• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Cincinnati Not To Ticket OWS'ers

There's been some video of OBVIOUSLY bad police conduct out of NYC; I think it was hoped there'd be more in other cities. Nothing along the lines of cracking heads, but tazing, clearly unwarranted arrests, etc. Though of late, that seems to have leveled off.
While I understand the general sentiment you are espousing I really don't think the OWS protesers actually WANT more "Bad Police Conduct". I will admit that most OWSers probably understand how instances of this benefits their cause, but thats a far cry from wanting to get beat on the head, or tazed etc...

I know nothing about Boston's political climate, but both Cleveland and Cincinnati have Democratic mayors (the one on Cleveland is owned and operated by the Democratic party machine here in Cuyahoga County like a ventriloquist's puppet, I exaggerate not), and there seems to be some bizarre-o belief among these people that these OWSers and their bad bahevior will help get Obama re-elected. (I can't followthat reasoning AT ALL.)

So, many people are "using" the nitwits at these protests for their own political gain...and the young people apparently haven't got the wits to see that they're being used.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. To say politicians are using the OWSers is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.... Think about it... The aim of any protest is to start a public dialog. If politicians actually start addressing these issues publicly the it would appear to me that the goal of starting dialog is met. Hell, the fact that we are debating it (to one extent or another) on these forums is proof in my opinion that it is in fact having an impact at some level. I will however agree that most of the public dialogues will most likely be kow-towing to the OWS merely up until election day at which point many of these politicians that may have enjoyed a boost from OWS will simply ignore them..... of course they also could actually get elected and start trying to address these issues just as easily.

I just seem to be of the opinion that some (not all, mind you) of those in opposition to the OWSer's protests are really just upset that it is (at least temporarily) drowning out the drum beats from the various TP groups, yet others may genuinely disagree with the message and yet others are simply saying it's not my group... I don't like them.
 
Lets be honest here, here is an overly generalized version of this particular thread:

I don't know what they stand for... But I disagree with them
They are unorganized.... yet this or that group is behind it all
Yeah sure they have a Constitutionally protected right to peacably assemble to petition the government for a redress of greivences...... but only if local park camping ordinances are obeyed and it doesn't offend me
 
Lets be honest here, here is an overly generalized version of this particular thread:

I don't know what they stand for... But I disagree with them
They are unorganized.... yet this or that group is behind it all
Yeah sure they have a Constitutionally protected right to peacably assemble to petition the government for a redress of greivences...... but only if local park camping ordinances are obeyed and it doesn't offend me

Uh, no. I approve of the ACLU...I'd support their right to assemble and protest no matter what their cause was. Of course, you don't know me IRL, so you'll have to accept that (or not) as an article of faith.

Nonetheless, it's true. IMO, the proper constraint on their rights has nothing to do with the content of their speech. I never complained about any Tea Party event, and the last time I complained about a group's conduct in protesting, it was about the Wisconsin union workers filling the state capitol building far beyond its capacity....because it was a fire hazard.
 
Last edited:
I mean as a conservative you can't honestly be in favor of government subverting, and by threat of violence mind you, individual protections provided by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, are you? <--- hoping for an answer to this

I fall close to the far end of the Conservative political spectrum. I'm an Authoritarian. My utopian societal concept includes large doses of the ideals set forth in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" universe and Harlon Ellison's "Repent Harlequin Said the Tick-Tock Man". I believe that the Founding Fathers were incredibly naive in many of the things they did.
 
While I understand the general sentiment you are espousing I really don't think the OWS protesers actually WANT more "Bad Police Conduct". I will admit that most OWSers probably understand how instances of this benefits their cause, but thats a far cry from wanting to get beat on the head, or tazed etc...

Swit, there are literally 1,000's of posts on facebook every couple of days just that I personally see, about how to face off with a cop, what to do after being arrested, etc. There's even some "National Legal Service" with an 800 number being touted, that OSWers can allegedly call for free legal assistance if arrested or threatened with arrest. I've been a lawyer since 1988 and never heard of any such group of lawyers before. I'll bet next month's mortgage payment the group did not exist before these OWS protest started and where their funding is coming from, I can't tell...but I have my suspicions.

There's not one doubt in my mind that there is a huge contingent encouraging these OWSers to seek to be arrested, or worse.


I'm not sure I agree with you here. To say politicians are using the OWSers is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.... Think about it... The aim of any protest is to start a public dialog. If politicians actually start addressing these issues publicly the it would appear to me that the goal of starting dialog is met. Hell, the fact that we are debating it (to one extent or another) on these forums is proof in my opinion that it is in fact having an impact at some level. I will however agree that most of the public dialogues will most likely be kow-towing to the OWS merely up until election day at which point many of these politicians that may have enjoyed a boost from OWS will simply ignore them..... of course they also could actually get elected and start trying to address these issues just as easily.

I never protested to "start a dialogue". I did so to apply pressure to my government (or to a foreign government) to stop an action I opposed, or to start one I supported. It's preposterous to protest at private companies (apart from union and strike events) unless you hope to start a boycott of their products or to damage their good will. Private companies, as opposed to our government, are not answerable to the general public.

OWSers' demands for "less greed", "less entanglement with government", etc. are just plain meaningless. There can be nothing which can be described as a "goal" at all if nobody can describe the conditions under which that goal would considered as having been achieved.


I just seem to be of the opinion that some (not all, mind you) of those in opposition to the OWSer's protests are really just upset that it is (at least temporarily) drowning out the drum beats from the various TP groups, yet others may genuinely disagree with the message and yet others are simply saying it's not my group... I don't like them.

I'd fit in with most Tea Party types about as well as a card-carrying communist. I think if you read more of my posts on different subjects, you'll find that that I'm quite liberal on most social justice issues, and quite passionate about economic justice.

This is a false (though no doubt comfy) paradigm you've created for yourself about some of your fellow posters on this thread. IMO, it uses a lot of wishful thinking to avoid facing reality.
 
Last edited:
I fall close to the far end of the Conservative political spectrum. I'm an Authoritarian. My utopian societal concept includes large doses of the ideals set forth in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" universe and Harlon Ellison's "Repent Harlequin Said the Tick-Tock Man". I believe that the Founding Fathers were incredibly naive in many of the things they did.

Can you define "Authoritarian" for me as a political philosophy, Tigger? I never saw the term before I joined DP.
 
Can you define "Authoritarian" for me as a political philosophy, Tigger? I never saw the term before I joined DP.

Authoritarianism is the political ideal that the Government needs to be in charge of almost everything. The idea that the general populace is not capable of making the right decision, and therefore needs to have large amounts of their society and culture dictated to them for their own good. In my specific view it's also a system based on a caste system, not unlike the one that existed in Medieval Europe. You have a class of Citizens who are allowed more freedom (though not as much as Americans currently enjoy) and non-citizens who enjoy even fewer freedoms.
 
Uh, no. I approve of the ACLU...I'd support their right to assemble and protest no matter what their cause was. Of course, you don't know me IRL, so you'll have to accept that (or not) as article of faith.

Nonetheless, it's true. IMO, the proper constraint on their rights has nothing to do with the content of their speech. I never complained about any Tea Party event, and the last time I complained about a group's conduct in protesting, it was about the Wisconsin union workers filling the state capitol building far beyond its capacity....because it was a fire hazard.
Mea Culpa.... I should have used the word inconvenience as opposed to offend. And I fully recognize your continued position of supporting constitutional rights and applaud you for it, I never intended to claim otherwise, as such I stand corrected.

While the fire hazard argument does in fact hold weight with me (it has the potential to violate the "peaceably" language of the 1st amendment) I just don't hold local nuisance ordinances at the same level as public safety requirements.... But that is simply my opinion.

I am curious though.... in response to "Uh, no."
Are you saying There aren't numerous posts asserting they don't know what they stand for then also claiming (albeit tacitly) that they don't agree with them?
Are you saying that there aren't numerous posts that claim OWS is an unorganized mob yet later suggesting some group, organization or individual is secretly behind it all?
Are you saying that there aren't posts here that acknowledge OWSer's do in fact enjoy first amendment protections ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") yet somehow local nuisance ordinances trump those protections?

And to nip a potential bud, I can already see "outbreak of disease" argument coming up in an attempt to paint this as a public safety issue but we are no where near that level of unsanitary conditions for that sort of situation to occur. No I don't have specific data or expert testimony regarding this.... but neither does anyone else and if they do I would love to read it.
 
Here this is my point....

source

Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls told The Enquirer, “I believe in the constitutionally protected right of speech, right of assembly, and right to petition government to redress grievances. I do not believe that 'occupying' public space by camping out and violating regulation designed to manage use and ensure reasonable access is protected. I do not think the protesters should be allowed to stay overnight.”

Do we really want to go down the road where local ordinance "designed to manage use and ensure reasonable access" trumps Constitutional protections? I can understand public safety issues regarding constitutional right... i.e. not yelling fire in a crowded theater, highjack on a plane, speech that incites riots or violence upon others, and yes perhaps local fire safety violations as you pointed out. You're the lawyer not me, but aren't we supposed to be enjoying a system of laws that are gauged with regards to their Constitutionality as opposed to a system where Constitutional Rights are gauged as to there adherence to local "use and reasonable access" regulation?

EDIT: If the vice mayor is saying that protesters being there during normal business hours is fine just not over night, then you can ignore her "reasonable access claim" as no one is allowed in the park after, what is it 10 pm? In essence if they are only filling the park during normal business hours reasonable access protects are still being violated. That leaves use with the "manage use" portion and this sounds a lot like we (local government) don't have to allow you to protest here simply because we don't want to allow it.
 
Last edited:
I can't begin to tell you how much I loathe our current judicial system. The judge in this case is a perfect example of the judicial system usurps congress. Legally speaking, he/she may not enforce or write policy. It's their job to interpret the constitution and make a ruling. They must not lean right or left when they come up with their decision.

With that being said, I applaud the Cincinnati police for writing these tickets. It's gonna be interesting to see what the cops do with this federal judges "order." My hope is that you'll ignore this unconstitutional order and call out the judge for attempting to legislate from the bench.

The OWS is a movement that can't be ignored. I pretty much despise all of their arguments. The only people that I sympathize with are the END THE FED folks. The other people who claim the We are the 99% consist of the utterly ignorant and cling onto governing concepts. All of which have failed miserably.
 
I can't begin to tell you how much I loathe our current judicial system. The judge in this case is a perfect example of the judicial system usurps congress. Legally speaking, he/she may not enforce or write policy. It's their job to interpret the constitution and make a ruling. They must not lean right or left when they come up with their decision.
The judge that issued the or was not usurping congress but rather usurping Cincinati's lawmakers in judging whether or not a violation of Constitutionally protected right was occurring. Said court quickly came to the desicion they were not and promptly lifted the order. I am not sure I understand what the problem here is.

With that being said, I applaud the Cincinnati police for writing these tickets. It's gonna be interesting to see what the cops do with this federal judges "order." My hope is that you'll ignore this unconstitutional order and call out the judge for attempting to legislate from the bench.
The judge wasn't legislating from the bench he (maybe she I don't know) was hearing a case claiming that citizen's Constitutional rights were being infringed upon. After consideration said judge deem the citizen's arguments wanting and thus lifted the TRO

The OWS is a movement that can't be ignored. I pretty much despise all of their arguments. The only people that I sympathize with are the END THE FED folks. The other people who claim the We are the 99% consist of the utterly ignorant and cling onto governing concepts. All of which have failed miserably.
Your opinion is Duly noted. I also support the abolishment of the FED but that's a discussion for another thread. I am curious though.... which governing concepts do you perceive as failing miserably? Personally I tend to believe they are rallying against cetain governmental policies not for. People generally don't take to the streets and shout "Keep things the same.... Keep things the same"
my short list of failed governmental policy that I believe they are rallying against:
1. Trickle down and supply side economics
2. Big Corp bailouts and influence in politics
3. The general dismantling of the power of labor organizations
 
Authoritarianism is the political ideal that the Government needs to be in charge of almost everything. The idea that the general populace is not capable of making the right decision, and therefore needs to have large amounts of their society and culture dictated to them for their own good. In my specific view it's also a system based on a caste system, not unlike the one that existed in Medieval Europe. You have a class of Citizens who are allowed more freedom (though not as much as Americans currently enjoy) and non-citizens who enjoy even fewer freedoms.

Sounds like some kind of Communism crap to me..
 
Sounds like some kind of Communism crap to me..

