• 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!

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protestors for financial damages

I do agree with you that lawlessness should not be allowed, but that position should have been taken by LA from day one. I'm afraid that now...the City of LA is SOL.

This is actually a good point. The fact that they allowed the OWS protesters to stay there for as long as they did could be viewed as tactic approval for allowing them to stay. Its not like they could claim that they didn't know that the OWS was going to stay there for so long day and night. Thats something that the OWS does everywhere and you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that.
 
Can anyone show that Rosa parks resisted police, or damaged property?

J-mac
 
Can anyone show that Rosa parks resisted police, or damaged property?

J-mac

rosa-parks-arrested.jpg


When Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" The officer's response as she remembered it was, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."[18] She later said, "I only knew that, as I was being arrested, that it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind..."[1]

:roll:

Why am I not surprised that a Conservative would fail basic African-American history?
 
Last edited:
And you totally ignore the fact that both Rosa Parks AND the OWS broke city ordinances and ignored cops commands.

All crooks ignore the law. Are you calling Rosa Parks a crook?
The only difference between Rosa Parks and the OWS is that you support what Rosa protested against. You don't support the OWS. The hypocrisy here is astounding.

The difference, and it´s a huge difference, is that Rosa Parks acted alone. Her cause was just whereas the OWS idiots don't even know what their cause is. You can´t name it yourself unless you get into some sort of vague generalities. Isn´t that true? Perhaps you can articulate their message for them. Can you?

You cant compare one single brave individual , a lone woman, to a mob. That´s just goofy.
 
And you totally ignore the fact that both Rosa Parks AND the OWS broke city ordinances and ignored cops commands.

The only difference between Rosa Parks and the OWS is that you support what Rosa protested against. You don't support the OWS. The hypocrisy here is astounding.

I believe that a few of us would say that the stupidity is what is astounding. All protests are not created equal, Grasshopper.
 
All crooks ignore the law. Are you calling Rosa Parks a crook?

Did Rosa break the law?

The difference, and it´s a huge difference, is that Rosa Parks acted alone. Her cause was just whereas the OWS idiots don't even know what their cause is. You can´t name it yourself unless you get into some sort of vague generalities. Isn´t that true? Perhaps you can articulate their message for them. Can you?

You cant compare one single brave individual , a lone woman, to a mob. That´s just goofy.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter if Rosa Parks acted alone. But I have mentioned MLK's protests in this thread also if you seriously think that it does. As far as the OWS message goes. Its pretty simple. They're pissed that the 1% has screwed up the economy and that they are sending all the jobs overseas and they are pissed that the 1 percenters have continued to get rich through out the recession while everyone else got screwed.
 
But the right to protest is equal.

So long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Which is where the Occutards have far more in common with the Anarchists than anything Rosa Parks.
 
So long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Which is where the Occutards have far more in common with the Anarchists than anything Rosa Parks.

People keep saying this but they have yet to prove that they have infringed on anyone elses rights.
 
So long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

And at that time, blacks had to be in the back of the bus. Therefore at that time, Rosa infringed on the rights of the whites not to have to be near a black person on the bus.

So you are indeed saying that Rosa Parks should have just listened to the cops.

The simple fact is you are hypocritical in your selection of what protest should be allowed.
 
Last edited:
People keep saying this but they have yet to prove that they have infringed on anyone elses rights.

Oh, the useful idiots have infringed on plenty of people's rights.

Haven't you seen the reports of the small and large businesses that have been impacted by these guys?
 
And at that time, blacks had to be in the back of the bus. Therefore at that time, Rosa infringed on the rights of the whites not to have to be near a black person on the bus.

So you are indeed saying that Rosa Parks should have just listened to the cops.

The simple fact is you are hypocritical in your selection of what protest should be allowed.

Uninformed one. Show me where I said that a protest should not "be allowed". What I, and many others have maintained, is that they must abide by the law, or be arrested.

Doofi abound.
 
Everyone keeps saying that the occutard's expense is tied to clean-up and sanitation costs.

The brunt of the cost was $1,200,000 for LAPD overtime and $335,000 for GSPD overtime. I must assume that these expenses were OK'd by the mayor. Therefore, Carmen Tatantrum is going to have a really hard time explaining to a judge, that in hindsight, the mayor is changing his mind and wants the occutards to now pay for those outlandish expenses that were incurred by the city.

Case dismissed.
 
Everyone keeps saying that the occutard's expense is tied to clean-up and sanitation costs.

The brunt of the cost was $1,200,000 for LAPD overtime and $335,000 for GSPD overtime. I must assume that these expenses were OK'd by the mayor. Therefore, Carmen Tatantrum is going to have a really hard time explaining to a judge, that in hindsight, the mayor is changing his mind and wants the occutards to now pay for those outlandish expenses that were incurred by the city.

Case dismissed.

The mayor is only posturing to try to cover for their initial error in not compelling the law to be obeyed. All these liberal mayors who tried to at first foment the protests now face the backlash from the law-abiding public who are pissed that the Occutard crap was allowed to go on as it was.
 
Oh, the useful idiots have infringed on plenty of people's rights.

Haven't you seen the reports of the small and large businesses that have been impacted by these guys?

Lots of things impact buisness's. Both positively and negatively. That doesn't mean that it is infringing on their rights.
 
Uninformed one. Show me where I said that a protest should not "be allowed". What I, and many others have maintained, is that they must abide by the law, or be arrested.

Doofi abound.

Exactly. You have. You have advocated that they need permits in order to protest. City/state laws require permits. So if they don't get one they should be arrested...IE not allowed to protest. Never mind the fact that the Constution makes no requirements for having to have a permit. Never mind that the Constitution is considered the Supreme Law of the Land and trumps any local, state or federal law.
 
I can't believe you wrote that.

That's probably because you're befuddled.
If the protesters are making a mess, ****ing write a goddamned law against making a mess and then charge the responsible individuals with a ****ing crime.

Actually there laws against making a mess and the EPA, among others, try to enforce them. There are also anti littering laws, though perhaps not in your immediate area.

Foisting responsibility for the actions of a few onto an informally gathered group says that informal groups are not allowed to assemble if anyone ever has the means and the motive to run a false flag operation. That's a ****ing death blow to the freedom of assembly.

If they have a name attached to them (as well as some living organisms most likely),and are attending their protest in a common cause, it is not an "informal gathering".

Trivializing the Constitution is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Sure.
 
Exactly. You have. You have advocated that they need permits in order to protest. City/state laws require permits. So if they don't get one they should be arrested...IE not allowed to protest. Never mind the fact that the Constution makes no requirements for having to have a permit. Never mind that the Constitution is considered the Supreme Law of the Land and trumps any local, state or federal law.

LOL ... I have advocated the Law. Show me an Unconstitutional Law regarding permits, curfews, etc. Being as you are a Constitutional Scholar and all. :roll:
 
Did Rosa break the law?

Please answer the question before you ask one.


Doesn't matter if Rosa Parks acted alone.

It doesn't?? If Rosa Parks were part of a mob do you feel her name would be so revered today? Perhaps you should take a moment to consider that.
As far as the OWS message goes. Its pretty simple. They're pissed that the 1% has screwed up the economy and that they are sending all the jobs overseas and they are pissed that the 1 percenters have continued to get rich through out the recession while everyone else got screwed.

Non fact based generalities is what I expected and that's just what I got. Little wonder this chorus of chanters gets little attention apart from the disruptions they make for real people and the garbage and damage they leave behind them. If 99% of the people need someone to speak on their behalf it's unlikely it will ever be these bozos.
 
LOL ... I have advocated the Law. Show me an Unconstitutional Law regarding permits, curfews, etc. Being as you are a Constitutional Scholar and all. :roll:

Read the 1st amendment. It's pretty clear.

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.

Yes I know the Supreme Court ruled in favor of permits. Doesn't mean that they were right to do so.
 
Please answer the question before you ask one.

By answering my question you have the answer to yours.


It doesn't?? If Rosa Parks were part of a mob do you feel her name would be so revered today? Perhaps you should take a moment to consider that.

Compared to MLK her name isn't that revered. Hell, MLK has an official day in his name, does Rosa Parks? And MLK was a part of a "mob".


Non fact based generalities is what I expected and that's just what I got. Little wonder this chorus of chanters gets little attention apart from the disruptions they make for real people and the garbage and damage they leave behind them. If 99% of the people need someone to speak on their behalf it's unlikely it will ever be these bozos.

Non fact based? Really? Do you not know what has happened in the last 1 1/2 decades? Do you really deny that it was partially Wall Streets fault for the recession? Do you deny that the rich got richer during the recession while the rest of the people, especially the middle class got poorer? Do you deny these facts?
 
At this point, your solution would pre-suppose that:

1. There are already laws on the books to provide for such fines.

2. Such laws are able to be applied retroactively.

If neither of these are true, then that is no solution for what has already occurred. Now...I suppose it's possible that these two conditions could become reality in the future, but that means that the liberal government of LA would have to change. Not likely, imo.


I do agree with you that lawlessness should not be allowed, but that position should have been taken by LA from day one. I'm afraid that now...the City of LA is SOL.
Try each for their lawlessness and fine them as much as possible. Jail time would be cool too.
 
rosa-parks-arrested.jpg


When Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" The officer's response as she remembered it was, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."[18] She later said, "I only knew that, as I was being arrested, that it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind..."[1]

:roll:

Why am I not surprised that a Conservative would fail basic African-American history?

I believe it is you who failed. She did not resist arrest. She went as soon as the officer said she was arrested. And it is American history.

In the book, Bearing the Cross, she says, "So the moment he said I was under arrest I stood up."
 
Read the 1st amendment. It's pretty clear.



Yes I know the Supreme Court ruled in favor of permits. Doesn't mean that they were right to do so.

So call your local prosecuter ! Call your Congress-person ! Call the newspaper !! YOu just realized that these laws are Unconstitutional, as its "pretty clear" and stuff !!

You will be famous !!

Or maybe a putz ..... but call them all and find out !!
 
Try each for their lawlessness and fine them as much as possible. Jail time would be cool too.

I agree...but that should have been done from the get go. Kind of useless to close the barn door after the horses have run.
 
Back
Top Bottom