Wall Street Protests

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Next up LA!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/11...Occupy-LA-camp

What's your problem with American citizens exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech? LA is pretty far from Georgia last time I checked. Plus, the LA group has been very peaceful. From your link:

But given the congenial southern California climate and largely sympathetic politicians, Los Angeles' protesters have had few incentives to leave, and have given officials few official reasons – like crime or sanitation problems – to act. Indeed, the camp itself has largely steered clear of the kinds of small-time crimes, drug overdoses, and even shootings that have tainted other camps, and which have given other mayors public backing to close down the camps and tear down tents.

It wasn't clear why Villaraigosa chose this moment to act. At the Friday press conference, the mayor and Police Chief Charlie Beck wouldn't say how far police would go to clear protesters – or whether tear gas and rubber bullets would be used.

"The goal is to do this as peacefully as possible," Chief Beck said.

But some Occupy protesters have already indicated that they will resist eviction from the City Hall park.

"Elected leaders should be more concerned about enforcing regulations on banks than enforcing park rules," spokesman Jacob Hay tells the Los Angeles Times. "They should be busy creating jobs, not creating conflict with peaceful protesters."

You just don't want people walking around and freely expressing a point of view that does not agree with your own. Well, you can always move somewhere that does not allow freedom of speech - many places you could choose from.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Unparallelled police brutality" it is to laugh. I have a video of Syrian protesters getting shot in the face...

What Gvidas said. What is it about this movement that has sprung up lately among conservatives to hold the US and the Third World to the same bar? "At least we are not as bad as Syria" is a cop out. We are not in some competition with countries run by dictators and/or governments where the military has seized power away from the people.

This is not about "only" wounding people instead of killing them. This is about the rights given the American people by our constitution. Apparently you think its fine to restrict these freedoms whenever you don't agree with what some group is saying. Yet, whether you agree with the ideas of a given group or not should NEVER be the most important question. Ultimately, it is the right to free speech that we should be monitoring here. Whatever happened to the attitude, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll give my life for your right to say it"?

What's next? The US is better than Sri Lanka during its horrible civil war some years back? Better than Cambodia in the days of the "Killing Fields? Better than Argentina when It was "disappearing" people by pushing them out of airplanes at 15,000 ft? I have seen this "better than THAT atrocity" mindset on other boards besides this one. This outlook baffles me. And nobody would have dreamed of making such crazy comparisons a while ago.

Oh, so they've been hanging black people and civil rights workers? At least the US is better than Hitler's Germany since we don't put African Americans in concentration camps.

Just what kind of behaviors and to what degree of integrity do people in the US aspire to now, anyway?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

What's your problem with American citizens exercising their rights to freedom of assembly.....

Does not equal freedom to occupy....

You just don't want people walking around and freely expressing a point of view that does not agree with your own. Well, you can always move somewhere that does not allow freedom of speech - many places you could choose from.

That would be an assumption on your part. I have no problem with people expressing a point of view that differs from mine, and you should have no problem with me doing the same. I won't be going anywhere. My service to my country is well documented.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by SamIam

What's your problem with American citizens exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Does not equal freedom to occupy....

Freedom to assemble, unless it's in a place.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Freedom to assemble, unless it's in a place.

Not the same as occupy. Nice try.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not the same as occupy. Nice try.

as·sem·ble
   [uh-sem-buhl] Show IPA verb, -bled, -bling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.


oc·cu·py
   [ok-yuh-pahy] Show IPA verb, -pied, -py·ing.
verb (used with object)

4.
to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

So your argument is that if they called themselves the peaceable assembly movement it would be okay to hold a multi-day protest? I understand that arguing is often the point of your arguments, but you didn't pay for an argument. Maybe you want abuse, its just down the hall.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

as·sem·ble
   [uh-sem-buhl] Show IPA verb, -bled, -bling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.


oc·cu·py
   [ok-yuh-pahy] Show IPA verb, -pied, -py·ing.
verb (used with object)

4.
to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

So your argument is that if they called themselves the peaceable assembly movement it would be okay to hold a multi-day protest? I understand that arguing is often the point of your arguments, but you didn't pay for an argument. Maybe you want abuse, its just down the hall.

