Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Strap on your helmets, LA Farkers. Occupy LA is getting shut down   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 537
    More: News  
•       •       •

7380 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2011 at 5:21 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-30 10:06:35 AM  

morrach: You don't seem to have a lot to say about the topic at hand


i already said they're getting annoying. way to play the game, frankie.

and I think i made myself clear in the "pepper spraying whining" area that these protestor go from "adults" to "children" via chants from their own "leaders" the second force is imposed upon them.
 
2011-11-30 10:08:12 AM  

morrach: archichris: morrach: o5iiawah: WhyteRaven74: liam76: "peaceably"

And what do you know, the Occupy protests are peaceable. Except in a few cases where the cops showed up in riot gear. Funny how that works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilq_66LnRaw
Link (new window)

[cdn.abclocal.go.com image 600x450]

[savethe99.com image 600x540]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x543]

[boldcolors.net image 600x450]

Ah, those jack-booted police must have been provoking people to destroy all that property and threaten others!

Weird, I wonder if any sort of brutal police action happened just prior to the general strike that might have brought out more than just the Occupy crowd. Probably nothing, right?

I dont recall Ghandi stockpiling weapons and incendieries. I do recall video of OWS'ers fighting among themselves, arrests for rape and sexual assault, rampant drug use, etc.... so 'peaceable?


This movement sounds really violent! I'm surprised any cities are still standing.


Luckily burning down entire cities is beyond the daily effort most OWS 'ers are willing to exert. London did a pretty good job of it a few months back if you recall. Same basic crowd, worse teeth.
 
2011-11-30 10:08:17 AM  

2wolves: So, in your mind, there is a time limit.


I said that where? I just made note that they showed up, spent their money on taxable goods and services and went about their lives unlike the people whom you attempted to compare them to.
 
2011-11-30 10:09:44 AM  

ParaHandy: Anyone who claims Occupy doesn't have anything coherent to say please read this then shut the fark up (new window)


Your linking skills. Not so good. It did not open in a new window.
 
2011-11-30 10:09:47 AM  
archichris: Top 4 google search results. You should try google, its a search engine. Helps prevent foot in mouth disease.

So those couple incidents are representative of all the Occupy protests?
 
2011-11-30 10:11:08 AM  

Coelacanth: Just a suggestion...

[i249.photobucket.com image 640x540]

If you support OWS, wear a bread hat Saturday December 24th. Make it as simple or as complex as you want. Even if it's just a breadstick stuck in your ear.

We shall overcrumb.


I think it's the yeast uh I mean least we can do.
 
2011-11-30 10:11:35 AM  

Smiths: morrach: You don't seem to have a lot to say about the topic at hand

i already said they're getting annoying. way to play the game, frankie.

and I think i made myself clear in the "pepper spraying whining" area that these protestor go from "adults" to "children" via chants from their own "leaders" the second force is imposed upon them.



All your tough talk and swagger doesn't hide the sparkle in your eye and spring in your step that creeps up whenever your mancrush posts.
 
2011-11-30 10:12:49 AM  

theknuckler_33: 2wolves: theknuckler_33:

Four and a half days worth of camping, in L.A.. (new window)

Are you seriously going to equate people waiting in line for movie tickets with the occupy movement?

I'm saying that if someone is making a dollar off of it people will be allowed, nay encouraged, to camp and use public resources. As long as you're feeding the beast you'll be considered a good consumer, not an evil protestor.

Or maybe it's because they didn't block the streets and sidewalks and shiat in the bushes.


Then why doesn't the LAPD/NYPD/others do these operations in daylight. If it's that horrible there should be a groundswell of support.
 
2011-11-30 10:12:54 AM  

WhyteRaven74: As long as the people protesting were being engaged yeah I would. Fundamentally the root issue is engaging people, where isn't that important. It's why the Wall Street people have been where they have, the people they wanted to engage are there. Now while the mayor can't entirely force those people to engage the protesters, he certainly can makes sure the city engages them in dialogue. And even though the city itself isn't among those that the OWS protesters have an issue with, at least it would be someone engaging them and listening, and if they're doing it in good faith doing what they can so that the protesters can engage those who they do have issues with.


Fair enough. Thanks for finally answering. I would suggest, however, that a significant majority would see it exactly as an attempt to put the protests 'out of sight out of mind' and would vehemently refuse the offer. Granted, I pulled that firmly out of my ass, but based on the TFTs here on Fark the past few months, I think it is a reasonably educated guess. I highly doubt the occupy movement would agree to be moved a few miles away from the business district in exchange for allowing the camps to continue with some logistical support from the city.
 
2011-11-30 10:13:31 AM  
You have no rights. You never had them. Every single one of us is a couple of keystrokes away from spending the rest of our lives naked in a fishtank, hooked up to a Variac.
 
2011-11-30 10:14:14 AM  

xanadian: Coelacanth: Just a suggestion...

[i249.photobucket.com image 640x540]

If you support OWS, wear a bread hat Saturday December 24th. Make it as simple or as complex as you want. Even if it's just a breadstick stuck in your ear.

We shall overcrumb.

I think it's the yeast uh I mean least we can do.


i1089.photobucket.com
 
2011-11-30 10:14:18 AM  

morrach: Smiths: morrach: You don't seem to have a lot to say about the topic at hand

i already said they're getting annoying. way to play the game, frankie.

and I think i made myself clear in the "pepper spraying whining" area that these protestor go from "adults" to "children" via chants from their own "leaders" the second force is imposed upon them.


All your tough talk and swagger doesn't hide the sparkle in your eye and spring in your step that creeps up whenever your mancrush posts.


you're getting close to my heart too, buddy. don't want you two to have to fight for my lust.
 
2011-11-30 10:17:04 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: 2wolves: So, in your mind, there is a time limit.

I said that where? I just made note that they showed up, spent their money on taxable goods and services and went about their lives unlike the people whom you attempted to compare them to.


"Yes...ok. So? Are they still encamped there?"

So you weren't implying a time limit, you just pulled a random question out of the ether. Ok.
 
2011-11-30 10:18:14 AM  

2wolves: Or maybe it's because they didn't block the streets and sidewalks and shiat in the bushes.

Then why doesn't the LAPD/NYPD/others do these operations in daylight. If it's that horrible there should be a groundswell of support.


Well, I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with the fact that their problem is with the whole campground aspect of it. I suppose they are giving them the opportunity to leave before they get into the overnight hours... but we're digressing. Comparing the occupy movement to people waiting in line for movie tickets is pretty ridiculous.
 
2011-11-30 10:20:05 AM  
theknuckler_33: that a significant majority would see it exactly as an attempt to put the protests 'out of sight out of mind' and would vehemently refuse the offer

Some might. Also it would depend exactly which protest you're dealing with. In the case of Wall Street, figure as long as they're being talked to and they're able to see Manhattan, easily, it could be good. Might not be, but trying wouldn't hurt.

Smiths: asked for an incident report of "this kind of thing happening"... was provided one.. DEFLECTED into "this is happening at all of them, huh?"

Someone makes a claim the protests are filled with drugs, rape, filth, smelly hippies, rape and other problems, and they can only point to a couple incidents at a couple protests. Doesn't exactly justify their position.
 
2011-11-30 10:21:45 AM  

Boxingoutsider: So you're saying people will be camping outside in parks for years to come? What kind of loser does that? I mean seriously, you can't find a better way to influence policy?


No, that's not what I'm saying. This is noticeable mainly due to the lack of the word "camping" in my post. I used the more general "protesting". It is certainly feasible that people will be protesting for years to come unless their concerns are addressed. How those protests manifest themselves is anybody's guess. Also, as the issues Occupy is protesting against get worse then it's feasible that the numbers of people protesting will swell. You're apparently projecting a lack of will on to the protesters.

If the camping becomes enough of an irritant then we can probably expect that more measures will be taken to disband/prevent them, yes?. This escalation will sadly probably involve controversies and as these mount so will public feeling one way or another, yes? Again, this goes back to some kind of idea you have that unless something garners results instantly then it's not worth it. Millions of people simply aren't that apathetic and are willing to do quite a bit to be heard. The fact that they're on the news every night in many different countries says that they are being heard and they don't look like quitting any time soon. So, it comes down to trying to silence them or get rid of them. This will be achieved by listening to what they're saying and starting some kind of dialogue at the very least about it or, at the other end of the spectrum, beating them out of the protests in front of the world. We both know whose reputations will come off worse in that situation.

Dancin_In_Anson: On the other we have a bunch of people who are camped out on public property where they will spend taxpayer funds on law enforcement, sanitation etc and plan on being there for months much to the chagrin of people who are footing the bill


Are you saying that if everybody camping was a taxpayer you'd be fine with it? How do you know that they're not taxpayers or have been recently? What about retirees who paid taxes all their lives, would they be ok to protest by camping?
 
2011-11-30 10:24:37 AM  

theknuckler_33:

Then why doesn't the LAPD/NYPD/others do these operations in daylight. If it's that horrible there should be a groundswell of support.

Well, I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with the fact that their problem is with the whole campground aspect of it. I suppose they are giving them the opportunity to leave before they get into the overnight hours... but we're digressing. Comparing the occupy movement to people waiting in line for movie tickets is pretty ridiculous.


Dressing up like Indians is very ridiculous.

What is hilarious is that if someone is making a dollar then it's ok.
 
2011-11-30 10:24:43 AM  

entitled: WaitWhatWhy: 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.

Pretending to be a constitutional authority is so much fun!


Such a pretty strawman you've made. Care to refute any part of my analysis?
 
2011-11-30 10:26:13 AM  

The Envoy: Are you saying that if everybody camping was a taxpayer you'd be fine with it? How do you know that they're not taxpayers or have been recently? What about retirees who paid taxes all their lives, would they be ok to protest by camping?


Obviously not, there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.
 
2011-11-30 10:27:32 AM  

feckingmorons: To actively oppose the police is not only illegal, but contrary to their goals as I understand them.


I LOL'ed
 
2011-11-30 10:29:47 AM  

WaitWhatWhy: Such a pretty strawman you've made. Care to refute any part of my analysis?


Oh, can I?

All public speech, symbolic or otherwise, is subject to reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3068, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984).

You are welcome.
 
2011-11-30 10:30:23 AM  
But what's to become of the 99th percent??
 
2011-11-30 10:38:26 AM  

WhyteRaven74: theknuckler_33: that a significant majority would see it exactly as an attempt to put the protests 'out of sight out of mind' and would vehemently refuse the offer

Some might. Also it would depend exactly which protest you're dealing with. In the case of Wall Street, figure as long as they're being talked to and they're able to see Manhattan, easily, it could be good. Might not be, but trying wouldn't hurt.


I can agree with that.

Gotta get some work done. Have a good one.
 
2011-11-30 10:39:35 AM  
Headso:
King planned for an initial group of 2,000 poor people to descend on Washington, D.C., southern states and northern cities to meet with government officials to demand jobs, unemployment insurance, a fair minimum wage, and education for poor adults and children designed to improve their self-image and self-esteem

An army of angry paupers intent on burning the capitalist system to the ground... A fair minimum wage? No wonder he was seen as a dangerous Bolshevik.
 
2011-11-30 10:39:40 AM  

2wolves: Then why doesn't the LAPD/NYPD/others do these operations in daylight. If it's that horrible there should be a groundswell of support.


Isn't that kind of funny that they do these well-planned operations long after dark? You'd almost think they had something to hide.

theknuckler_33: Well, I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with the fact that their problem is with the whole campground aspect of it.


Right. Because they can't announce that they have to be cleared out of a place at noon, then move in at 3. pm--which would make a lot more sense anyway. The people get up, realize they've been told to move, then decide either to leave or to take a stand, giving them a few hours to clear out.

Nope, these raids absolutely need to be done during the night.
 
2011-11-30 10:40:07 AM  

2wolves: What is hilarious is that if someone is making a dollar then it's ok.


Well, now we're just going around in circles. Don't have time for that.
 
2011-11-30 10:43:13 AM  

cryinoutloud: 2wolves: Then why doesn't the LAPD/NYPD/others do these operations in daylight. If it's that horrible there should be a groundswell of support.

Isn't that kind of funny that they do these well-planned operations long after dark? You'd almost think they had something to hide.

theknuckler_33: Well, I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with the fact that their problem is with the whole campground aspect of it.

Right. Because they can't announce that they have to be cleared out of a place at noon, then move in at 3. pm--which would make a lot more sense anyway. The people get up, realize they've been told to move, then decide either to leave or to take a stand, giving them a few hours to clear out.

Nope, these raids absolutely need to be done during the night.


Are you trying to tell me that you'd be ok with them being evicted if it was done in the afternoon? I find that hard to believe.

Forgive me for not waiting around for a reply, I just have some shiat I gotta do now.
 
2011-11-30 10:45:29 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Wow, you anti-OWS farkers love to bury your heads in the sand, huh?

ParaHandy provided a link to a highly detailed and sound summation of the goals of the OWS movement, written directly by protesters.

We can argue the validity of their points, but STOP PRETENDING there are not specific goals.

Here, I'll even relink it for ya. (new window)

And whether you agree with their message or not, the brutality of the police response to OWS has been absolutely disproportionate (especially since the cops did nothing to bother the armed, violence-threatening Tea Partiers).


The Tea Party is unwitting astroturf for the 1% ... as someone posted in a thread a few days ago, it's the "my master beats me less than yours" phenomenon.

The fact is that the Occupy movmement is a real threat to the current oligarchy that transcends political lines. Politics in the US consists of choosing which of the two parties Wall St needs to bribe more for the next 2 years.

I've found without exception that anyone who supports the GOP is misinformed ... they quote deliberately misleading stats prepared to trap the unwary, such as the income tax distribution without Capital Gains and FICA. When confronted with data, they resort to vague homilies such as "socialized healthcare will be less efficient because everything run by the government is" ... despite the fact that we've already discussed the point that most of the 36 countries that have better and less expensive health care ARE single-payer systems run by their governments.

Latest round with a colleague at work: after conceding that single-payer is in most cases cheaper and more efficient, he starts picking at one thread: "WHO may say that Europe has better health care than us, but we have the best cancer survival rate" ... I haven't dissected this particular one yet, but note how he is happy to narrow the discussion to one tiny area where there might be an opportunity to continue to defend the broken system he supports. I'd give it at least 50:50 that he's wrong again; for one thing, the 35% or so of Americans that have no insurance or can't afford the co-pays just die untreated, but even if you say fark them and narrow focus to the 65% who can access care, the fact that some of the best care in the world is available here gets undermined by insurance companies arguing against treatment plans that are expensive, and by treatment practices being distorted by litigation avoidance and profit motive ... treatment for TIA (stroke) in US ER's is incredibly bad due to doctors avoiding risky but statistically correct life saving decisions, and childbirth complications are much higher than Europe due to the high profit margins on unnecessary Caesarian sections.

It's not that they are toadies, they have entrenched views to which they are emotionally attached, and no-one gives those up liightly. In college, used to argue passionately against the Strong AI Hypothesis ... I was wrong, but didn't see it until much later.

This is why, in the sardonic wit of Mrs PH's favourite neuroscience professor, strongly held opinions are "rarely hampered by data"
 
2011-11-30 10:49:24 AM  

s2s2s2: I am all for OWS, but they have two options. Get leaders involved in the game, or get to warring. Otherwise they are just wasting everyone's time, and are destined to fail.


Warrrrrriors, come out to plaaaaaa-aaaaayy
 
2011-11-30 11:01:38 AM  

feckingmorons: While one may admire the occupiers goals, if they are breaking the law the must be arrested.

Once arrested they may raise civil disobedience (and in this instance civil means just that - not actively resisting the police, but passive resistance is fine) as a defense. The Courts can evaluate the defense and make appropriate rulings.

To actively oppose the police is not only illegal, but contrary to their goals as I understand them.


So you're saying there is no right to protest? No free speech? If the cops tell you to shut the fark up and go home, you must shut the fark up and go home?

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the OccupyWhatever folks, but I'm a big fan of free speech. Calling in the swat team to shut down speech the gov doesn't like pisses me off.
 
2011-11-30 11:08:42 AM  

halfof33: The Envoy: Are you saying that if everybody camping was a taxpayer you'd be fine with it? How do you know that they're not taxpayers or have been recently? What about retirees who paid taxes all their lives, would they be ok to protest by camping?

Obviously not, there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.


Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.
 
2011-11-30 11:20:03 AM  

The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.


I am utterly baffled how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.
 
2011-11-30 11:23:44 AM  
I wanted to walk through the crowds and ask how many of them are registered to vote.
 
2011-11-30 11:26:15 AM  

halfof33: WaitWhatWhy: Such a pretty strawman you've made. Care to refute any part of my analysis?

Oh, can I?

All public speech, symbolic or otherwise, is subject to reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3068, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984).

You are welcome.


Thanks. Looks like I was wrong. I don't agree with the court's ruling that interest of the Government is more important then the right to protest, but I can respect the results of the system, even if I'd like to see some changes to said system.
On a side I can see an interesting argument being made that the OWS, especially in the case of the NYC camp don't interfere with the "substantial Government interest, unrelated to suppression of expression, in conserving park property that is served by the proscription of sleeping." given the lack of damage to Zuccutti Park (it's hard to fark up a concrete slab), but I'm to tired to argue it right now.
 
2011-11-30 11:32:46 AM  

WaitWhatWhy: Thanks. Looks like I was wrong.


Oh Yeah? Well scr...

wait what? That was a remarkably reasonable post.

Hey you hippies are all right.

In the spirit of generosity I will refrain from using the word "hippie" and/or "squatter" for the rest of today.
 
2011-11-30 11:32:59 AM  

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: I wanted to walk through the crowds and ask how many of them are registered to vote.


I wanted to walk through the crowds and ask how many of them like oranges.
 
2011-11-30 11:35:43 AM  

2wolves: Prince George: To: Subby
I am not even remotely close to a 1%er but you and all the other occupiers are arrogant d0uches to claim you speak for me.

1. Are you in L.A.?
2. Are you in the Occupy movement?
3. If not, the HL wasn't directed at you.

Wish to have another swing at it?


No it was aimed more at OWS as a whole. They talk about representing the 99%. Who gave them the right? I didn't elect them. If they represent anyone it's the 40ish + % that don't pay any taxes yet expect the rest of us to take care of them. I took a 20% hit in income back when the economy went to crap and I still haven't gotten it back. I work 50-60 hours a week and have been struggling to pay my mortgage since. Did EBT cards take that hit too? No. Unemployment benefits? No. Did government salaries? No. So gee, I guess the only people who've really had to suffer are us poor saps paying your bill.
 
2011-11-30 11:36:56 AM  

Ed Grubermann: feckingmorons: While one may admire the occupiers goals, if they are breaking the law the must be arrested.

Oh, do shut the fark up! Is it some compulsion that forces you to post the same God damned thing in every OWS thread? Couldn't you mix it up a bit? You know, like blame Obama or Bill Clinton, or some other trolltastic bullshiat?


Yes, you are only a troll if you blame democrats for this countries problems. Republicans are boogiemen and are responsible for everything bad and there is literally nothing that a democrat president could do that would upset anyone but the 1% and their hired hands. Remember, the point of this whole OWS is to get democrats elected. Now fall in line citizen!
 
2011-11-30 11:45:31 AM  

Prince George: that don't pay any taxes


once you see someone put that in their post you can write them off.
 
2011-11-30 11:48:43 AM  

Headso: Prince George: that don't pay any taxes

once you see someone put that in their post you can write them off.


lulz, I see what you did there.
 
2011-11-30 11:51:10 AM  

halfof33: The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.

I am utterly baffled how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.


Really? Ok, I'll go step-by-step:

halfof33: there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.


To which I responded "Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient". Put another way, protesting is a reason that runs contrary to your statement above.

halfof33: Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.


What is actually remarkable is that you managed to get that drivel from this: (re: protesting)"Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent?".

Now, I quite clearly stated that protesting is "one of" the populace's only means of communicating dsiscontent. So no, I am not asserting that it is the population's only means. At all. Did you misread it or intentionally twist it? Further, I didn't say "camping", did I? It can quite clearly be seen from my post that I am talking about protesting. Did you fail to pick up on the context or were you too busy misreading everything else?
 
2011-11-30 11:53:05 AM  

jdmac: Remember, the point of this whole OWS is to get democrats elected. Now fall in line citizen!


I missed that memo. Care to elaborate?
 
2011-11-30 11:57:30 AM  

2wolves: jdmac: Remember, the point of this whole OWS is to get democrats elected. Now fall in line citizen!

I missed that memo. Care to elaborate?


pretty sure it probably involves the liberal media conspiracy...
 
2011-11-30 12:01:07 PM  

ParaHandy: Anyone who claims Occupy doesn't have anything coherent to say please read this then shut the fark up (new window)


OMG! You expect us to read and think for ourselves? You b@st@rd, that's too much work. How dare you suggest such a thing?
 
2011-11-30 12:05:34 PM  

otterly_delicious: WaitWhatWhy: otterly_delicious: I can't understand why people are upset at being systematically farked over by banks, the government and other corporations, so herpa derpa derp
FTFY

Herpa derpa derp...That's exactly what I hear the OWS say.

Give some real solutions on what should be done. You can't just shut them all down. That's not reality. Sitting in front of a bank isn't going to change the bank. Why not take it to the politicians? Sit on Pelosi's lawn. Or at the state capitals. Or the lobbyists offices.

But yes, continue with the herpa derpa derp comments since you can't seem to express what can be done.


I am a liar. I know full well every Occupy group has a committee dedicated to discerning what the largest problems facing America and their state are today. I know these groups are collecting suggested solutions, sorting through them, and working toward workable goals. But I pretend I don't know. I call them names and feign ingnorance. I ask "What is it all about? What do they want? Why don't they just get jobs?" Because I am a liar.

Sincerely,
Otterly
 
2011-11-30 12:10:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: liam76: "peaceably"

And what do you know, the Occupy protests are peaceable. Except in a few cases where the cops showed up in riot gear. Funny how that works.


Once you break the law you are no longer peaceable assembled.

And as we have already established they have broken the law, unless you are trying to pretend that you can set up a tent indefinitely, set up wooden structures 14+ feet in height with no permit, and have 100+ people gather for days on end with no toilets up on any public land and break no laws?
 
2011-11-30 12:12:23 PM  

theknuckler_33: Are you trying to tell me that you'd be ok with them being evicted if it was done in the afternoon? I find that hard to believe.


That wasn't the point you were trying to make, which was that were perfectly legitimate reasons why it needed to be done in the middle of the night. No wonder you had to leave.
 
2011-11-30 12:13:45 PM  

halfof33: The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.

I am utterly baffled how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.


www.dashhacks.com
 
2011-11-30 12:14:09 PM  

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Ow My Balls: otterly_delicious:

[i471.photobucket.com image 550x506]

Woah! "Economic injustice".... now THAT'S specific.


What next, demanding time travel????

[www.scottwesterfeld.com image 420x332]



Or how about demanding a moratorium on all dust bunnies????

[static.neatorama.com image 450x382]


Pfft, I know. LOL, stoned hippies and their big words. What the hell is economic injustice? Who could possibly figure out what that's supposed to mean?
 
2011-11-30 12:14:20 PM  

liam76: Once you break the law you are no longer peaceable assembled.


the "law" and peacefulness are kinda two different things...
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report