 |
Come senators, congressmenQuote:
The songs came AFTER the movement had legs..
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Bob Dylan 1964
Watching the Bowel Movement having their Poo in the Park events is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Listening to you is like setting my hair on fire.
excon
So why are you still watching? Change the channel, that's what a remote is for. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
'Occupy Wall Street Blind to Capitalism'
This link discusses capitalism in terms of multinationals or very large corporations, not small business interests of Mums and Dads.
Some or perhaps many OWS protestors show a lack of understanding of how capitalism works. However, what some people do understand is that Multinationals have become so large and so powerful they have the money and resources to make politicians their constituency. The have the money, power and legal resources to challenge state and local laws and regulations if they see them as being a hindrance to their goals.
In a previous post I rejected the Whittle argument that requires protestors to go home because corporations have given them iphones, computers, petrol of their cars, etc, etc. Whittle says protests should go home and be grateful for corporations.
Whittle also suggest that protestors are spoilt and lazy while corporations are prepared to do the dirty work. The only conclusion we can draw is for the protestors to go home and let corporations do what they do best.Yes, corporations do these things very well. The problem is they do other things too well.
This link is also putting forward a similar, 'where would you be without corporations type of argument?' However, the author takes a slightly different approach. He claims that the protestors want to dismantle capitalism in favour of some type of socialist system. The principle of bivalence (one or the other) doesn't have to apply here.
Their one demand should be to rein in the corporate Leviathan. This doesn't mean destroy it. Only a fool would want that.
Tut
the idea that corporatisation is somehow a good thing is flawed. It doesn't matter what you give power to, that power will be usurped because of the type of individual that rises to the top. Not a person who has to face the judgement of an electorate but a person who like to rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
we need to remove opportunism from the equation, the idea that I can make a buck at the expense of someoneelse and that is OK. This is evident in the hedge funds and traders who manipulate markets
Boundaries would work for me. Strong boundaries. I don't want companies, or governments telling me what to do. I want options, and opportunities.
Hello:
DISGUSTING... Did I say DISGUSTING?? Let me say it again, the cops are DISGUSTING...
UC Davis police defend use of pepper spray on Occupy protesters - latimes.com
excon
Yes ,it is unacceptable .
Hello again, tom:
Switching sides? I KNEW you'd come around.
excon
If they were doing that on my property I would have urinated on them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You CALL yourself a Constitution loving American, but you haven't a clue about what it means... You DO represent the low information FOX viewer quite well, though.
excon
That video was ugly. There needs to be some heads rolling for that.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What? Me calling him out, or him saying he'd pi$$ on some kids?
excon
See my edit.
The don't have a right to "occupy" property they don't own... none of them have any "right" to occupy property I own.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If they didn't that on MY property... it would have gotten a lot uglier than that before I ran them off. Let them try and "occupy" my house... there are going to be a lot of people shot and killed. Like every single one that doesn't get out my front or back door before I got to them. Or every single one that even looks to be threatening me outside on my property.
They don't have the "right" to commit the massive numbers of crimes they have been. The don't have the right to do 99.99% if what they think they do.
They all have forgotten their rights end where the rights of others begin.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
They weren't in your house.. They were on PUBLIC property.
I'm not going to waste time in giving you, yet again, another lesson on the Constitution... Suffice, to say, you haven't a clue...
I have NO idea what kind of country YOU'D like to live in, but keep me as far away from it as possible...
excon
Smoothy ,the pepper spray was excess force which makes it brutality that crosses the line .
I don't have a problem with evicting the protesters .But the use of the pepper spray was ham handed . That should be used if and when it becomes a violent confrontation by the protesters.
In NYC a protester slashed a cops hand . He's the one who needed a face full of pepper .
Look ;there has been more than one idiot from the left who's said that this movement needs a Kent State moment. I'm not enthusiastic about giving it to them.
No they weren't . They were on the university property and the University had the right to evict. The campus police went too far .That's all.Quote:
They weren't in your house.. They were on PUBLIC property
And again, see my edit. Those kids didn't deserve that.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes they were.. They were on the campus of the University of California. It's an institution owned by the citizens of the state of California.. You can't get more public than that.
excon
Really ? I kind of doubt that anyone has the right to gather on the campus . It is University property regardless if it is a state owned operation.
AND... these students were in violation of the University code of conduct.
Quote:
Violation 102.16: Failure to Comply
Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his or her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such University or other public officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.
http://extension.berkeley.edu/info/studentconduct.pdfQuote:
Violation 102.26: Camping or Lodging
Camping or lodging on University property other than in authorized facilities.
Hello again, tom:
Let me see... You got the Constitution... and you got the University Code of Conduct...
Uhhhh, the Constitution wins...
excon
They had every right to evict them, but not spray them, and all the dumb university cop had to do was call a "real" cop, and had them arrested.
The university got carried away, and for that they should pay consequences. The protestors KNEW they were going to jail, so take 'em, but not spray 'em with pepper spray.
What's amazing is that we all agree on that part. :eek:
Hello tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Uhh, not all of us..
excon
Which part is that?
Smoothy.
I don't exactly think it was wrong if it actually went down as I had heard. The student were given warning over a bullhorn and were warned 2 times. Do you think they should have been tazzed instead? Those are the levels of police aggression that are employed today. Don't believe me. Go try something with your local cop and see how long it takes before things escalate. To be fair I also haven't seen video of the claimed forcing of mouths being opened and pepper spay being shot directly into the mouth. Is it too far? Maybe or then again maybe not. When breaking laws your taking your chances. When showing resistance those chances and likelyhoods increase exponentionaly. Unless it was ordered otherwise then they had no choice to escalate their responses to the situation. What choices were they given besides allowing it to continue?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Cuff 'em, load 'em up, and book 'em. One at a time. Just me though, I would have left them alone, and there would have been no confrontation.
Been in a sit in or two back in the day. "Hell no, we won't go!". I mean geeez, how much suffering can you ignore? Maybe your life is great, but clearly not everyone's life is great, and for many, its down right lousy.
We can do better, and should. Go ahead, blame the messengers.
Yeah, they all had their little zip tie handcuffs on their belts, wouldn't take a lot to cuff a peaceful protester and load them up.
Or the university could have ignored them, unless there was UNpeaceful things going on.
I'm old school, if you have a bug in your A$$ then you have a right to say it. I don't have the right to be mad, and break your windows out.
Well apparently they weren't too happy with them setting up a tent city, and who can blame them after all the lice outbreaks, lung diseases and other assorted nastiness from these protests?
Hello dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
What to continue?? A Constitutional peaceful protest?? They could have walked away.
excon
They will adjust. Go home, come back rested, refreshed, and cleaned up, louder, and more determined.
The tents being up and the protesters surrounding the tents. In the article that was posted it did say they were resisting arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What did they think was going to happen ? I saw this in San Fran the other night during their protest and they got up one by one as they were told and went with the arrest. Nobody got hurt and nothing got destroyed.
There is no constitutional right to occupy. Free speech is still subject to time, place and manner restrictions. Tents are shelter, not speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We're talking about the right to assemble. It's in the same amendment. That takes shelter. You didn't know about the right to assemble?? Well, no wonder you're on their case.. This changes everything.
excon
A little refresher along with some Supreme Court decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Right To Assemble (Informational Paper)
Ex you have the right to assemble, not squat. The problem with protest is that they don't take into account other people's right's. A public park is for all people not just protesters, so there is a point when protesters need to move on and that point is certainly when they become a public health risk and the welfare provision overrides "promote the general Welfare," It is about the context in which you do things that determine your right to do it, this appears to be missed.
These people are not assembling in order to exercise their right of petition they are are assembling in order to conduct some form of bouycott against specific persons or institutions and therefore whether they are assembling peacefully has to be questioned.
There is no right to assemble on private property and even in public it is frequently subject to permits . There is a right to assemble ,protest . There is NO right to to take up residence in public parks or public places or disrupt there .
What they were practicing was civil disobedience ,not freedom of assembly. Civil disobedience may be noble and even at times the moral thing to do as Henry David Thoreau wrote . But those who practice it should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 AM. |