Did you see the pic that was going around Facebook of the tents camped out at Walmart for Black Friday with "OK" written under it, but the OWS tent picture had "not OK" under it?
I often wonder the same thing. Teabaggers often come to events with guns when that is clearly prohibited (e.g., Presidential speeches) and somehow get to claim their exercising their rights, while camping gear 9and even musical instruments) are banned for unarmed occupy protesters.
Catsynth--If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that the armed Tea Partiers knew the law, knew where it was legal for them to carry and went to that border and no farther. Some of this was obviously meant to be provocative, but with minimal inconvenience to others.
...as opposed to the OWS, which appears to be maximizing nuisance until their demands are met...as soon as they figure out what those demands are.
Assuming that the government decided to give in--what would have to happen to end the OWS protests? Can they be ended without violating someone else's constitutional rights?
sevesteen is obviously a yankee. here in the south gun carriers didnt pay attention to shit. they meant to scare ppl. fuck 'minimal inconvenience' some of us still hold teabaggers responsible for gabriell gifford and dont forget it.
So what laws were broken in the south? Some vast conspiracy involving both local cops and the feds that kept illegally armed people from being arrested?
What I saw was numerous news stories "OMG, people with guns near the president", while barely mentioning that they were outside the secure area--and often with deceptive camera angles.
The problem here is the same as with the OWS--either side can say 'he's not one of us'. Some gun bloggers claimed that the idiot who shot at the white house took refuge in an OWS protest area, therefore represents the OWS movement. That's almost as much bullshit as blaming the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin for the nut that shot Giffords.
Thanks to Yellowdog Grannie!
7 comments:
Did you see the pic that was going around Facebook of the tents camped out at Walmart for Black Friday with "OK" written under it, but the OWS tent picture had "not OK" under it?
truth!
Remember when the OWS crowd paid $10000 to have their rally in the park in Richmond... ME NEITHER!
I often wonder the same thing. Teabaggers often come to events with guns when that is clearly prohibited (e.g., Presidential speeches) and somehow get to claim their exercising their rights, while camping gear 9and even musical instruments) are banned for unarmed occupy protesters.
Catsynth--If you paid attention, you'd have noticed that the armed Tea Partiers knew the law, knew where it was legal for them to carry and went to that border and no farther. Some of this was obviously meant to be provocative, but with minimal inconvenience to others.
...as opposed to the OWS, which appears to be maximizing nuisance until their demands are met...as soon as they figure out what those demands are.
Assuming that the government decided to give in--what would have to happen to end the OWS protests? Can they be ended without violating someone else's constitutional rights?
sevesteen is obviously a yankee. here in the south gun carriers didnt pay attention to shit. they meant to scare ppl. fuck 'minimal inconvenience' some of us still hold teabaggers responsible for gabriell gifford and dont forget it.
So what laws were broken in the south? Some vast conspiracy involving both local cops and the feds that kept illegally armed people from being arrested?
What I saw was numerous news stories "OMG, people with guns near the president", while barely mentioning that they were outside the secure area--and often with deceptive camera angles.
The problem here is the same as with the OWS--either side can say 'he's not one of us'. Some gun bloggers claimed that the idiot who shot at the white house took refuge in an OWS protest area, therefore represents the OWS movement. That's almost as much bullshit as blaming the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin for the nut that shot Giffords.
Post a Comment