it’s only the douchebag Marxists on the other side who do that.
And how is waving cellphones any worse than waving handguns?
I’m sure it varies from locale to locale. Ironically Liberty Park, the original site in NYC is not a public park. It’s actualy a private piece of real estate belonging to the adjacent building, 100 Liberty Plaza, and developed by that noted champion of anti-corporatism, U.S. Steel, in exchange for exemption from height regulations for the building.
As it stands there is no way to exclude anyone from the site because it is open to the street on all sides. In theory the building’s manageent could fence the whole thing off and hire private security to eject the occupiers. Until the owners of the property object, however, it is quasi-public for all intents and purposes.
Who waved a handgun? Cite please.
Its a bit subtle, to be sure. The idea of publicly wearing a handgun is to say “Look! I’ve got a gun”. Whereas, waving it about is to say, “Look, I’ve got a gun and I’m probably nuts!”
Well, there is also that “subtle” point that carrying a handgun in a holster is legal in many places, and waving it around is legal, oh, nowhere.