• 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!

Occupy Wall Street protesters refuse to leave for park cleaning

We aren't speaking of general nuisance however, these protesters are keeping the cleanup crews from performing their duty of maintaining the space, as well there is apparantly littering which is a crime and remaining after forbidden, these are minor criminal acts but they are far past being just a general nuisance.

ZOMG who cares
 
We aren't speaking of general nuisance however, these protesters are keeping the cleanup crews from performing their duty of maintaining the space, as well there is apparantly littering which is a crime and remaining after forbidden, these are minor criminal acts but they are far past being just a general nuisance.

I do not see how those minor criminal acts excuse on the whole the oppression and suppression of assembly and protest.
 
It is very simple to understand. The flea baggers can shout, scream, say, print what ever they want and no one will stop them. They just have to leave the park. The right of free speech does not convey the right to make someone listen to it.
 
Come on; the CRA did not force banks to lend to anyone.
The Clinton justice department interpreted provisions of the CRA and selectively applied it to threats of force.
 
It isn't my logic, it is the law.

I also find that logic to be very dangerous. The law in and of itself is not good enough excuse to infringe upon the rights of others. It should always be brought back to the rights of the individual, not appeal to authority.
 
It is very simple to understand. The flea baggers can shout, scream, say, print what ever they want and no one will stop them. They just have to leave the park. The right of free speech does not convey the right to make someone listen to it.

Apparently they don't as they are no longer looking to force them off the property.
 
I do not see how those minor criminal acts excuse on the whole the oppression and suppression of assembly and protest.
If they keep the park from being properly maintained then it suffers damage, that diminishes the park for everyone else. So yes, it does in fact excuse the "oppression" and "suppression" of these jackasses little tirade. Frankly if you want to call something oppressive, how about a mob taunting people in their own homes as a result of these protests, you okay with that?
 
I also find that logic to be very dangerous. The law in and of itself is not good enough excuse to infringe upon the rights of others. It should always be brought back to the rights of the individual, not appeal to authority.
Fine, when the judge tells you it's okay that you logically don't have to lose your property because the law wasn't something you agree with then we'll talk, the fact is whether you agree with it or not you are responsible to follow it.
 
If they keep the park from being properly maintained then it suffers damage, that diminishes the park for everyone else. So yes, it does in fact excuse the "oppression" and "suppression" of these jackasses little tirade. Frankly if you want to call something oppressive, how about a mob taunting people in their own homes as a result of these protests, you okay with that?

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

The property damage to the public land can be fixed. I'd rather pay to clean up afterwards than to disassemble assembly and protest rights. Those are far too important to waste on petty arguments like littering.
 
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

The property damage to the public land can be fixed. I'd rather pay to clean up afterwards than to disassemble assembly and protest rights. Those are far too important to waste on petty arguments like littering.
Understand I am not calling you anything, rather some of the people at these protests who have no clue of what they speak. Most of these people are grossly uninformed thus I call them jackasses. I understand your principles on this but these protesters are actually in favor of more government intervention, what they don't understand is they are using their liberties to take liberties so I have no sympathy for them. The other point is you don't have to pay for their damages, the private company does, and I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate the bill in the name of these protesters "rights".
 
Understand I am not calling you anything, rather some of the people at these protests who have no clue of what they speak. Most of these people are grossly uninformed thus I call them jackasses. I understand your principles on this but these protesters are actually in favor of more government intervention, what they don't understand is they are using their liberties to take liberties so I have no sympathy for them. The other point is you don't have to pay for their damages, the private company does, and I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate the bill in the name of these protesters "rights".

They can be in favor of whatever. Assembly and protest are some of our most important rights, and I'll argue for anyone to be able to use them; particularly on public land, even if I don't agree with their message. It's essential. We cannot allow it to be infringed upon.

They may not appreciate the bill, but they yielded the land through contract, as they have the right to do. And once yielded, it was then public space. And public space may be used for assembly and protest. I would say freely. This is a consequence of freedom and I will gladly accept it.
 
How is Wall Street not responsible for their own actions?

Let's assume they are. What does that have to do with Occupy? Are the people with home foreclosuers that are getting assitance in the wrong because they too should be responsible for (only) their actions?

Also notice that if 4 people including yourself did something "bad", if the public clamoured to only punish one of them, would you not think that is an injustice? Use common sense here.
 
What part of "private property" needs to be explained?

Under NYC law, it is not technically the same thing as Private Property.

As part of the 1962 building code, developers who wanted to build above a certain height were required to to create public spaces such as plazas, atria, and passageways - that are required to be open to the public 24/7.

Yes, technically, the property is owned by Brookfield, but under NYC building code law, Zuccoti Park is a "public space", and even though it is on "private property", it operates under the same laws as "public spaces".

There are 503 such spaces in New York City.

Granted, NYC park law forbids "camping", thus, the protesters could be evicted for that reason - however, if they attempt to use "private property" law, they will likely open a legal can of worms that they won't want to open.
 
The Clinton justice department interpreted provisions of the CRA and selectively applied it to threats of force.

Nonsense; you cannot force a bank to lend.
 
They can be in favor of whatever. Assembly and protest are some of our most important rights, and I'll argue for anyone to be able to use them; particularly on public land, even if I don't agree with their message. It's essential. We cannot allow it to be infringed upon.
Free speech has already been addressed in the 1900's by many legal scholars and it's limits are set. Once you are asked to leave an area by an authority you no longer have free speech in that area, the people trying to maintain the park are the authority and the protesters were asked to leave. Now, I am all for speech I don't agree with, I will just issue my own speech when the counter is warranted, these people overstayed their welcome and that is the real issue, they are a nuisance and thus they must move their free speech to a new venue, it's not that they can't spout off their idiocy elsewhere, they just can't do it at that location. These people are whining about an inconvenience at best.

They may not appreciate the bill, but they yielded the land through contract, as they have the right to do. And once yielded, it was then public space. And public space may be used for assembly and protest. I would say freely. This is a consequence of freedom and I will gladly accept it.
Then we'll just have to disagree as I see free speech as things that don't inflict direct harm, the owners are being harmed thus they have a right to end the harm.
 
Nonsense; you cannot force a bank to lend.
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.
 
It's a well knwn fact.

Great - then it should be really really easy for you to provide the verifiable evidence of it then.

again - your statement

The Libbos wanted everyone to own a house.

And now the proof.......
 
Last edited:
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.

that sort of wild speculation is not proof of anything.... . other than you are engaging in wild speculation.
 
It is not a limit on free speech and you know it. It is a limit on access to a parcel of PRIVATE property and that is it. If the flea baggers do not understand this maybe they are the ones with the problem.

The San Diego occupation was at the Civic Center. They used exactly the same reasoning used in NY. Same day too, many cities.

Right before the scheduled marches on Saturday.
 
You are comparing apples to Cadillacs. That point has no bearing on the conversation whatsoever, please address the point.

Has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Rights are not absolute.

How does that not apply to the conversation?

One of their primary issues is getting money out of politics.

Which is dismissed as being an infringement of free speech.

EVERY SINGLE law being "broken" by the protesters places a reasonable limit on free expression.

If speech is absolutely sacrosanct, they should be able to express themselves however they see fit. Wherever they want. Even on public property.

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows it is.

There are MANY reasonable limits ALREADY in place that limit free speech and assembly.

All of these limits establish precedent for limitations of free speech rights.

Including campaign contributions.
 
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.

Over half of all subprime loans originated from non-bank entities who fall outside that regulatory environment. 80% of all adjustable rate, subprime mortgages originated from non-bank mortgage brokers.
 
It is very simple to understand. The flea baggers can shout, scream, say, print what ever they want and no one will stop them. They just have to leave the park. The right of free speech does not convey the right to make someone listen to it.

So reasonable limits on campaign money that result in my not being subjected to campaign ads I don't want to see would be ok with you.
 
Great - then it should be really really easy for you to provide the verifiable evidence of it then.

again - your statement



And now the proof.......
Here: Community Reinvestment Act Notice Pdf

Let me summarize, the power of multiple organizations, including the Justice Department were allowed more lattitude in determining that "racist" practices that didn't happen did happen regardless of data otherwise and the threat of loss of accreditation as well as endless investigations were present. The banks did in fact start issuing sub-prime loans and once the derivatives became profitable the new industry was created on the bubble. So yes, it was in fact a major government failing.
 
Over half of all subprime loans originated from non-bank entities who fall outside that regulatory environment. 80% of all adjustable rate, subprime mortgages originated from non-bank mortgage brokers.
Brokers still have to go through agencies that issue loans under the regulatory auhority, Brokers are client representatives not independent lenders.
 
Fine, when the judge tells you it's okay that you logically don't have to lose your property because the law wasn't something you agree with then we'll talk, the fact is whether you agree with it or not you are responsible to follow it.

So you're a Tory, then.

An opponent of those colonial criminals who commited treason against the king?
 
Back
Top Bottom