Occupy Wall Street Demands

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by kptvol, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. MG1968

    MG1968 New Member

    malls and other stores generally have their own security forces, local police are used to supplement, not replace them.

    also, I'm pretty sure private businesses have to reimburse the municipality for police presence.
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    So you are for removal of freedom due to fear of lawsuit? What other freedoms can we throw under the bus in the name of avoiding lawsuit, or for the "possibility of avoiding a lawsuit?"

    Why not start by removing all dogs over 70 lbs because a police officer might have to draw down on one to keep from getting bit...
     
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Security is not police. Private business may or may not reimburse, I could not tell you. But that does not alter anything.

    Remove the police presence from the "occupy movement," and if the movement wants to get personal security, allow them to do so. It is no different than anywhere else.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    None of this alters the fact that it is still an affront to liberty. If a friggen fireworks show happens on the 4th of July in that park, are your freedoms encroached because someone else setup their blanket in the spot you wanted to watch from? No.

    They have been there for months, yea. Doesn't change much. If there is crime within, police the crime, based on calls, not speculation.

    If the best argument for kicking them out is because other citizens can't use the property while it is being occupied, this is not a good enough reason to violate the 1st Amendment, which, by chance, doesn't say the right to peacefully assemble for x,y,z minutes. It just says the right to peacefully assemble.
     
  5. MG1968

    MG1968 New Member

    a "friggen fireworks show on July 4th" is just that, a show on July 4th. It doesn't last for months, it doesn't involve rape, drug use, disease and vandalism.

    the protesters do not have the right to deny other people their rights, get off your moral high horse
     
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Again, the 1st Amendment does not have a time course stipulation. It doesn't imply that assembly ends at midnight.

    Whether or not rape, drug use, vandalism or any other associated crimes occur does not alter the fundamental liberty. If you think honoring the Constitution is a "moral high horse," then yea, I'm on one.

    No "rights" are denied to anyone else. They may use that park as well, they'll just have to deal with everyone else using that park. Their rights have not been violated.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Some of you guys clearly don't realize liberty isn't just Veteran's Day parades and warm fuzzies. It is also dirty masses of society gathering and demonstrating. That IS liberty.
     
  8. See this link? When your 'liberty' gives you the right to harass and bully small children. Then that same 'liberty' gives the protectors of said children the right to put a bullet in your thick [uck fay]ing skull.
     
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You like history, right?

    Hooverville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    At which point did I say the tax paying public is responsible for anything? You are the one that seems to think that we have to clean up after them. Why is that that you think they must be cleaned up after, and have security, a warm blanket, and a night light?

    Just leave them alone, and provide nothing. Why is this complicated?
     
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Hell no they aren't cleaning up after themselves. Or, and here is a thought, leave the trash there until they leave. Then clean it up. There is no reason to constantly clean up after them, at all.

    If they make the place a dump, they can stay in a dump.

    There is no requirement for any of the things that you are [itch bay]ing about, which means your gripe should be with your city officials for doing the things you are complaining about. Or trample liberty by mass removal, either way.

    You don't seem much concerned by either, really. Just the eye sore.
     
  12. They aren't leaving others alone. They harass, bully, and attack people trying to get to work, children trying to get to school, citizens going about their daily lives, police and fire who are on scene to maintain order and safety, and even each other.

    Leave them alone to act aggressively and violently towards others?
     
  13. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    they seem to be begging police harassment. every asshole has their cell phone out just waiting for for the police to do something stupid.
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    So long as they are "acting" aggressively, and not actually being violent. Yes.

    When a few become violent, you arrest them, not disband all of them. You don't trample freedoms because it doesn't fit your world view, because that isn't freedom.
     
  15. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    "If you haven't done anything wrong officer, you have nothing to fear."

    Or is that just what cops tell us when they want to search us, or what some here say when phone tapping...
     
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck


    I missed the footnote that defines assembly in the Constitution. What section was that in, again?
     
  17. Aggressive behavior towards innocent people is a form of intimidation. Free speech does not include the right to scare and intimidate others.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Actually it does. What is intimidation? I think signs that say abortion is murder is intimidation. Can I shut down all planned parenthood protests? No.

    In other words, it is free speech until proven otherwise.

    If the city wants these guys gone, take it to court first. Don't evict first and then have it taken to court.

    If Hartford has taken this to court, and state Supreme court has determined that their actions are not 1st Amendment protected, then I'm for eviction. If they have not done so first, prior to eviction, they have not proved that Occupy actions are not 1st amendment protected, and are thus trampling freedom.
     
  19. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    yes, but one idiot cop out of a 300 pepper sprays some kids and now they can pull the stormtrooper card.
     
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    One idiot out of 1.2 mil wants to blow something up, and is caught, and now we justify the Patriot Act. Your point?
     

Share This Page