• 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!

Judge: OWS Protesters Wrongfully Arrested On Brooklyn Bridge

Of course you don't see them as the same, if you did it would be hypocritical of you. However, that "medical service" they provide is done by people who have taken the "Hippocratic Oathe" which is something you don't believe in. Therefore you are essential reliant on life by those you despise because without those horrible immoral people, you'd be dead.

Not necessarily dead. Blind and crippled, but not necessarily dead. You are right though, I have no use for the Hippocratic Oath.

They can arrest multiple people at the same time. Ever see a paddy wagon at a bar from a bar fight?

Ever seen what an AK or an AR could do to that paddy wagon as it pulls up to the scene? Hell, a decent bolt action rifle or shotgun deals with it quite nicely in the right hands.
 
Intentionally blocking another person to prevent him from going about his own business is inherently unpeaceful. There is no way to do such a thing while being “peaceful about it”.

perhaps you are right. anyone who blocks a store, church, mosque, abortion clinic, road, sidewalk, is committing an act of violence and should be charged with assault & battery.
 
No you assemble then dissemble and reassemble in the morning saying you can't take over a private park is not a violation of the right to assemble

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the US Constitution says when and where people can and cannot exercise their rights.
 
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the US Constitution says when and where people can and cannot exercise their rights.

How is camping out free speech ?
 
How is camping out free speech ?

I posted the text of the First Amendment in full, and even gave you a link explaining the Peaceable Assembly Clause. Your ignorance, whether intentional or not, is not an excuse to deprive The People of their Constitutionally afforded Rights.
 
I posted the text of the First Amendment in full, and even gave you a link explaining the Peaceable Assembly Clause. Your ignorance, whether intentional or not, is not an excuse to deprive The People of their Constitutionally afforded Rights.

Please explain to me how your right to Peacable Assembly overrides my right to utilize a public way which my tax dollars pay for as much as yours do? The moment your "Peacable Assembly" gets in the way of where I have to go, I'm going to run your ass over and worry about the consequences later.
 
Please explain to me how your right to Peacable Assembly overrides my right to utilize a public way which my tax dollars pay for as much as yours do? The moment your "Peacable Assembly" gets in the way of where I have to go, I'm going to run your ass over and worry about the consequences later.

It's your right to Peaceable Assembly too. Not liking what they have to say is not an argument, since this law was put into effect to protect unpopular speech. You have no absolutely no right to murder, especially those who are exercising their rights. If you don't like it, fine, nobody is forcing you to like anything, but taking away their rights means your rights can just as easily be removed by people who don't like point of view. It's a double edged sword.
 
I posted the text of the First Amendment in full, and even gave you a link explaining the Peaceable Assembly Clause. Your ignorance, whether intentional or not, is not an excuse to deprive The People of their Constitutionally afforded Rights.
It's not ignoragence it's a legiement question about how right to assembly gives you the right to block commerce, private and public property ?
 
It's your right to Peaceable Assembly too. Not liking what they have to say is not an argument, since this law was put into effect to protect unpopular speech.

I think you're missing the point. I don't want to assemble. I want to be able to navigate the PUBLIC STREETS without being stopped by a band of over-educated, unemployed morons in Tommy Hillfiger shirts and bermuda shorts because they've decided to have their toddler-like temper tantrum at the fact that their $200K degree in Pre-Modern Art doesn't actually guarantee them a job in the REAL WORLD and now the bank is gonna take away their car, their condo, etc.... because they can't pay the bills.

You have no absolutely no right to murder, especially those who are exercising their rights. If you don't like it, fine, nobody is forcing you to like anything, but taking away their rights means your rights can just as easily be removed by people who don't like point of view. It's a double edged sword.

Remember, I'm an Authoritarian. Most of these OWSers (and Tea Partiers) don't want to think about what would happen to their "Right to Peacable Assembly" if I were in charge.
 
It's not ignoragence it's a legiement question about how right to assembly gives you the right to block commerce, private and public property ?

with a permit, it is indeed legal to block traffic and block folks from entering stores and walking down streets.
 
I think you're missing the point. I don't want to assemble.
Which is your option, however others do choose to protest, which is their constitutional right.



Remember, I'm an Authoritarian. Most of these OWSers (and Tea Partiers) don't want to think about what would happen to their "Right to Peacable Assembly" if I were in charge.

I don't know you, so I'm not sure if your first sentence is serious, or sarcasm. However, we have a Constitution for a reason. It protects them just as much as it protects you. In the end you're just a regular nobody, no different than the rest of the populace.
 
It's not ignoragence it's a legiement question about how right to assembly gives you the right to block commerce, private and public property ?

The right to Peaceable Assembly in the Constitution gives the right for anyone to protest, anytime and anywhere they want.
 
The right to Peaceable Assembly in the Constitution gives the right for anyone to protest, anytime and anywhere they want.

Nothing in it overrides—nor should rationally be assumed to override—the right of other people who aren't part of the protest, to peaceably go about their own business without undue interference or obstruction from the protesters.
 
Last edited:
Right here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
If there was a way to get those medications and services without ANY involvement in society, I'd have been up for it a long time ago. I personally see them as two separate entities. They're associated with each other but not tied together anywhere near as much as you suggest.

Transportation, damn, first it was medical facilities and medications and now transportation that you need society for. This thing keeps snowballing on you doesn't it. I wonder if there is anything else you need society for...............hmmm........................
 
The right to Peaceable Assembly in the Constitution gives the right for anyone to protest, anytime and anywhere they want.

So I can come have a sit in in your living room?
 
I posted the text of the First Amendment in full, and even gave you a link explaining the Peaceable Assembly Clause. Your ignorance, whether intentional or not, is not an excuse to deprive The People of their Constitutionally afforded Rights.

You have earned my respect for standing up for peoples right to free speech, even if it is speech you do not agree with. My hat is off to you sir!
 
Right here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If they aren't remaining peaceful, then I rescind my argument. So far, I have only seen the police (members of a government organization) being the aggressors in this conflict.
 
In my younger days I was involved with non-violent protest against the Vietnam war. In all cases involving public property sites we would involve the police in our planning so both sides new what to expect in order to reduce the possibility of violence by either side. I would imagine that many of these protest groups do the same.
 
Last edited:
As a Christian, I'm obligated to grant you hospitality, and passage into my home. If you do stop by, what would you like to eat?

So your advocating for full incorporation of the constitution with no reading in to it ? And BBQ plz
 
Back
Top Bottom