Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Peaceful disruptions or peaceful blockades are a contradiction of terms

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 3:34 p.m. EST by pedro01 (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

OWS is telling us that they are having peaceful disruptions or peaceful blockades. By their nature disruptions and blockades are not peaceful. The U.S. military will disrupt and enemy or form naval blockades and they aren't looking for the Nobel peace prize when they do it. The U.S. military is far superior to the OWS bottom feeders but you get my point.

59 Comments

59 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Ratso (16) 2 years ago

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon... Going to the candidates debate... Laugh about it, shout about it.... When you've got to choose... Every way you look at it you lose....

AND HERE'S TO YOU Ante Pavelić THIS NATION TURNS IT'S LONELY EYES TO YOU....

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what of

non-violent disruptions or non-violent blockades?

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 2 years ago

a good waste of your time

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I guess your point is that you are a Horses Ass!

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

You probably were looking into a mirror backwards when you came up with that one.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Conservatives look back the future is OWS

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

please explain your OWS future? what will you replace the successful American modeln with? communism, socialism? you have no idea.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Who said anything about peaceful? Non violent civil disobedience is not peaceful. It is simply non-violent. No violence is initiated by the protesters, unless you call standing in the street violence.

The bottom feeder is YOU for trying to distort reality for the sake of the 1% that hurts so many people around the globe.

Go home to mommy and feed on her bottom, troll.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

It was from a OWS head lline on this website:.......'One hundred Brooklyn community members and Occupiers peacefully disrupt foreclosure auction '

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Did you see the video? Was there anything other than singing and milling around? Was anyone threatened? Was there a single incidence of anyone so much as touching anyone else? There is more violence in every day in the average playground. It was a peace protest.

That said, OWS has never characterized itself as a peaceful movement: only a non-violent one. And so far, the overwhelming majority of violence was by the police, not OWS.

Now run along and go find an insect you can pull wings off of. That should make someone like you feel very fulfilled.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

iq check! the overwhelming violent occupy protest comes from the occupiers not the police. Brick throwing, stabbings, rapes, molotov cocktails are the weapons of choice for the occupiers.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nope. There was a rape by an outsider. There have been no molotov cocktails, there was one incident of brick trowing in California by a pre-existing group called Black Bloc, and there have been no stabbings by any protesters in protest. OWS has not attacked Wall Street execs, Dock workers, or anyone else they are protesting.

The police, on the other hand have needlessly used batons, pepper spray, and even broke the windows of a cop car (he was filmed doing it) to try to lay the blame on OWS. Only the police caused a severe head injury to a war veteran.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

of course all of the protesters are innocent!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I never said that. I'm sure there have been a few rogues. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that OWS is based in non-violence. ML King based his methods on non-violence as well. That didn't mean everyone who marched with him listened. And the fact that they didn't is no reflection on him. Timothy McVeigh was not representative of all supporters of the first amendment, even though he murdered people because he was protesting Waco.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17724) 2 years ago

That was pretty cool.......eh?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OWS bottom feeders did not come from the headline. That was your very own addition. So, don't try to backtrack.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

the question from our distinguished friend epa1nter was 'who said anything about peaceful?' I showed him or her the quote from OWS news using that word 'peaceful'

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OWS bottom feeders did not come from the headline. That was your very own addition. So, don't try to backtrack.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

Wake up, you are not following me. The words are my own as i don't just copy / paste

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, I'm following you. Isn't this fun?

The words are your own because you are a douche bag. You serve no purpose other than to be a douche bag.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

look you have problems, you probably are a failure in life and choose to take it out on the world. the good news that you can change if you want to.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Isn't this fun? Isn't this what you came for?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

If you get between me and my Constitutional freedoms it is not really a question of whether you are violent, non-violent or just an idiot, does it??

If you are supporting a blockade what are you really doing. Are you preventing a business from making sales OR are you preventing an individual from making purchases.

Terminalogy is not really the cause - what is happening is the cause.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

is this about economic sanctions on Iran?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Who said anything about Iran? The topic is blockades and disruptions.

I DO NOT like disruptions. I got things to do, and I do not need any disruptions.

Such actions only make me more against the blockcade or disrupting party regardless of how well they might be intended. Just do not get between me and my freedoms of movement, speech, assembly, or my right to buy, sell, be, or pretend to be, etc.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

what are talking about? You make no sense at all.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Maybe it is too early in the day for you.

What I intended was this:

A blockade is a line. Do you intend that line to be the point across which a person cannot cross and thus you take away a sale from the business on the other side. Or do you intend that the line be the point across which a person cannot cross to make a purchase.

A blockade must necessiarly have an impact upon two entities.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

no, its not too early, i really don't understand what you are saying

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Well, I will try again.

If someone decides that medicine is too expensive and decised to blockade the local pharmacy who are they really after:

  1. The pharmacy who is selling expensive drugs. Thus attempting to stop them from selling the drugs.

  2. The person who needs the medication. Who is now being stopped by the blockade from getting that needed medication.

A blockade, after all, means preventing access.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

OK so the blockade in this case is a form of violence as it is denying freedom of choice to go that pharmacy.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Well, you can always call it what ever you want - to me it is taking freedom away from someone in favor of one's self and one's self interest.

Then you can describe "violent" and "non-violent" and make that whatever you want too.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, did you have a point other than being a total jack off?

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

Yes of course, i had a point. Isn't it obvious? If not,... my point is that saying that a disruption or a blockade is peaceful is a contradiction or a oxymoron.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You distort the truth. Non -Violence does not have to be peaceful,It just does not use violent acts to achive it's end.Again you are a Horses Ass

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OWS bottom feeders

I got it right, you are a douche bag.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I got it right tou are the dropings of a horses ass

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Which would have been great. Had you replied to the person that you called a horses ass to begin with.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I did,Nobnot has no beef with you lady.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You serve no other purpose other than to be a douche bag.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

there is nothing peaceful in a distraction or blockade. This is not how non viiolent protests are done

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Awe. This is how nonviolent protests are done.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If you hinder people from going about their work, the govt has the right to take necessary action.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Just like a conservative always depending on the goverment

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Oh, so now I am a conservative? Fascist, Republican, Fox news viewer what else? FYI I am none of those. People who do not agree with you do not have to be any of those types. Just as I dont think you guys are leftist. In fact, most leftist I have met are far smarter than you guys

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Awwwwweeee, pobrecito. Have you been hindered? Is that why you are here?

[-] -2 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

Sorry that you feel that way :>

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, you don't. Don't lie on top of the shit. You serve no other purpose other than to be a douche bag.

There is a problem with that. This means that even if you have some point to make in the future it will be dismissed. Of course, that is your problem and not mine.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

I think what we have here is a disagreement, that's OK. I think that disruptions aren't peaceful and you don't.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, what we have here is not a disagreement. I think you are a douchebag. You came with the intention of starting shit. Isn't this fun? Isn't this what you came for?

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

i don't know, you seem to be the one arguing. I understand that you don't agree with me and that's that.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Isn't this fun?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

contradiction can sometimes clarify an argument

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

This isn't about clarification and you know it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think the blockades on Iran

serve to isolate the nations from each other

so lines and good guys and bad guys can be drawn

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That's nice.

I think those lines are drawn pretty damn clear. Don't you?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

repeatedly

in the State of the Union address

some warned that the military industry seeks perpetual war

possible with China or Russia

both of which have not condemned Iran

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They are involved in trade agreements with Iran. Always have been. Why would you expect them to condemn Iran?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I would not

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I wouldn't look for it in the future either.