Occupy protests set for May 1

[cybrsage]

Catholic Worker Movement

The radical philosophy of the group can be described as Christian anarchism.[7] Anne Klejment, a history lecturer at University of St. Thomas, wrote of the Catholic Worker Movement:

The Catholic Worker considered itself a Christian anarchist movement. All authority came from God; and the state, having by choice distanced itself from Christian perfectionism, forfeited its ultimate authority over the citizen...Catholic Worker anarchism followed Christ as a model of nonviolent revolutionary behavior...He respected individual conscience. But he also preached a prophetic message, difficult for many of his contemporaries to embrace.[8]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement

They use the Bible as their guide but ignore the parts which say they should follow the rules of their government (except where it violates the rules of God).


EDIT: I have no problem with peaceful protests. Violent protests? No, you should and will be arrested and punished.
​

 

[Icepick]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36a04b185dcb40fe95771f8296a96551.html
This link is a little old (a week) but, then again, so is this thread. I've got to hand it to our D.A. He's a stand-up guy and has consistently supported the local OWS protestors in voicing their opinions in a non-violent manner. Once again, he is refusing to prosecute a few protestors who were arrested for their involvement in the latest OWS activities. Other mayors can take a que from this man in how to serve your constituency.

 

[cybrsage]

If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If he refuses to do his job, he should be fired and replaced.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36a04b185dcb40fe95771f8296a96551.html
This link is a little old (a week) but, then again, so is this thread. I've got to hand it to our D.A. He's a stand-up guy and has consistently supported the local OWS protestors in voicing their opinions in a non-violent manner. Once again, he is refusing to prosecute a few protestors who were arrested for their involvement in the latest OWS activities. Other mayors can take a que from this man in how to serve your constituency.

On a somewhat related note, the Occupy Des Moines protestors arrested for trespassing on the Iowa Capitol grounds after hours had their day in court a few weeks ago. They were acquitted by the judge. Turns out there's still some room for Freedom of Speech.

(This is the protest I mentioned months ago where I lauded the professionalism of the Iowa Department of Public Safety officers who removed allegedly trespassing protestors without using violence or injuring anyone. Quite a contrast with the thuggery shown by a few other law enforcement agencies.)

 

[Bowfinger]

If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If he refuses to do his job, he should be fired and replaced.

Really? You don't see any room for a prosecutor's judgment about what is and is not worth the court's time and taxpayers' dollars? Should every case of jaywalking be prosecuted, for example? It seems like those who squeal the loudest about government waste and government stupidity would applaud a public servant who applies common sense to save taxpayers' money and limit government intrusion.

 

[Pens1566]

Right, right...this is an isolated incident, not connected to OWS at all.

That excuse doesn't hold water anymore, especially since some occupiers tried to blow up a bridge.

"Some" that were described by the Federal affidavits as not like the rest of the occupy crowd they were observed at.

Seriously, get help.

 

[spidey07]

"Some" that were described by the Federal affidavits as not like the rest of the occupy crowd they were observed at.

Seriously, get help.

I know, I know. Not part of occupy, isolated incident. No connection.

 

[monovillage]

If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If he refuses to do his job, he should be fired and replaced.

I agree 100%.

 

[monovillage]

Really? You don't see any room for a prosecutor's judgment about what is and is not worth the court's time and taxpayers' dollars? Should every case of jaywalking be prosecuted, for example? It seems like those who squeal the loudest about government waste and government stupidity would applaud a public servant who applies common sense to save taxpayers' money and limit government intrusion.

I love how you give a wink and a nod to lawbreakers when it's a conservatives ox that's being gored. Would you say the same if it were Westfall Baptists breaking the law? The same if it were anti-abortion protesters in front of a woman's health clinic?

You'd be squealing like a wooden wheel that hadn't been greased in 5 years.

 

[Bowfinger]

I love how you give a wink and a nod to lawbreakers when it's a conservatives ox that's being gored. Would you say the same if it were Westfall Baptists breaking the law? The same if it were anti-abortion protesters in front of a woman's health clinic?

You'd be squealing like a wooden wheel that hadn't been greased in 5 years.

And I love how you're incapable of directly addressing what I said, instead inventing not just the usual lame straw man, but a completely hypothetical, lame straw man. Bully for you. I'm overwhelmed by your stunning command of fact and reason. Oh wait, that's just gas. Oops. Never mind. You failed again.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I love how you give a wink and a nod to lawbreakers when it's a conservatives ox that's being gored. Would you say the same if it were Westfall Baptists breaking the law? The same if it were anti-abortion protesters in front of a woman's health clinic?

You'd be squealing like a wooden wheel that hadn't been greased in 5 years.

I note the article states the protestors whose prosecution was declined did not damage property or harm police officers, while other protestors who tried to erect a table in a public park are being prosecuted. Absent any more information on the offenses committed by the first group (less grievous than setting up a table?) I should defer to the district attorney's judgement.

 

[Bowfinger]

I note the article states the protestors whose prosecution was declined did not damage property or harm police officers, while other protestors who tried to erect a table in a public park are being prosecuted. Absent any more information on the offenses committed by the first group (less grievous than setting up a table?) I should defer to the district attorney's judgement.

Oh hush. You're being rational. Nutters hate that. They crave emotion. They crave OUTRAGE!!!!

 

[monovillage]

I note the article states the protestors whose prosecution was declined did not damage property or harm police officers, while other protestors who tried to erect a table in a public park are being prosecuted. Absent any more information on the offenses committed by the first group (less grievous than setting up a table?) I should defer to the district attorney's judgement.

Good point and one i'll give a partial agreement to, peaceful protesters are not the ones that should usually face prosecution.
I still feel my remarks about Westfall Baptists and peaceful protesters in front of a clinic that get arrested is spot on in Bowfingers case.

 

[alzan]

The Occupy movement is just a liberal, commie pinko, Marxist, capitalism-hater organization.

/spidey07-mode

 

[halik]

Good God, American schools must suck even more than I realized. Apparently reading comprehension is a lost art in some sectors. Did you happen to notice the headline for the page you linked? It's those big, bold words at the top of the screen:

Catholic Worker NATO protest

And if that's too subtle for you, there's the very first sentence: "About 100 demonstrators, organized by the Catholic Worker movement, ..." But no, I'm sure you and Spidey know this is really secret code for Occupy Wall Street. It must be a media conspiracy, that's the only logical* explanation. (*Where "logical" apparently means "insane".)

Here's a hint. I have a Rolling Stones t-shirt. It doesn't mean I'm a member of the band, let alone a representative for them.


Edit: I should also commend you on your commitment to emulating Spidey. Eleven pictures showing scores of signs and shirts (almost entirely with anti-war messages), yet you managed to shut them all out except for the single, solitary one that included the word "Occupy". Here's another hint. Reality isn't just the 3% sliver of the world that corroborates your biases.

Right, the notion that a person getting arrested as part of "anti-capitalist week" protests, wearing an Occupy whatever tshirt is no way associated to said group that promised a week of protests aimed in part at their gripes with capitalism. Totally "insane" conjecture ...

http://occupychi.org/2012/05/14/may-14-21-nato-week-action

At least they didn't break shit; as misguided as they may be.

 

[cybrsage]

Really? You don't see any room for a prosecutor's judgment about what is and is not worth the court's time and taxpayers' dollars?

No.

Should every case of jaywalking be prosecuted, for example?

Yes.

If the law is not going to be enforced, remove the law. If it is the law, it must be enforced. What next, a judge who decides murder is a law he is not going to bother with? A judge who decides what laws should be enforced and what laws should not be enforced - or worse, selectively enforces the same law based on his personal views - should be removed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Good point and one i'll give a partial agreement to, peaceful protesters are not the ones that should usually face prosecution.
I still feel my remarks about Westfall Baptists and peaceful protesters in front of a clinic that get arrested is spot on in Bowfingers case.

So when you get past your gratuitous compulsion to attack anything I say, you actually agree with me, at least somewhat. It's OK for prosecutors to use discretion in prosecuting (or not) minor, non-violent, non-destructive crimes.

And no matter what you feel, I challenge you to find any of my posts where I've suggested non-violent, non-destructive protestors must be prosecuted (e.g., Tea Party protests, Westboro Baptists, even the neo-Nazis.) I'm a fallible human being to be sure, but I try to be consistent in my beliefs ... and I very much believe my .sig. Supporting the free speech rights of those you disagree with is very much part of living in a free society.

 

[Abraxas]

No.



Yes.

If the law is not going to be enforced, remove the law. If it is the law, it must be enforced. What next, a judge who decides murder is a law he is not going to bother with? A judge who decides what laws should be enforced and what laws should not be enforced - or worse, selectively enforces the same law based on his personal views - should be removed.

How much in the way of taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend for the wages, training, and equipment to hunt down every single speeder in America every moment of every day?

 

[Bowfinger]

Right, the notion that a person getting arrested as part of "anti-capitalist week" protests, wearing an Occupy whatever tshirt is no way associated to said group that promised a week of protests aimed in part at their gripes with capitalism. Totally "insane" conjecture ...

http://occupychi.org/2012/05/14/may-14-21-nato-week-action

At least they didn't break shit; as misguided as they may be.

Yes, you made your emotion-based beliefs clear. Nonetheless, the news articles about this specific incident do not support your beliefs. OWS is but one of a great many groups who have descended upon Chicago, mostly in response to the NATO meetings. According to the factual evidence presented here, this specific protest was NOT related to OWS, but was instead organized by the Catholic Worker movement. That's simply a fact, no matter how inconvenient it is for your dearly-held beliefs.

Further, the photos of the event -- photos from your link -- do NOT support your beliefs. The signs were uniformly focused on war, NATO, etc. Your girl with the Occupy t-shirt is the single, solitary exception as far as I saw. Like Spidey, you see only the 3% that matches your faith, not the 97% that contradict you.

 

[cybrsage]

How much in the way of taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend for the wages, training, and equipment to hunt down every single speeder in America every moment of every day?

Now you are being stupid on purpose. You do understand the difference between finding and catching someone who broke the law and a person already in court, don't you?

If not, please say so, I will explain it to you.

 

[Bowfinger]

No.



Yes.

If the law is not going to be enforced, remove the law. If it is the law, it must be enforced. What next, a judge who decides murder is a law he is not going to bother with? A judge who decides what laws should be enforced and what laws should not be enforced - or worse, selectively enforces the same law based on his personal views - should be removed.

Your heavy-handed, authoritarian views are anathema to a free society. The world is not a black and white place.

 

[cybrsage]

Your heavy-handed, authoritarian views are anathema to a free society. The world is not a black and white place.

You are right, there is a lot of yellow and brown as well. But the various races have nothing to do with judges deciding that people who break the law should not be punished for breaking the law - sometimes, whenever they feel like it.

 

[Abraxas]

Now you are being stupid on purpose. You do understand the difference between finding and catching someone who broke the law and a person already in court, don't you?

If not, please say so, I will explain it to you.

Ah, I see, so you ignore the original question in order to gain an advantage in debate, moving the goal posts to better obscure the view of your brain damage. Fine, we will do things your way.

How much are you willing to spend in taxpayer dollars in training, wages, equipment, and facilities to accommodate a full prosecution of everyone arrested for everything?

 

[cybrsage]

Sigh. Context, it is something you want to ignore, but which I am not going to let you. What is the context of my post?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Sigh. Context, it is something you want to ignore, but which I am not going to let you. What is the context of my post?

Your unrelenting condemnation of all things "liberal"?