• 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

What if...? said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn't about campaign contributions, this is about people being asked to leave from private property. Your point fails.
 
What if...? said:
So you're a Tory, then.

An opponent of those colonial criminals who commited treason against the king?
Click to expand...
No, I'm a constitutionalist, you have rights until you use them to interfere with others rights, that is where they end. Deflect much?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Russel Simmons offered to pay whatever it took to clean the park to the owners standards.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This isn't about campaign contributions, this is about people being asked to leave from private property. Your point fails.
Click to expand...

Except, said "private property" operate under "public property" laws. So, I'm afraid your point fails.

Again, they could be evicted under "public property" laws because camping is forbidden in NYC parks, but if they attempt to use "private property" law to evict them, they open a can of worms that would affect a total of 503 such spaces in the city.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Except, said "private property" operate under "public property" laws. So, I'm afraid your point fails.

Again, they could be evicted under "public property" laws because camping is forbidden in NYC parks, but if they attempt to use "private property" law to evict them, they open a can of worms that would affect a total of 503 such spaces in the city.
Click to expand...
They have the responsibility to maintain the property which is not able to be done because of the squatters, my point very much stands. Also this was a point addressed to a poster interjecting an unrelated subject so my point very much stands.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Brokers still have to go through agencies that issue loans under the regulatory auhority, Brokers are client representatives not independent lenders.
Click to expand...

You stated that the CRA forced banks to make bad loans yet the majority of bad loans originated outside of CRA jurisdiction.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This isn't about campaign contributions, this is about people being asked to leave from private property. Your point fails.
Click to expand...

People who are protesting excessive campaign contributions.

Exercising their rights to free speech and assembly in a public space.

I know you don't LIKE that I'm drawing this comparison, but it doesn't make my point irrelevant to the thread.

Its PERFECTLY relevant.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You stated that the CRA forced banks to make bad loans yet the majority of bad loans originated outside of CRA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
The loans don't originate at the broker, the broker finds the lenders that are the closest fit to the client, the loan still originates at the lender which is under the CRA jurisdiction.
 
What if...? said:
People who are protesting excessive campaign contributions.

Exercising their rights to free speech and assembly in a public space.

I know you don't LIKE that I'm drawing this comparison, but it doesn't make my point irrelevant to the thread.

Its PERFECTLY relevant.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say.............
 
LaMidRighter said:
They have the responsibility to maintain the property which is not able to be done because of the squatters, my point very much stands. Also this was a point addressed to a poster interjecting an unrelated subject so my point very much stands.
Click to expand...

But they are merely impacting the private entity's ability to maintain part of its agreement with the city, which probably doesn't give them the right to "evict" in the way that private property law would give them the same right.

Again, it appears, legally, the only way to evict them is for the city to evict them for "camping". However, that even comes into question if any structure is taken down. Loitering laws explicitly state that loitering is only forbidden if loitering is for illegal purposes (i.e. drug deals, prostitution, etc.), thus they're loitering isn't strictly forbidden.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, I'm a constitutionalist, you have rights until you use them to interfere with others rights, that is where they end. Deflect much?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

You were making the nonsense argument that a law should always be obeyed without question because its a law.

If this is what you believe, you shouldnt honor the Constitution because it was written by a bunch of violators of British law.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
But they are merely impacting the private entity's ability to maintain part of its agreement with the city, which probably doesn't give them the right to "evict" in the way that private property law would give them the same right.

Again, it appears, legally, the only way to evict them is for the city to evict them for "camping". However, that even comes into question if any structure is taken down. Loitering laws explicitly state that loitering is only forbidden if loitering is for illegal purposes (i.e. drug deals, prostitution, etc.), thus they're loitering isn't strictly forbidden.
Click to expand...
I get that, I think though that a case can be made for any damages recieved due to not being able to maintain, but I do get where you are coming from.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The loans don't originate at the broker, the broker finds the lenders that are the closest fit to the client, the loan still originates at the lender which is under the CRA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

so much bs. CRA never forced banks to make bad loans, and a huge part of the bank crisis was commercial RE loans, anyway. too many repeat that cra crap without knowing the facts. some banks looked the other way at inflated appraisals, and did indeed loosen THEIR credit requirements, bu NOT because cra forced them to. there was BIG money in securtizing and selling loans. jeez.
 
What if...? said:
Not at all.

You were making the nonsense argument that a law should always be obeyed without question because its a law.

If this is what you believe, you shouldnt honor the Constitution because it was written by a bunch of violators of British law.
Click to expand...
Thanks for telling me what I meant, I did not know that. Seriously, I am stating that whether you agree with a law or not you have to follow it until it is repealed, I have a right to private property but can lose something deemed as junk on my property if I don't maintain it. That is the law, not my opinion.
 
liblady said:
so much bs. CRA never forced banks to make bad loans, and a huge part of the bank crisis was commercial RE loans, anyway. too many repeat that cra crap without knowing the facts. some banks looked the other way at inflated appraisals, and did indeed loosen THEIR credit requirements, bu NOT because cra forced them to. there was BIG money in securtizing and selling loans. jeez.
Click to expand...
The bad loans were extended to speculators and other areas, I never made a claim otherwise, but they originated from CRA and justice department investigations on behalf of certain areas, especially around D.C. that were known as a default risk.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The loans don't originate at the broker, the broker finds the lenders that are the closest fit to the client, the loan still originates at the lender which is under the CRA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that all subprime originated under CRA jurisdiction?
 
LaMidRighter said:
The bad loans were extended to speculators and other areas, I never made a claim otherwise, but they originated from CRA and justice department investigations on behalf of certain areas, especially around D.C. that were known as a default risk.
Click to expand...

no they didn't. cra never forced a bank to make a bad loan. have you seen the regulations of are you just repeating what you've heard?
 
What if...? said:
Not at all.

You were making the nonsense argument that a law should always be obeyed without question because its a law.

If this is what you believe, you shouldnt honor the Constitution because it was written by a bunch of violators of British law.
Click to expand...

Had the British been able to catch the "violators", and I assume you mean those that signed the Declaration of Independence, then I will leave you with those immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Click to expand...

Let me explain. If you expect to willfully break the law, and get away with it, then you should be prepared to overthrow your government, and those who support it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Thanks for telling me what I meant, I did not know that. Seriously, I am stating that whether you agree with a law or not you have to follow it until it is repealed, I have a right to private property but can lose something deemed as junk on my property if I don't maintain it. That is the law, not my opinion.
Click to expand...

And my point is that there are lots of laws that place resonable limits on free speech/assembly.

And the founders broke a grip of British laws.

The Underground railroad broke a grip of slave ownership/recovery laws.

Ghandi broke a grip of laws.

Civil rights protesters broke a grip of laws.

None of them got the laws repealed FIRST.

They broke them to GET them changed.
 
Ikari said:
Apparently they don't as they are no longer looking to force them off the property.
Click to expand...

Which I see as a PR and legal cost move. It still doesn't make the free speech argument any less ridiculous.
 
liblady said:
no they didn't. cra never forced a bank to make a bad loan. have you seen the regulations of are you just repeating what you've heard?
Click to expand...

The DoJ did sue banks, and did force them to make higher-risk "sub prime" loans that they had refused to make prior. The DoJ used the CRA and what they alleged were "discriminatory" lending practices in order to compel the settlement that required these higher risk loans be made.

Google Andrew Cuomo. HUD. 1997. See the YouTube videos.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Had the British been able to catch the "violators", and I assume you mean those that signed the Declaration of Independence, then I will leave you with those immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:



Let me explain. If you expect to willfully break the law, and get away with it, then you should be prepared to overthrow your government, and those who support it.
Click to expand...

Or be publicly arrested, as is SOP for peaceful protests.

Is the government willing to accept the negative PR that will result from widespread distribution of arrest images that media will surely select to sell papers and commercials?

Peaceful non-violent protest 101 stuff. Goes back years.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really. Their major concern, which is a real concern, is the entanglement of government and corporate interest. In essence, they're fighting against the corporate capitalist model we now find ourselves under. In that regard, I do agree (though I would probably not agree with their terms to correct it). I also think that people are all too willing to dismiss their point and try to pass it off as whining or something. But rather I see it as people paying attention and having the desire to keep the Republic which we are losing. And corporate capitalism is just one of the symptoms of losing the Republic.

While there are limits to set, particularly when free speech can infringe on such innate and inalienable rights as life; I do not think the limits are unlimited. Given the importance of assembly and protest, I would move to promote and protect those as one of the most important of our innate and inalienable rights. Dissent against the government M

LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the ceded that part in contract with the government. Opting to turn the land into public land, and thus it is proper to use for assembly and protest. Furthermore, the protesters had even cleaned up, which I think is one thing which spurred the reversal. In the end, I think using petty laws like this in a way to infringe upon dissent, assembly, and protest is well more dangerous than having to clean up a park after protest.
 
What if...? said:
And my point is that there are lots of laws that place resonable limits on free speech/assembly.

And the founders broke a grip of British laws.

The Underground railroad broke a grip of slave ownership/recovery laws.

Ghandi broke a grip of laws.

Civil rights protesters broke a grip of laws.

None of them got the laws repealed FIRST.

They broke them to GET them changed.
Click to expand...

Ummmmmm .... and many broke laws, and were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law :roll:
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The DoJ did sue banks, and did force them to make higher-risk "sub prime" loans that they had refused to make prior. The DoJ used the CRA and what they alleged were "discriminatory" lending practices in order to compel the settlement that required these higher risk loans be made.

Google Andrew Cuomo. HUD. 1997. See the YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

The majority of all bad loans originated outside of CRA authority. This is a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom