• 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!

Would you leave the park?

If the mayor evicts you, would you leave?


  • Total voters
    23
I think it is stay until the gov't begins to acknowledge and adjust the current "plutonomy." Government of the people, by the people and for the people instead of the corporations.

That's interesting. Last election, I didn't see any corporations in the voting booths. Guess I got there too early.
 
I'm a law abiding citizen. I wouldn't put myself in a situation where the mayor would be left with no choice but to evict me from the park.
 
I think it is stay until the gov't begins to acknowledge and adjust the current "plutonomy." Government of the people, by the people and for the people instead of the corporations.
What changes would you like to see? Specifics not generalities.
 
I think it is stay until the gov't begins to acknowledge and adjust the current "plutonomy." Government of the people, by the people and for the people instead of the corporations.

Or unions, or non-profits, or special interests. Yes?
 
Isn't it weird how people scream about how conservatives want to "legislate morality", and then they find a reason to want to do it themselves?

You nailed that one, Joise! You go girl!
 
This, of course, depends on the legality factor.
So, as usual, no vote..
The point is, things are not as good as they can be, IMO.
Wall street must either be reformed or it must clean its own house.
Until this happens, kudos to the occupiers.. but they may have to "sit in" forever...
The problem is man's greed...this must be controlled.

Who do want controlling it, the government? Who is going to take on the government when they get greedy? God? Oh, wait, Libbos don't beleive in God. Well, I guess we're ****ed, then.
 
Let's say you were part of the Occupy, Tea Party or other movement you care about in large city. You've been camped out in this part for several weeks. The mayor of the city decides that enough is enough and you cannot occupy the park for as long as you want to. The mayor orders the police to evict you and your group from the park.

Do you leave or do you stand your ground?
I would leave the park. But that's probably because I can't imagine myself camping out at a movement protest period.
 
There needed to be a third option in the poll... either "Maybe" or "Other."

Whether I would stand my ground or not depends upon how deeply important the cause itself was to me. Back in the day, when protesting the VietNam War and marching for Civil Rights, I would have gone to jail because to me, those causes were just that important.

However, I would certainly not go to jail for a convoluted group of "causes" lumped together for a Woodstock moment with a bunch of nut cases who think that camping out in the park will make Wall Street change the global economy, lower the cost of university tuition, nationalize corporations, or any of the other lame-brained things that various OWS protesters have proclaimed their alligiance to.
 
They should have a lawyer. It’s possible one is in the park. I’m sure one would be available gratis.
If what the Mayor is doing is legal then leave. Then come back as soon as the park is opened again. Force hm to shut it down permanently. Then move on to another venue and repeat. The next venue needs to be chosen ahead of time.
Sorry, didn’t vote, no choice for me.
 
I'd leave.

You have a right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. You don't have a right to camp out in a public park indefinitely.
 
Random thoughts (in no particular order)...

- Civil disobedience is a valid method of protest, and this could qualify, but... I sense that most involved aren't really willing to pay the price (read: arrest) that the concept of civil disobedience requires to be valid.

- As others have mentioned, I would not be likely to be part of this protest. If I were, I would probably leave rather than be arrested, because...

- ...while there are things I am willing to sacrifice for, this is not one of them. In part, because this "movement" has no legitimate focus.
 
Who do want controlling it, the government? Who is going to take on the government when they get greedy? God? Oh, wait, Libbos don't beleive in God. Well, I guess we're ****ed, then.

Regarding the subject of GREED, the answer is clear: The American people, through their duly elected representatives in government, pass legislation to deal with the problem. God - or his son - may have driven the greedy money changers from the temple, but that particular act has not been repeated for some 2,000 years. We probably should take action ourselves instead of waiting for divine intervention.
 
Let's say you were part of the Occupy, Tea Party or other movement you care about in large city. You've been camped out in this part for several weeks. The mayor of the city decides that enough is enough and you cannot occupy the park for as long as you want to. The mayor orders the police to evict you and your group from the park.

Do you leave or do you stand your ground?

Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be out there in the first place, I would leave.
 
Random thoughts (in no particular order)...

- Civil disobedience is a valid method of protest, and this could qualify, but... I sense that most involved aren't really willing to pay the price (read: arrest) that the concept of civil disobedience requires to be valid.

Civil Disobedience as a concept does not require that one be arrested in order to be valid.
 
I would leave. I have no interest in jail. But you shouldn't really ask me, I'm kind of a little bitch when it comes to anything that could involve jail time. There are ways other than standing in a park by which changes can be made.

Don't worry. Even Thoreau, who romanticized the hell out of prisons, got bailed out by Auntie.
 
Let's say you were part of the Occupy, Tea Party or other movement you care about in large city. You've been camped out in this part for several weeks. The mayor of the city decides that enough is enough and you cannot occupy the park for as long as you want to. The mayor orders the police to evict you and your group from the park.

Do you leave or do you stand your ground?

Ultimately the answer depends on whether you believe the justice of your cause is greater than the law.

In this case probably, because for a great number of the citizenry, voting is no longer an effective means of controlling politicians, so one has to go one step deeper to the influence, corruption, that is at the heart of the problem and is creating the harm to what the promise of the american dream is.

Ultimately though, as a practical matter, I would never join in the first place as I have a family to take care of. However, if I had no ties to such things, I imagine my choice would be different.
 
Last edited:
That would really depend on why I was there. Of course, if it was for some cause I felt strong enough about that I'd already violated the ordinance saying I had to leave by a certain time anyway, I'd probably stay. Of course, I'd also be packing the means and willingness to violently resist any attempt to move me from the spot, which is something I don't believe most of the Occupiers have.
 
...........

And as is established with laws regarding libel and slander, with regards to handgun permits, with regards to banning of guns in bars and on school grounds, and other such things Constitutional Rights can be limited in reasonable ways when exercising them may be interfering with the rights of others. A PUBLIC park is open to the public, all of the public. It is the governments responsability to maintain it and keep it at an acceptable and safe level. These protesters, simply for protesting, have no more of a right to the park land than anyone else and if their continued use of it in ways contrary to its purpose is inhibiting or disrupting other people from also peacefully accembling there or keeping the government from maintaining it to the necessary level to allow it to be peacefully assembled in by others then...at the VERY least...there is a realistic and reasonable way to suggest that they are not within their rights to continue to "peacefully assemble" there indefinitely without the government possibly telling them to go elsewhere.
 
Let's say you were part of the Occupy, Tea Party or other movement you care about in large city. You've been camped out in this part for several weeks. The mayor of the city decides that enough is enough and you cannot occupy the park for as long as you want to. The mayor orders the police to evict you and your group from the park.

Do you leave or do you stand your ground?

In this scenario, no. This is predicated on the government saying "enough is enough" in the face of a very basic and very important right. In such case, the government action is WRONG and should be resisted.
 
And as is established with laws regarding libel and slander, with regards to handgun permits, with regards to banning of guns in bars and on school grounds, and other such things Constitutional Rights can be limited in reasonable ways when exercising them may be interfering with the rights of others. A PUBLIC park is open to the public, all of the public. It is the governments responsability to maintain it and keep it at an acceptable and safe level. These protesters, simply for protesting, have no more of a right to the park land than anyone else and if their continued use of it in ways contrary to its purpose is inhibiting or disrupting other people from also peacefully accembling there or keeping the government from maintaining it to the necessary level to allow it to be peacefully assembled in by others then...at the VERY least...there is a realistic and reasonable way to suggest that they are not within their rights to continue to "peacefully assemble" there indefinitely without the government possibly telling them to go elsewhere.

But by this logic, we could also have no assembly and protest since the government gets to decide who stays and who goes at their whim. I'd rather the People's right to peacefully assemble be maintained indefinitely then to give such broad and dangerous restriction powers to the government.
 
It does not belong to them so they have no right to occupy it.
 
It does not belong to them so they have no right to occupy it.

Another argument against all assembly and protest (that doesn't take place on your personal property).
 
But by this logic, we could also have no assembly and protest since the government gets to decide who stays and who goes at their whim. I'd rather the People's right to peacefully assemble be maintained indefinitely then to give such broad and dangerous restriction powers to the government.

No one had more effective peaceful protest than Martin Luther King. He had a clear rallying message, people swarmed to him, and they marched. He never occupied jack ****. If they had set up tent cities, the coppers woulda' sic'd th'dogs on 'em.
 
No one had more effective peaceful protest than Martin Luther King. He had a clear rallying message, people swarmed to him, and they marched. He never occupied jack ****. If they had set up tent cities, the coppers woulda' sic'd th'dogs on 'em.

So? Does that mean then that people cannot exercise their rights differently? It's a right. And would it have been right to "sic'd th'dogs on em'" in Dr. King had assembled and set up a tent city? No, it still wouldn't be right. Besides, people swarmed to a lot of folk during the Civil Rights era; even the ones advocating violence.

Besides, that comment has nothing to do with my remark.
 
Last edited:
Another argument against all assembly and protest (that doesn't take place on your personal property).

How about this one.... The officials that these people elected have put in place certain ordinances in their names that prohibit certain types of assembly in certain places at certain times. Those rules need to be followed, or these people need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of those rules not being followed. If they want to "Occupy" something, why don't they go out and "Occupy" one of the field worker jobs that the farmers apparently can't get filled?
 
Back
Top Bottom