Posted on 11/16/2011 9:29:36 PM PST by Feline_AIDS
What is OWS's argument here? Why do they think they can live on public property for one night, much less indefinitely?
Is anyone denied a protest permit based on what he/she wants to protest? If not, what on earth is the argument for letting them stay at all?
Serious question.
I may be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that Zucotti Park is actually private property.
Yes and it is owned by buddies of obama.
“what on earth is the argument for letting them stay at all? “
The OWS are ALL Democrats...and to the Left of the Democrats. The cities they are camping in are also all Democrat governed.
End of story.
If the Tea Party folk had camped out anywhere(not that they would) ...they’d of been labeled “terrorists” and cleared out long ago.
Yes. Yes they do.
I have to think of Juvenal, “But on what charge was he condemned? Who informed against him? What was the evidence, who the witnesses, who made good the case?” - “Nothing of the sort; a great and wordy letter came from Capri.” - “Good; I ask nothing more.”
This is a synopsis of the demise of Sejanus, the heir apparent to Tiberius, the author of the “great and wordy letter”. Although the context is somewhat different, what strikes the chord is the implication of arbitrary and ultimate authority, airily wielded. This was chafed under even in those days, and can we no longer recognize it?
In places where they’re on government-owned property, are they exercising their right to peaceably assemble when they stay 24 hrs?
Isn’t assembling different from staying overnight?
They can’t even articulate exactly what they are protesting about....and what exactly they want.
How in the world can you expect them to articulate the legal rationale for camping on the street?
I’m old enough to remember real protesters from the ‘60s. I often didn’t agree with them (even though I was only a kid...), but at least they knew what they wanted.
This latest group is just ‘60s wannabes...
The Freedom of Speech allows one to speak your mind about the Government without fear of being thrown in jail as retribution. For some reason, it has become popular lately for people to wrap themselves in the first amendment without any concept of its original meaning or limits.
The 1st Amendment does not allow you to...
... endanger the public (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater)
... endanger the public (incite to riot)
... endanger the public (commit acts otherwise unlawful - urinating in public, vandalism, arson, drug use, etc.)
... speak out against an employer without fearing retribution (like these people actually have jobs)
... speak in the public arena without fearing recourse for the content of your speech (e.g., a pro athelete bashing Jews on twitter may lose his endorsement deals)
Certainly, people should know they are responsible for the consequences of their speech/actions when making any kind of statement or protest. You could be fired from a job with a military contractor if you are found to be protesting against a war that your employer supports with weapons or other materials. This is the part they usually conveniently forget.
Where it regrettably gets fuzzy involves cases of personal conduct in which a seemingly unrelated party opts to take action.
Example: a public school teacher does nude modeling on the side during the summer when school is not in session. No relation whatsoever to his/her classroom job. School boards have fired teachers over less when such things are found out, but we’ve seen multiple reports each way on stuff like this.
Note in all of this, ‘Peaceable assembly’ is related - and for this, no: of course you cannot violate basic property rights or break other laws. As part of an orderly society, local municipalities typically have permitting or other limits on what it means to ‘peaceably assemble.’
All that said, these ne’r-do-wells don’t have a coherent message, or agenda, or even factual clues. They are being propped up (Probably) to counter the Tea Party movement... and the notion that OWS and the TP protests are somehow on equal footing is ludicrous at best.
I know most of us know this stuff — but it was time for a rant. As you were...
How is fomenting riots and encouraging the burning down of NYC legal? Why aren’t these people being put into jail????
Well heck what about all the OTHER places #Occupy is that aren’t “owned by buddies of obama”?
That is my question.
So instead of paying a mortgage, taxes and insurance all these years all I had to do was buy a tent and paint a sign? And I could live free on taxpayer property? I think I could come up with a “cause” or two. Dang it..duped again.
No matter, I DO love my creature comforts.
This is well orchestrated behind the scenes. Monica Crowley tonight was saying the first objective was to get the mob assembled after which the useful idiots are incited with the communist mantra and the mob will suddenly finds it's purpose.
This is their big chance and I think they are totally blowing it because too many people are really disgusted ..... and the majority of us, while struggling, are still working. Obama hasn't been as successful as they probably wanted - it isn't bad enough yet for their ugly takeover to be successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