No, I would argue that prolonged occupation is not the same as a simple "Right to assemble". At some point, against the letter of the law, the initial assembly becomes a form of protest and is no longer an exercise of the Right to assemble but an act of civil disobedience.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, I would argue that prolonged occupation is not the same as a simple "Right to assemble". At some point, against the letter of the law, the initial assembly becomes a form of protest and is no longer an exercise of the Right to assemble but an act of civil disobedience.

It was always a form of protest AND an assembly. What's the point of assembling for redress of grievances if it is not in protest of those grievances?

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by SamIam

If I'm understanding this guy's quote correctly, he's saying the elected leaders responsible for 'creating conflict with peaceful protesters' are the ones who should be focused on enforcing regulations on banks. If I'm understanding his city's situation correctly, it's City Hall calling the shots regarding the protesters. Now I'm curious, what can city hall do to enforce regulations on banks? I thought that was a federal level thing and it's not the feds rousting the protesters.

[SamIam]

Town Hall is responsible for municipal bank reconciliations. An employee of the city (like the town clerk) has the job of accounting for all monies taken in, making sure bank statements tally with the municipalitie's own records and so on. Banks are also subject to regulation on the State level.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

<snip> Now I'm curious, what can city hall do to enforce regulations on banks?
I thought that was a federal level thing and it's not the feds rousting the protesters.

Do a Google News search on "OWS and FBI" to find articles about Homeland Security
participating in conference calls between city officials in several "occupied" cities.
Apparently DHS helped with coordination of both strategy and tactics.

As a result, a group of attorneys have filed Freedom of Information Act papers
to gain access to records of DHS participation in the OWS activites.
.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Do a Google News search on "OWS and FBI" to find articles about Homeland Security
participating in conference calls between city officials in several "occupied" cities.
Apparently DHS helped with coordination of both strategy and tactics.

As a result, a group of attorneys have filed Freedom of Information Act papers
to gain access to records of DHS participation in the OWS activites.
.

My next question would be what actual law enforcement division is out on the streets? The feds holding the line or advising on how to hold it? It'd be a bit different if the feds were actually doing the enforcing.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

It'd be a bit different if the feds were actually doing something.

ftfy

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

My next question would be what actual law enforcement division is out on the streets?
The feds holding the line or advising on how to hold it?
It'd be a bit different if the feds were actually doing the enforcing.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding where we are going with this discussion.
And, it bothers me when someone tries to re-word something another has said.

Were you simply pointing out that signs of the OWS spoke to national issues,
while local authorities have no way to affect those national issues ?
If so, I could agree the locals may be powerless in that respect.

But that still would not be sufficient to nullify the message of the OWS signs.
That is, it's not necessary to have a full fledged "March on Washington" to send a national message.
OTOH, it's hard me to see why the DHS would or should need to be involved in such local demonstrations.
.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding where we are going with this discussion.
And, it bothers me when someone tries to re-word something another has said.

What got re-worded?

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Were you simply pointing out that signs of the OWS spoke to national issues,
while local authorities have no way to affect those national issues ?
If so, I could agree the locals may be powerless in that respect.

Didn't say anything about OWS's signs. I saw that guy's statement about the elected officials enforcing bank regulations instead of bothering protesters. I was curious as to what enforcement local (city/town level) elected officials could enforce on banks, because I thought the enforcement of regulations was done on the federal level. That question was answered.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

But that still would not be sufficient to nullify the message of the OWS signs.
That is, it's not necessary to have a full fledged "March on Washington" to send a national message.
OTOH, it's hard me to see why the DHS would or should need to be involved in such local demonstrations.
.

Didn't say anything about nullifying or otherwise diminishing OWS's message. And frankly, I don't see why an unincorporated city wouldn't call the relevant federal agency if they have a problem. They call FEMA when there are natural disasters... why not call DHS if they perceive a potential security issue?

[Lamplighter]

Sorry, my bad. I meant I was trying to avoid re-wording anything in your posts.