Sort of. Communism is an Authoritarian system as well. The difference is that Communism is about trying to make everyone EQUAL. The form of Authoritarianism I prefer is all about making sure those who do the right things advance in society and those who don't end up groveling in the streets to try and keep from starving to death.
 
Sort of. Communism is an Authoritarian system as well. The difference is that Communism is about trying to make everyone EQUAL. The form of Authoritarianism I prefer is all about making sure those who do the right things advance in society and those who don't end up groveling in the streets to try and keep from starving to death.
Well I would argue that communism is more about the working class being more in control with regard the result of their production than being equal... but W/E

Have you ever read John Rawls "A Theory of Justice"? In particular the concepts behind of the "veil of ignorance" and/or the "original position"? quick link

EDIT: Can I ask who gets to decide what the definition of "right things" is, more importantly what if your personal view of this concept differs from that of person who decides this?
 
Last edited:
Well being a Kentuckian that lives a mile from the "forbidden zone" I can tell you Cincinnati is a giant **** pile. I don't know exactly what there is to protest about Cincinnati other than it being one giant pile of suck. If a nuclear bomb went off that somehow only destroyed everything in the Cincinnati area America would be a better place. The only good things that come out of Cincinnati is Krogers and P&G the rest of Cincinnati can suck it.
 
Oh come on... you are just angry that Howard the duck was based in Cleavland... its so obvious. :p
 
Well being a Kentuckian that lives a mile from the "forbidden zone" I can tell you Cincinnati is a giant **** pile. I don't know exactly what there is to protest about Cincinnati other than it being one giant pile of suck. If a nuclear bomb went off that somehow only destroyed everything in the Cincinnati area America would be a better place. The only good things that come out of Cincinnati is Krogers and P&G the rest of Cincinnati can suck it.

Northern Kentucky is a satellite of Cincinnati and those who live there are upset that they live in a second class state run by assclowns like Steve Beshear. Even people from most of KY feel the same way-when Jim Beanball Bunning was the Senator, people in Louisville, Paducah and Lexington used to refer to him as "that damn Catholic from Cincinnati"
 
Authoritarianism is the political ideal that the Government needs to be in charge of almost everything. The idea that the general populace is not capable of making the right decision, and therefore needs to have large amounts of their society and culture dictated to them for their own good. In my specific view it's also a system based on a caste system, not unlike the one that existed in Medieval Europe. You have a class of Citizens who are allowed more freedom (though not as much as Americans currently enjoy) and non-citizens who enjoy even fewer freedoms.

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

And this is what American believes as well?

Well, takes all types.....
 
An excerpt of a post from Swit:

Are you saying that there aren't posts here that acknowledge OWSer's do in fact enjoy first amendment protections ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") yet somehow local nuisance ordinances trump those protections?

These freedoms are limited by a line of US Supreme Court decisions, upholding government's REASONABLE time, place and manner restrictions on them. If you would like links to some of the major decisions, I can provide them later....I have guests coming for Sunday brunch ATM, and need to run now. Not every government act restricting these freedoms will pass muster as "reasonable" under this line of decisions.

However, park closing hours for an urban green space certainly would.

:)

 
Ugh, ugh, ugh. And this is what American believes as well? Well, takes all types.....

I don't know what American believes. I do know that's what I believe.
 
Their desire is to avoid paying their bills. They are dishonest and disreputable.

HTH do you know what each of the OWSers wants when no one else can tell? And how is relief from debt "dishonest and disreputable" among Americans but not among the Big Banks, etc.?

Sweeping generalizations may be fun, but they are rarely even remotely reality-based. I think the OWSers may well have some legitimate complaints. Lord knows, I sure as **** do. But their method of "petitioning the government for redress" is preposterous and ineffective.
 
HTH do you know what each of the OWSers wants when no one else can tell?

Do you think it is important to know what each one wants? If so why?

And how is relief from debt "dishonest and disreputable" among Americans but not among the Big Banks, etc.?
It should not occur for either. Have bankruptcy laws disappeared?

Sweeping generalizations may be fun, but they are rarely even remotely reality-based. I think the OWSers may well have some legitimate complaints. Lord knows, I sure as **** do. But their method of "petitioning the government for redress" is preposterous and ineffective.
This has nothing to do with redress. This is designed to take down capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom