• 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 Oakland protesters remove barricade at port entrance

Of course they can. But considering what a right is, some innate and inalienable ability off limits to government, it seems hard to justify then asking government's permission (which is what a permit is) to exercise it.

We live in a densely populated society that requires us to often ask permission to do many things. Now if you want to live in a rural community I imagine you could have thousands of people assemble on your farm and chant songs and bang drums forever.......assuming your neighbor lives far enough away so that they can avoid the noise.

I look at permits differently. Permitting rules and regs are a matter of law. All they do is establish the ground rules. If you are willing to follow those rules, you should get a permit. You aren't asking for permission, you are acknowledging you will comply with the law.
 
We live in a densely populated society that requires us to often ask permission to do many things. Now if you want to live in a rural community I imagine you could have thousands of people assemble on your farm and chant songs and bang drums forever.......assuming your neighbor lives far enough away so that they can avoid the noise.

I look at permits differently. Permitting rules and regs are a matter of law. All they do is establish the ground rules. If you are willing to follow those rules, you should get a permit. You aren't asking for permission, you are acknowledging you will comply with the law.

But those rules are based on government force and you have not outlined any way in which you restrict that force to proper means. If there are no restrictions on the restrictions, I cannot endorse it. I don't find it unreasonable to consider the aggregate effects upon the system; but I cannot abide by defining everything through government might. The government was meant to be restricted, not the People.
 
You are an example of lying by omission.

They were not "disbanded" they were asked to move to the OTHER section of the park. They were not denied the ability to assemble, they just couldn't assemble THERE.
You are talking about Boston.
Oh so now we are seperating all instances of current event injustice by loction? Didnt realize it was taboo to bring other very similar topics into the same envelope.
 
Last edited:
Public property is public. I may help pay to maintain it, but I'll also won't come down of folk for practicing their rights upon it. I have a similar view of religious displays on public land. If you want to, you should be free to do so. So long as the courts or legislature are not acting be edicts of gods, but rather edicts of man it doesn't matter.

My goals have always remained the same, maximization of freedom.

You aren't maximizing freedom if people who previously took their dogs to walk at a park now can't because some squatters are sitting on it.

The people (of the city) have the decision to evict those protesters off of their public parks. The city officials are representatives of the people.
 
Common... I know you can understand things without someone having to spell every little iota out.

lions.jpg

Trust me when I say this....I have no idea where you are coming from based on what I wrote.
 
Oh so now we are seperating all instances of current event injustice by loction? Didnt realize it was taboo to bring other very similar topics into the same envelope.

All that I typed, and you only bothered to respond to the last line about it being about Boston.

I see you have nothing to say about your lie of omission. Thats all I needed to know.

Take your lies somewhere else.
 
All that I typed, and you only bothered to respond to the last line about it being about Boston.

I see you have nothing to say about your lie of omission. Thats all I needed to know.

Take your lies somewhere else.
Because its so damn absurd. You see it as that. I see it as this. Keep stuffing that straw man.
 
But those rules are based on government force and you have not outlined any way in which you restrict that force to proper means. If there are no restrictions on the restrictions, I cannot endorse it. I don't find it unreasonable to consider the aggregate effects upon the system; but I cannot abide by defining everything through government might. The government was meant to be restricted, not the People.

But if the people find it important enough to limit permitting, They will do so through elections and through demanding the government drop the rule.

If the people decide to give government that power, then so be it. It is on.....................The People to decide... not you, the individual.
 
Because its so damn absurd. You see it as that. I see it as this. Keep stuffing that straw man.

What straw man? Its a fact that they were asked not to be on that section of the park, they were invited to join the other protesters in the other part of the park, or another park a few streets over.

You have nothing to say to it other than claim I am making a strawman? You are surely lost. And not even worth my time.

Goodbye troll.
 
What straw man? Its a fact that they were asked not to be on that section of the park, they were invited to join the other protesters in the other part of the park, or another park a few streets over.

You have nothing to say to it other than claim I am making a strawman? You are surely lost. And not even worth my time.

Goodbye troll.
Holds up a mirror. Oh hey look.. You are talking about yourself.
 
Holds up a mirror. Oh hey look.. You are talking about yourself.

So, still not responding to the substance of the Boston issue you brought up with half-truths.....

:lamo:lamo
 
But if the people find it important enough to limit permitting, They will do so through elections and through demanding the government drop the rule.

Except that whoever is elected simply plugs into the apparatus of power and uses it. It's not like power is limited by who is in office. Permiting laws exist and are employed by whoever is in power, thus the vote doesn't work.

If the assembly is peaceful - which it was - there should be no reason to disband it. Oakland city hall and the police were looking for a pretext because they used their power instead of their brains. Seriously Cain... use yours now. They disbanded a protest due to camping regulations, and they do so violently, even injuring people seriously. There is no excuse for that.

Oakland deserves everything it's getting right now.

If the people decide to give government that power, then so be it. It is on.....................The People to decide... not you, the individual.

The people didn't give the government permit powers, the government invented those powers. In other words, the powers aren't real and sanctioned by the people. When did anyone vote on the First Amendment requiring a permit or a special protest zone to be exercised?

Ever since the popular protests of the 60's and 70's (which actually caused major change in politics), it is increasingly difficult to exercise First Amendment rights in large groups. Simply doing that gives them an invented pretext to disband the mob.

I agree with Ikari that some violence may be necessary at this point, since the government is not respecting the rights of the People.

What part of "freedom of assembly" do they not understand? If that means 10,000 people are blocking a major part of the city, then guess what? So be it. That doesn't mean city hall gets the right to disband or relocate these people.

I believe we are going to see more violent protesting in the coming year, as government becomes increasingly violent in its oppression of protests.
 
Except that whoever is elected simply plugs into the apparatus of power and uses it. It's not like power is limited by who is in office. Permiting laws exist and are employed by whoever is in power, thus the vote doesn't work.

If the assembly is peaceful - which it was - there should be no reason to disband it. Oakland city hall and the police were looking for a pretext because they used their power instead of their brains. Seriously Cain... use yours now. They disbanded a protest due to camping regulations, and they do so violently, even injuring people seriously. There is no excuse for that.
Who was seriously injured in disbanding the encampment at Occupy Oakland???


Oakland deserves everything it's getting right now.
No it doesn't. Those business owners had nothing to do with it.




The people didn't give the government permit powers, the government invented those powers. In other words, the powers aren't real and sanctioned by the people. When did anyone vote on the First Amendment requiring a permit or a special protest zone to be exercised?
They didn't. The supreme court interpreted that into the constitution, like they have with alot of things, even things you agree with. So if the supreme court interprets something that you don't agree with its wrong... but what about the stuff you do?

I agree with Ikari that some violence may be necessary at this point, since the government is not respecting the rights of the People.
I think you stand alone on that one.

What part of "freedom of assembly" do they not understand? If that means 10,000 people are blocking a major part of the city, then guess what? So be it. That doesn't mean city hall gets the right to disband or relocate these people.
What part of regulating the time place and manner do you not understand? What part of not having the right to infringe upon other people's rights do you not understand?

I believe we are going to see more violent protesting in the coming year, as government becomes increasingly violent in its oppression of protests.[/QUOTE]
 
So, still not responding to the substance of the Boston issue you brought up with half-truths.....

:lamo:lamo
You are asking me to awnser something that I already have. Police using green grass as a pretext to silence a crowd isn't valid to me. But keep stuffing that straw with "You wont awnser me." even though I awnsered it before you even asked your question. Its not my fault you see what you want and dont grasp my context.
 
You are asking me to awnser something that I already have. Police using green grass as a pretext to silence a crowd isn't valid to me. But keep stuffing that straw with "You wont awnser me." even though I awnsered it before you even asked your question. Its not my fault you see what you want and dont grasp my context.

If they told the protesters they can protest across the street or around the corner from where they were.... that isn't silencing them...........

:roll:
 
People's votes still matter. We're going to see how much they matter come next November. The occupiers's votes won't matter, because they're a minority and most Americans don't agree with their agenda.

On that topic, the type of people that tag buildings and throw M80s at cops don't vote anyway.
 
How is any of this affecting Wall Street exactly?
 
The People to decide... not you, the individual.

But the individual is protected, this isn't a direct democracy. Such a thing would be absurd.
 
But the individual is protected, this isn't a direct democracy. Such a thing would be absurd.

Protected yes.

Have the power to bend the law to the odd and quirky will and desires of the invdividual? No.
 
Its not at all shocking that you get that this is nothing more than a lib democrat get out the vote activity. People bleat on about this pretense about how they want "banks and brokers out of politics" which of course is a lie. They dont CARE...just so long as those banks and brokers back democrats. This is just the Bush era anti-war types in a new cause they can get behind. Of course...they cant protest Obama and his increased military actions, expanding the patriot act, expanding black ops prisons, and forget about GITMO, extending constitutional rights to terrorists, etc. At least you are honest enough to admit that it is what it is...a smokescreen for Obama. I can actually respect that.
I cannot speak for others, but personally I don't want to end up with a party that bows to the hard-core left or right minority as the GOP has been doing. I don't want my politicians (regardless of party) unduly influenced by the monied institutions. I want the Bush-era tax breaks gone and capital gains taxed at a reasonable rate. I want tax incentives for employers to create jobs in the US and penalties for exporting jobs because without jobs this country will continue to falter. I want the US to quit interfering in the affairs of the rest of the world when we have no legitimate interest in the area (Al Qaeda & the Taliban remain a legitimate interest - they killed our soldiers before the war and thousands within the US). I want basic needs met for everyone - education, food, shelter, healthcare. I want my government to support a business environment that promotes start-ups and innovations instead of promotes the big guys getting bigger / richer and using business models that are best for their bottom line instead of good for this country. I am part of the 99% that are sick and tired of waiting for something to trickle down and my government actually being the government of the rich and powerful instead of the people.
 
I am part of the 50% who work and pay taxes, and OWS would seriously piss me off if I had time to do more than shake my head. But I don't because I'm too busy earning not just my own living, but also the livings of others.
 
You are asking me to awnser something that I already have. Police using green grass as a pretext to silence a crowd isn't valid to me. But keep stuffing that straw with "You wont awnser me." even though I awnsered it before you even asked your question. Its not my fault you see what you want and dont grasp my context.


Oh yeah, the grass is all it is about....my God man....Get a clue.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom