• 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

apdst said:
Sure, glad to.



I know it rubs some folks's fur the wrong way, but there is no Constitutional amendment that protects your right to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...

So then you would have to agree that all those people in Wisconsin that obstructed City Hall was in violation of that type of city ordinance? How about the Tea Party Protesters? MLK Protesters? Should all of them have been arrested, charged, and sued?
 
apdst said:
Sure, glad to.



I know it rubs some folks's fur the wrong way, but there is no Constitutional amendment that protects your right to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Whoaa that is a biggie :roll:


:lamo
 
apdst said:
When those city ordinances protect the rights of others, you're damn right. How can you not agree with that?
Click to expand...

What rights were violated? Were people restricted from entering city hall? That is the only possible right that could have been violated. Do you have proof of this?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So then you would have to agree that all those people in Wisconsin that obstructed City Hall was in violation of that type of city ordinance? How about the Tea Party Protesters? MLK Protesters? Should all of them have been arrested, charged, and sued?
Click to expand...

The only thing he cares about is that it OWS so what ever piddly ordinance there is he will use even if it spitting on the sidewalk.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But that is not what the OP is about. The money that they want to sue for is for the cost of raiding and imprisoning etc etc. The quote in the OP says that they want to sue for what the protest cost the city which was "$2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday...."

Now if the damage to the lawn and the fountain was done maliciously then yes someone should be charged for destruction of property as that is not a peaceful act. However if it was done on accident or through general use then it should not be charged to anyone but the taxpayers. And those alone would not cost that much. Hell, I could do it for under $5k.
Click to expand...

I think that the Mayor is demonstrating because the blow-back from not cracking down on the Occutards is becoming a political liability. Without a doubt, Democrat Mayors across the land made complete hypocritical jackasses of themselves in support of this massive astro-turf movement.

Let's see who the first "Occupy-endorsed" candidate is in 2012 ? Any candidate worth a crap will treat such as the kiss of death. In the menatime, there will be hundreds of Tea-Party backed candidates. And they will do well.

Watch and learn liberals. Watch and learn ....... again.
 
Hatuey said:
I wasn't alive in the 1970s - and what I meant was that this country "had been built" way before arrogant Conservatives like you decided to start using it as the politically masturbating slogan du jour. You've built absolutely nothing. You're just one more worker who takes his little paycheck and goes home then does nothing but get fat and watch Sunday football. The percentage of actual work you've contributed to this country is so ridiculously insignificant that there is a decimal point and then several zeros before we actually get to what you, by yourself, have contributed to this society. I'm sure your family thanks you for your work and all that, but you've really built nothing in the grand scheme of things. Quit beating your chest about how you built this country. You're just one more little worker ant in this ant colony we call the US. :)
Click to expand...

As the saying goes .. "I crap bigger than you".

And it ain't close.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
First off "occutards" isnt even catchy try to get a new one.
So what mess? The mess they left behind from the camp which they were forced out by the CITY?
Click to expand...

You think that is catchy. They were living in "Obamavilles".
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I think that the Mayor is demonstrating because the blow-back from not cracking down on the Occutards is becoming a political liability. Without a doubt, Democrat Mayors across the land made complete hypocritical jackasses of themselves in support of this massive astro-turf movement.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, so a protest is only valid when you agree with it? If you don't agree with a protest then it is perfectly acceptable to sue and charge them with any ole' thing in order to shut them up?

Eighty Deuce said:
Let's see who the first "Occupy-endorsed" candidate is in 2012 ? Any candidate worth a crap will treat such as the kiss of death. In the menatime, there will be hundreds of Tea-Party backed candidates. And they will do well.

Watch and learn liberals. Watch and learn ....... again.
Click to expand...

Is being or becoming a candidate for some office or a politician in general now required for the validity of a movement or to be able to protest?

Seriously, you're starting to go off the deepend.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think that is a valid question. I say good luck getting any money for any damages.
Click to expand...

To me, that is the only question.

Before suing someone for millions of dollars, you've got to have someone to sue. The Occupy movement has no leaders and no central organization. There's no one to sue.

I think LA is just trying to muddy the waters because they have these costs that are going to affect the availability of services to the citizens. They want to make it look like they are trying to get the money back somehow...kind of a "cya" thing. There's no way they'll get the money...the citizens of LA will suffer...the politicians face taking the blame.

That's all there is to it.
 
I don't know if Occupy LA was like Occupy Oakland who was depositing donations into Well Fargo (discussed on another thread). Oakland made news depositing $20k or so. A like entity in LA could be the 'who to sue'. This kind of amount wouldn't put much of a dent into $2.3m but I'm sure the residents of LA would appreciate anything they could get. The Occupy could presumably garner some creditability in 'donating' some funds in lieu of forcing a lawsuit to term.
 
Hatuey said:
You helped build this country? Lmao. Pretty sure this country had been built by the 1980s bro.
Click to expand...

What? It's already built and the job is finished?
 
1Perry said:
You realize that's a liar, liar pants on fire link?
Click to expand...


Ok, so the more realistic estimate of costs are....

That memo said the cleanup would cost $347,500 if the work did not require a historic preservation specialist.

*From the link*
Click to expand...

Clearly a politically propagandist move to allege the $7.5 Mil...the more realistic figure is still quite a bit of money...Who should pay for that?


j-mac
 
apdst said:
How so?........
Click to expand...

I think he is referring to the Walker administration releasing the memo concerning the cost of repair at $7.5 mil, then taking it back and revising it to $350,000.....


j-mac
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As the saying goes .. "I crap bigger than you".

And it ain't close.
Click to expand...

The truth hurts, doesn't it? I thought you were going to start going off about how you and whatever immigrant group you hail from and how they built this country. At least, I would have given that a little bit more credence. I guess we will all just have to live with wondering what it was that you "built" to begin with. Maybe a railroad in the 1860s? Nah, that would make you 150+ years old. Maybe you built some refineries in the 1920s? No? What about buildings, did you build any buildings at least? Maybe you put up a roof like I did when I was 10 so now you think you're far more significant than you really are in the grand scheme of things. Shoot, I've probably fed more people with my income taxes than you have spent in groceries for the past 30 yes. Can I claim that I "built" this country too? No? What's the standard for having "helped" built this country? See that is what I took issue with: Your ridiculous self aggrandizing of whatever meager contribution you've made to society. I heard you use it and realize that like most people who need to scream about how they built this country, your contribution to this country has been at best minimal and you go off to a little corner when it is pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
apdst said:
It's whining to suggest that people not waste the taxpayers's money?
Click to expand...

1Perry has been doing a real good job with this. I really don't have too much to add. You see someone damage property, arrest them. If they are just protesting, leave them be. It's a fairly simple. Tax payers have wasted a lot of money, say on bailouts and corporate welfare, needless wars, and NCLB. I would spend my outrage there before here.
 
Grant said:
The problem appears to be that many of these 'peaceful protesters' are making a huge mess, a problem related directly to them and which has nothing to do with the Constitution. By attempting to make the claim that turning city streets into waste sites or deterring people from going about their normal routines diminishes the Constitution and those who would want to protect it.

Not claiming responsibility for your personal actions, or the group with whom you're involved, seems a natural inclination for those who feel that the government is responsible for their behavior and will have a temper tantrum when they dont get their way.

This trivialization of the Constitution does no one any good over the long term. It is worthy of greater respect.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you wrote that.

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. 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.

Trivializing the Constitution is EXACTLY what you are doing.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
I can't believe you wrote that.

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. 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.

Trivializing the Constitution is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Very scary isn't it that American citizens on this forum (at least they claim to be), are against or angry at their fellow country men for having the guts to go out in the cold and let their grievances with what is going on in their own country be known. If Protesting in the United States Of America is looked down upon and virtually ignored by our media and government, why are American Soldiers going half way across the world because some other foreeign country is looking down upon their protesters and we want them to protest and air their grievances but we find our own protesters muzzled, mistreated, and inprisoned. A very crazy world were living in.
 
cpwill said:
well that's typical. "it's your fault that we cost you money".
Click to expand...

Can we all sue W. and Dick for the fake war in Iraq? That was costly, too.

I'd be happy just to get the money back and pay down the debt.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No it is not. Our Constitution is based upon peace. Shooting up a park and people is not peaceful.
Click to expand...

Damaging public spaces,turning areas into crime scenes,harassing businesses and schoolkids and many other things are the opposite of peaceful.

While those in your links were not these protesters certainly are...

Click to expand...


Blocking police,trying to prevent police from leaving,resisting arrest and preventing them from doing their job is not peaceful.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so the more realistic estimate of costs are....



Clearly a politically propagandist move to allege the $7.5 Mil...the more realistic figure is still quite a bit of money...Who should pay for that?


j-mac
Click to expand...

The article notes that even that figure is suspect. That aside it's the big picture. I note over and over that our rights are not free. Would you have made the Little Rock Nine pay for the added law enforcement costs?

Also, this huge, I'll use lie here since it's documented as one, this huge lie as far as costs is nothing more than an effort on the part of government to squash speech and protest they do not like. So, this is one area everyone should be glad that we can pay the costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom