Boxingoutsider: Alphax: Boxingoutsider: OWS is filled with "I know my rights!" guy who in reality has no clue about the laws that govern our land and how those in power keep the peace.

I think you just proved that you don't have a clue.

How? So so many of these guys seem to think that the first amendment is the end all be all of laws pertaining to camping in parks. Some guy here is talking about inalienable rights to do what he wants as long as he's not hurting anyone. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, some guys named Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and a bunch of others signed a declaration about "certain unalienable rights". What they hell were they thinking?

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Laws enacted by any means other then a Constitutional amendment are subject to it, and cannot remove or otherwise over-ride the Constitution. Ergo, the First Amendment's right to assemble cannot be legitimately limited by public camping ordinances.

WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.

If a few heads have to be cracked, and a significant number of overtime checks written, in order for the police to deny people their Constitutional right to gather and complain peacefully, well then justice has been done. We'll all sleep safer.

You do not have a constitutional right to deny access to to public space. Otherwise, I could do essentially whatever the hell i wanted to and it would be called "free speech"

Yeah, because OWS set up barracades and forcibly eviced people from public property.
Oh wait, that was the cops.

They have evicted people from public property because you do not have a constitutional right to squat in a public space under the guise of free speech. We're circling back around here...

WaitWhatWhy: WhyteRaven74: Radioactive Ass: Blame the politicians for letting the banks do what they do legally.

Just because it is legal, does not mean it is right. And the people who wanted the changes deserve plenty of blame. Regulations exist only because it is demonstrated they are necessary. Anything the government does is a reaction. If as a culture you accept having people who are wholly unsuited morally and ethically into positions of great power of money, then you get to go running the legislative steeplechase. If as a culture you don't accept that, you have a lot fewer problems. And you even find the very people who are effected by regulations supporting and even suggesting them. Just because they know someone who isn't on the up and up may be lurking around and you want to make sure they don't screw things up.

because I did it wrong

If we valued education, this wouldn't be an issue. But in the US we don't really value education. Every person who improves themselves by means of education improves society. Sure the person who just picked up a PhD in the literature of the Mogul Empire may not have as clear a benefit as someone who picked up an MS in electrical engineering, but society is better for both of them. France gets this. England gets this. Germany gets this. Why? Because they actually value education. And it's not just education in the formal sense of one's time in school, but education beyond that. It's why anthropologists have it so good in France, the French like to read what anthropologists write about because they like to learn. And the US was that way too not that long ago. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on The Banality of Evil, was a bestseller. And that's a pretty weighty and heady book, it's not pulp, it's rigorous and academic. And makes a point that a lot of people even today aren't really comfortable with.

Other people get more money than I do. Make it stop by giving them less and gimmie more.

No one is even arguing that. Unless you're saying the argument about 30 years of stagnant wages and a growing income gap is an argument about that. Which it isn't.

And a lot of what OWS is addressing is cultural as much if not more so than political. Also, it's a lot easier to get politicians to do something if they have 100,000 people on their ass than 5,000.

QFT
/your newsletter, yada yada yada

What's funny is that OWS has chosen to NOT be part of the political process. So they aren't even on the radar of most politicians. Mostly democratic mayors are busting up their shanty towns. They aren't lobbying, they aren't fundraising, they aren't petitioning. There's lots of ways to influence the political process. Sitting in a park ranks WAY WAY down the list of ways to influence a politician.

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Radioactive Ass: WhyteRaven74: otterly_delicious: Then you tell me exactly what do they want?

banking and finance reform, education loan reform, addressing the issue of 30 years of stagnant wages, the issue of job loss, campaign finance reform, those are the big ones.

Blame the politicians for letting the banks do what they do legally.
Gimmie a free school loan after I can't pay it back because I did it wrong and now the politicians won't let me default on it... ever.
Other people get more money than I do. Make it stop by giving them less and gimmie more.
Blame the politicians for letting themselves get more money to buy air time.

It sounds to me like the problem that they have is mostly with the politicians (with a bit of greed by the protesters added in just for fun). So why are they occupying the places where the politicians aren't?

Occupy # is a joke of a movement in just about every sense of the word. Wrong place. Wrong people. Wrong approach. Wrong answer. Off to the dust bin with you until you learn how to get it right.

[dancurtis.files.wordpress.com image 640x435]


DING DING DING ..WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

Since when does not being able to play the games they've played with our money and future, or being able to eloquently express a solution complete with mental gymnastics equal an inability to understand when you're getting buttfarked and moreover an engraved invitation to be subject to said buttfarkery?

Just because the media chooses to only cover the soundbites and responses of folks who can't speak politicianese doesn't mean they cant tell when they're being treated wrongly or unfairly. How are people supposed to have solutions in detail beyond "stop being greedy assholes?" ows doesn't have the luxury of limo lawyers and pockets lined with people to cover their deeds and protect them from the decisions they make and you act like they're evil lazy farks because they dont have the same support system.

o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.

If a few heads have to be cracked, and a significant number of overtime checks written, in order for the police to deny people their Constitutional right to gather and complain peacefully, well then justice has been done. We'll all sleep safer.

You do not have a constitutional right to deny access to to public space. Otherwise, I could do essentially whatever the hell i wanted to and it would be called "free speech"

Yeah, because OWS set up barracades and forcibly eviced people from public property.
Oh wait, that was the cops.

They have evicted people from public property because you do not have a constitutional right to squat in a public space under the guise of free speech. We're circling back around here...

Please show me the section in the Constituion which prohibits assembling in a public space for any reason. Don't worry, I'll wait.

BTW camping as a part of protesting is legit

here's the Bonus Army



that's from 80 years ago.

Oh and here's the Bonus Army at the Capitol



They weren't too particularly worried about inconveniencing the members of Congress or anyone else. They were ticked and they were damn well going to get heard. Alas in 32 Hoover couldn't keep the reigns on his own administration. In 33 FDR did it right.

^

And I should add to my point that though the constitution isn't a document of powers granted to us by the government, it is a document of powers granted to government by the people.

In that regard, Occupy is effectively denying the right of the public to assemble in the places they have taken over. Your rights extend as far as they can before they infringe upon someone elses right. This is the opinion of every constitutional scholar, lawyer and supreme court justice since the country's founding

Boxingoutsider: What's funny is that OWS has chosen to NOT be part of the political process.

Protest is a part of the political process. Also why would they lobby when they see lobbying as part of the problem?

WaitWhatWhy: Boxingoutsider: Alphax: Boxingoutsider: OWS is filled with "I know my rights!" guy who in reality has no clue about the laws that govern our land and how those in power keep the peace.

I think you just proved that you don't have a clue.

How? So so many of these guys seem to think that the first amendment is the end all be all of laws pertaining to camping in parks. Some guy here is talking about inalienable rights to do what he wants as long as he's not hurting anyone. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, some guys named Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and a bunch of others signed a declaration about "certain unalienable rights". What they hell were they thinking?

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Laws enacted by any means other then a Constitutional amendment are subject to it, and cannot remove or otherwise over-ride the Constitution. Ergo, the First Amendment's right to assemble cannot be legitimately limited by public camping ordinances.

That's a nice sound byte, but in reality it doesn't work. Or maybe you are the first and your supreme court case will set new precedent.

In the real world however, there are laws that restrict ALL rights in the constitution.

Using your viewpoint, I should be able to own an Abrams tank. It says in the second amendment that I can keep and bear arms right?? There's no limit in the second amendment right? Why is it OK to limit the second amendment but not the first? Please address this issue. Either all rights have limits, and the overwhelming bulk of US Law is valid, or the constitution is the only law, and the bulk of US law is invalid. Which one is it?

Boxingoutsider: Sitting in a park ranks WAY WAY down the list of ways to influence a politician.

Ultimately, they need only to infuence voters.

...influence, even.

o5iiawah: ^

And I should add to my point that though the constitution isn't a document of powers granted to us by the government, it is a document of powers granted to government by the people.

In that regard, Occupy is effectively denying the right of the public to assemble in the places they have taken over. Your rights extend as far as they can before they infringe upon someone elses right. This is the opinion of every constitutional scholar, lawyer and supreme court justice since the country's founding

Except that OWS hasn't prevented anyone from accessing, assembling, and using public property. It's like the UC Davis cop arguing that the protestors where blocking the way, and then stepping over them to get in front.

o5iiawah: ^

And I should add to my point that though the constitution isn't a document of powers granted to us by the government, it is a document of powers granted to government by the people.

In that regard, Occupy is effectively denying the right of the public to assemble in the places they have taken over. Your rights extend as far as they can before they infringe upon someone elses right. This is the opinion of every constitutional scholar, lawyer and supreme court justice since the country's founding

Smidge204: dukwbutter: I'm not clear that the First Amendment gives you the right to move into downtown, set up tents, and smoke dope in the streets. So, yeah, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not discriminate against location, duration or encampments. The entire purpose of a protest is to annoy those you are protesting against until they do something - and if the ones you are protesting are the government, thatmeans you will be necessarily breaking a law or two in the process if it goes on long enough.
=Smidge=

Let me introduce you to the concept of reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

This is from Cox v. Louisiana 379 US 536 (1965)

"The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy. The control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure this necessary order. A restriction in that relation, designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, and not susceptible to abuses of discriminatory application, cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which, in other circumstances, would be entitled to protection. One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red light because this was thought to be a means of social protest. Nor could one, contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly. Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement. A group of demonstrators could not insist upon the right to cordon off street, or entrance to a public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not agree to listen to their exhortations. See Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 303 U. S. 451; Cox v. New Hampshire, supra, at 312 U. S. 574; Schneider v. State, supra, at 308 U. S. 160-161; Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 310 U. S. 306-307; Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490; Poulos v. New Hampshire, supra, at 345 U. S. 405-408; see also Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, at 372 U. S. 236."

Prohibiting the assembly from public streets is the most clear example of a valid restriction, but there are others. So long as the restriction applies equally to all points of view (content neutral) and is as narrowly tailored as possible to promote the overall good of the society, it will be permitted. Much like any other right, the right to protest is not absolute.

WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.


Please show me the section in the Constituion which prohibits assembling in a public space for any reason. Don't worry, I'll wait.

They have not assembled in the public space. They have occupied it, taken it over and have denied its access to the public at large who may otherwise want to use it. I cant go to city hall and get a permit to have my protest because "Oh, Occupy is there"

Government is the agent which the public grants the power to make sure that our constitutional rights are spread equally to everyone.

WhyteRaven74: Boxingoutsider: What's funny is that OWS has chosen to NOT be part of the political process.

Protest is a part of the political process. Also why would they lobby when they see lobbying as part of the problem?

That's like saying that I see overeating as a problem so I'm not going to eat.

If you want to influence things (which OWS clearly does) then why not take every step you can to influence things to be the way you want? If you want to influence Bankers and politicians, you need to influence them in ways they feel.

You're trying to change the most entrenched and powerful system in the country, but you're not going to be a part of the political process to do so? What are you going to use? Mind control devices? What are you supposed to use man? Harsh Language? (RIP Frost).

farking influencing policy, how does it work?

AverageAmericanGuy: Garbage strewn everywhere. Camera zooms in on hippies in trees.

How many farking hippies are living in the farking trees?

Fifteen birds on five fir trees,

Their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze,

But, funny little birds, they had no wings!

O what shall we do with the funny little things?

Roast 'em alive, or stew them in a pot;

Fry them, boil them and eat them hot?

WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.

If a few heads have to be cracked, and a significant number of overtime checks written, in order for the police to deny people their Constitutional right to gather and complain peacefully, well then justice has been done. We'll all sleep safer.

You do not have a constitutional right to deny access to to public space. Otherwise, I could do essentially whatever the hell i wanted to and it would be called "free speech"

Yeah, because OWS set up barracades and forcibly eviced people from public property.
Oh wait, that was the cops.

They have evicted people from public property because you do not have a constitutional right to squat in a public space under the guise of free speech. We're circling back around here...

Please show me the section in the Constituion which prohibits assembling in a public space for any reason. Don't worry, I'll wait.

There is nothing in the Constitution that either prohibits or permits such a thing per se, as you well know. I mean, assuming that you are not one of those idiots who insist that the Constitution says what they think it says, rather than what the courts have ruled.

o5iiawah: Occupy is effectively denying the right of the public to assemble in the places they have taken over.

If only they were, but they're not. Nice try.

Boxingoutsider: I should be able to own an Abrams tank. It says in the second amendment that I can keep and bear arms right??

Actually you can own a tank. However you won't be allowed to own the ammunition. But then even 200 years ago no one thought the second amendment covered ordinance. Just guns.

So the police are going to instigate another riot? Very good, keep keeping us safe brave first responders!

Boxingoutsider: WaitWhatWhy: Boxingoutsider: Alphax: Boxingoutsider: OWS is filled with "I know my rights!" guy who in reality has no clue about the laws that govern our land and how those in power keep the peace.

I think you just proved that you don't have a clue.

How? So so many of these guys seem to think that the first amendment is the end all be all of laws pertaining to camping in parks. Some guy here is talking about inalienable rights to do what he wants as long as he's not hurting anyone. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, some guys named Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and a bunch of others signed a declaration about "certain unalienable rights". What they hell were they thinking?

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Laws enacted by any means other then a Constitutional amendment are subject to it, and cannot remove or otherwise over-ride the Constitution. Ergo, the First Amendment's right to assemble cannot be legitimately limited by public camping ordinances.

That's a nice sound byte, but in reality it doesn't work. Or maybe you are the first and your supreme court case will set new precedent.

In the real world however, there are laws that restrict ALL rights in the constitution.

Using your viewpoint, I should be able to own an Abrams tank. It says in the second amendment that I can keep and bear arms right?? There's no limit in the second amendment right? Why is it OK to limit the second amendment but not the first? Please address this issue. Either all rights have limits, and the overwhelming bulk of US Law is valid, or the constitution is the only law, and the bulk of US law is invalid. Which one is it?

Its that second one. A large percentage of US law is an overreach of the authority vested in the government. For what it's worth, I'd support an amendment limiting the rights granted by the second amendment, but until that amendment gets passed, you should be able to stockpile nukes in your garage. Allowing the government to shortcut the process in place for limiting rights is a disaster waiting to happen.

WhyteRaven74 2011-11-30 07:35:21 AM

Gdalescrboz: You cant have "cops protecting" or "cops keeping people in line," its the same thing.

No, it's not.

Oh, really? Your mom never told you not to do something because it may hurt you? If you demand cops "protect you" it will inevitably lead to them "keeping you in line." They may genuinely think they are protecting you and in order to perform their duties as protectorate, they must keep you in line. To think it doesnt or wont happe, is the same naivety that has lead to Americans losing their civil liberties in mass

Boxingoutsider: They aren't lobbying, they aren't fundraising, they aren't petitioning. There's lots of ways to influence the political process. Sitting in a park ranks WAY WAY down the list of ways to influence a politician.

So, just for clarity's sake, you're saying that the best way to protest the influence of money on politicians, is to buy your own politicians?

Boxingoutsider: That's like saying that I see overeating as a problem so I'm not going to eat.

By your definition MLK was not involved in the political process. You won't find a single history professor or political science professor who agrees with that.

Joe Blowme: AverageAmericanGuy: Garbage strewn everywhere. Camera zooms in on hippies in trees.

How many farking hippies are living in the farking trees?

Fifteen birds on five fir trees,

Their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze,

But, funny little birds, they had no wings!

O what shall we do with the funny little things?

Roast 'em alive, or stew them in a pot;

Fry them, boil them and eat them hot?

I see that you not only read that life changing fantasy book about unreal people in an unreal world, but that you also read the one about orcs!

Gdalescrboz: If you demand cops "protect you" it will inevitably lead to them "keeping you in line."

If you protect people, keep them safe and don't antagonize them and alienate them, you won't need to keep them in line.

WaitWhatWhy: Boxingoutsider: WaitWhatWhy: Boxingoutsider: Alphax: Boxingoutsider: OWS is filled with "I know my rights!" guy who in reality has no clue about the laws that govern our land and how those in power keep the peace.

I think you just proved that you don't have a clue.

How? So so many of these guys seem to think that the first amendment is the end all be all of laws pertaining to camping in parks. Some guy here is talking about inalienable rights to do what he wants as long as he's not hurting anyone. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, some guys named Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and a bunch of others signed a declaration about "certain unalienable rights". What they hell were they thinking?

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Laws enacted by any means other then a Constitutional amendment are subject to it, and cannot remove or otherwise over-ride the Constitution. Ergo, the First Amendment's right to assemble cannot be legitimately limited by public camping ordinances.

That's a nice sound byte, but in reality it doesn't work. Or maybe you are the first and your supreme court case will set new precedent.

In the real world however, there are laws that restrict ALL rights in the constitution.

Using your viewpoint, I should be able to own an Abrams tank. It says in the second amendment that I can keep and bear arms right?? There's no limit in the second amendment right? Why is it OK to limit the second amendment but not the first? Please address this issue. Either all rights have limits, and the overwhelming bulk of US Law is valid, or the constitution is the only law, and the bulk of US law is invalid. Which one is it?

Its that second one. A large percentage of US law is an overreach of the authority vested in the government. For what it's worth, I'd support an amendment limiting the rights granted by the second amendment, but until that amendment gets passed, you should be able to stockpile nukes in your garage. Allowing the government to shortcut the process in place for limiting rights is a disaster waiting to happen.

Isn't it interesting that the words "ideologue" and "idiot" have the same roots?

Honestly I've learned more about what the protesters want here on fark, then from the protesters themselves.
Which shows the protesters are doing a poor job getting its concerns to the general public. How much more time do they need in the park, three more mounths, six more?

o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.


Please show me the section in the Constituion which prohibits assembling in a public space for any reason. Don't worry, I'll wait.

They have not assembled in the public space. They have occupied it, taken it over and have denied its access to the public at large who may otherwise want to use it. I cant go to city hall and get a permit to have my protest because "Oh, Occupy is there"

Government is the agent which the public grants the power to make sure that our constitutional rights are spread equally to everyone.

One, you're using semantics instead of addressing the issue. Two, you legally shouldn't need a permit to protest, that's the whole point. Three, the OWS camps have moved to allow other groups to use the spaces they were occuping, so your argument is non-factual as well as retarded.

Crunch61: Boxingoutsider: Sitting in a park ranks WAY WAY down the list of ways to influence a politician.

Ultimately, they need only to infuence voters.

Sitting in a park ranks just above burning a flag in terms of influencing voters. If they wanted to really influence voters they would canvass, they would organize, they would direct mail, etc. If they want to influence voters, why are they ignoring long proven methodologies for influencing voters? If they want to influence voters, why aren't they going door to door and calling everyone in the phone book?

Because it's not about influencing voters. It's about feeling like you're a part of something. At least for a lot of the protestors. The same reasons poor people join gangs. To feel a part of something. To exercise power in a place where they feel powerless.

If it was about influencing voters, they could be easily the most powerful influence group in the country. Tens of thousands of highly dedicated people. The kind of manpower and dedication PETA, ELF, The Tea party, the NRA could only dream of. People willing to do almost anything for the cause. Except organize and take action that will influence people.

Ultimately actions speak louder than words. You can say you're for banking reform and voter influence, but when you just sit around avoiding actions which could further your cause, you lose credence.

Joshua5: How much more time do they need in the park, three more mounths, six more?

They're not quite to the point of making it into the longest continuous protests in American history. So, not quite time yet to ask that question. And also there's the related question, how long do they need to protest until someone engages them and listens to them? I mean someone in a position of power, whether public or private.

WhyteRaven74: Boxingoutsider: What's funny is that OWS has chosen to NOT be part of the political process.

Protest is a part of the political process. Also why would they lobby when they see lobbying as part of the problem?

I think protesting is a form of lobbying. Just with poop instead of cash.

WhyteRaven74: o5iiawah: Occupy is effectively denying the right of the public to assemble in the places they have taken over.

If only they were, but they're not. Nice try.

.

So why was Tea Party Richmond charged $9,000 to hold their protest but Occupy Richmond was granted those rights for free?

Fark, right here in Philly, the city has had a construction project planned and permitted for years and it took police and arrests to get them to clear out.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said the eviction went according to plan.
"I was hoping they would move on on their own [but] that's just the way it is," Ramsey said. "We didn't create the situation we just have to deal with it."

Further response from the Jack-booted thugs at Philly PD:
About 20 minutes later the department tweeted, "@Phillypolice thanks #occupyphilly for their cooperation. We're here to protect constitutional rights and ensure public safety."

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/30/occupy-evictions-poli ce-arrest-250-in-los-angeles-and-philadelphia/#ixzz1fCAb4YY5
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/30/occupy-evictions-pol i ce-arrest-250-in-los-angeles-and-philadelphia/

Boxingoutsider: If they want to influence voters, why are they ignoring long proven methodologies for influencing voters?

Actually just protesting is more proven and proven for longer than anything you mentioned. Also leadership takes a while to emerge. MLK didn't start the civil rights movement, he wasn't even ever the only leader. At first it was just someone here, a few people there and that was it. Took a few years to become what we think of it as. Same with Vietnam war protests. They didn't magically come out of nowhere in 1967.

It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've got.

Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy... the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want:

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. Thats against their interests.

Thats right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting farked by a system that threw them overboard 30 farking years ago. They don't want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shiatty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this farking place! Its a big club, and you ain't in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.

By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don't give a fark about you....they don't give a fark about you... they don't give a fark about you.

They don't care about you at all... at all... AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

Its called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it.



/RIP George

This has turned boring. I'm starting a movement to occupy Kate Beckinsale.

Joshua5: Honestly I've learned more about what the protesters want here on fark, then from the protesters themselves.
Which shows the protesters are doing a poor job getting its concerns to the general public. How much more time do they need in the park, three more mounths, six more?


I'm going to guess that this is because you spend way more time on FARK than you do at the Occupy protests. I'll be sure to let them know that you are bored, though.

A bunch of groups from the lunatic fringes chanting vague anti capitalist slogans from their slums has zero chance of influencing government policy. The only question is how long the authorities tolerate them before dispersing them.

If OWS had made a clear set of implementable demands and remedies in the first place when it was a cool grassroots movement, perhaps they would have actually achieved something.

jso2897: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: WaitWhatWhy: o5iiawah: krackpipe: Cyclometh: I hope the cops don't kill or maim someone in their quest for obedience to their orders.

If a few heads have to be cracked, and a significant number of overtime checks written, in order for the police to deny people their Constitutional right to gather and complain peacefully, well then justice has been done. We'll all sleep safer.

You do not have a constitutional right to deny access to to public space. Otherwise, I could do essentially whatever the hell i wanted to and it would be called "free speech"

Yeah, because OWS set up barracades and forcibly eviced people from public property.
Oh wait, that was the cops.

They have evicted people from public property because you do not have a constitutional right to squat in a public space under the guise of free speech. We're circling back around here...

Please show me the section in the Constituion which prohibits assembling in a public space for any reason. Don't worry, I'll wait.

There is nothing in the Constitution that either prohibits or permits such a thing per se, as you well know. I mean, assuming that you are not one of those idiots who insist that the Constitution says what they think it says, rather than what the courts have ruled.

Except the courts haven't ruled on it either. Cox vs. Louisiana held that free speech was not completely unlimited, but did not address the case of people assembling in public space set aside for public assembly. There is a major difference between assembling in a park and assembling in the middle of the street. Given that the right to assemble is in the First Amendment, there is no amendment limiting the right to assemble, the lack of a Supreme Court ruling and the existence of the Tenth Amendment at the very least puts the burden of proof on the government to bring a case for eviction against the protestors in a court of law, as you well know. I mean, assuming that you aren't just a right wing authoritarian who has no use for due process.

WhyteRaven74: Look up Hooverville and the Bonus Army sometime.

Disastrous government economic policy creating long depressions and economic stagnation, resulting in large numbers of unemployed? Yes there are a lot of similarities between then and now.

Though to be fair, Bush is our current Hoover, who claimed to be free market, but was nothing resembling free market. Obama is our FDR who continued and expanded those failed policies with even worse results.

Another similarity is that neither the Bonus Army or OWS movements in any way had any what the source of their misfortune was and simply demanded government to save them when it is the source of their problems.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau Jr. - close friend, lunch companion, loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt - and key architect of FDR's New Deal. May 9, 1939.

People do not call their grand plans a complete failure unless it actually was a complete failure. Such policies were total failures then and are failing now.

o5iiawah: So why was Tea Party Richmond charged $9,000 to hold their protest but Occupy Richmond was granted those rights for free?

Could be that the Tea Party wanted to bring in equipment, a stage perhaps and things of that nature. Could have something to do with some commercial aspect. But what the Tea Party was doing and what the Occupy people are doing are not exactly identical. They both involve free speech, however how they go about it is a bit different.

drxym: A bunch of groups from the lunatic fringes chanting vague anti capitalist slogans from their slums has zero chance of influencing government policy. The only question is how long the authorities tolerate them before dispersing them.

If OWS had made a clear set of implementable demands and remedies in the first place when it was a cool grassroots movement, perhaps they would have actually achieved something.

Oh look, another willfully ignorant person.

What these whiny protesters are doing is technically called "masturbation". It may make them feel good but it accomplishes nothing except annoy other people (since they insist on doing it in public).

WhyteRaven74: Boxingoutsider: That's like saying that I see overeating as a problem so I'm not going to eat.

By your definition MLK was not involved in the political process. You won't find a single history professor or political science professor who agrees with that.

Ridiculous. They had a specific set of goals. They were FAR FAR more organized and dedicated than OWS could ever ever hope to be. For the civil rights movement, just existing in a public place was protest. Their victory was being able to exist in the same space.

They had a goal, went after it in every way possible, and got it.

MLK was invited to meet with the president. He had more power and influence in his pinky finger than all of OWS put together. They worked at all levels. From grass roots all the way to the corridors of power. In a coordinated and methodical and righteous way.

They had goals, and worked to achieve them actively. Comparisons to the civil rights movement fail.

Boxingoutsider: Crunch61: Boxingoutsider: Sitting in a park ranks WAY WAY down the list of ways to influence a politician.

Ultimately, they need only to infuence voters.

Sitting in a park ranks just above burning a flag in terms of influencing voters. If they wanted to really influence voters they would canvass, they would organize, they would direct mail, etc. If they want to influence voters, why are they ignoring long proven methodologies for influencing voters? If they want to influence voters, why aren't they going door to door and calling everyone in the phone book?

Because it's not about influencing voters. It's about feeling like you're a part of something. At least for a lot of the protestors. The same reasons poor people join gangs. To feel a part of something. To exercise power in a place where they feel powerless.

If it was about influencing voters, they could be easily the most powerful influence group in the country. Tens of thousands of highly dedicated people. The kind of manpower and dedication PETA, ELF, The Tea party, the NRA could only dream of. People willing to do almost anything for the cause. Except organize and take action that will influence people.

Ultimately actions speak louder than words. You can say you're for banking reform and voter influence, but when you just sit around avoiding actions which could further your cause, you lose credence.


What have protests ever accomplished, amirite?

SockMonkeyHolocaust: <img src="hey look it's that image that the same people post in every thread how clever. jaypeg">

omg, is that meta humor? lololol, how cutting edge and refreshing

/loves those images