Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Checkmite said:
Several times.

Are you just in a cryptic mood today?
Click to expand...
I just want to know what's so confusing about "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

If the 1st Amendment applied only to individuals, as many here want to claim, then Congress can make the New York Times send every issue to a government censor to approve or disapprove, however they see fit. After all, freedom of the press applies only to individuals, not corporations like the New York Times. The law overturned in Citizens United excepted news media, because the Congress that passed it thinks freedom of the corporate press exists only at their blessing, not because of anything in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
I just want to know what's so confusing about "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

If the 1st Amendment applied only to individuals, as many here want to claim, then Congress can make the New York Times send every issue to a government censor to approve or disapprove, however they see fit. After all, freedom of the press applies only to individuals, not corporations like the New York Times. The law overturned in Citizens United excepted news media, because the Congress that passed it thinks freedom of the corporate press exists only at their blessing, not because of anything in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Huh. How about that.
 
Mobyseven said:
Huh. How about that.
Click to expand...

Everyone is the press these days. I have a blog. YOU CANT HOLD ME BACK! Ahem...

Corporations are made up of the free assembly of people. If you remove the corporations freedoms you remove the freedoms of the individuals who own said corporation.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Everyone is the press these days. I have a blog. YOU CANT HOLD ME BACK! Ahem...

Corporations are made up of the free assembly of people. If you remove the corporations freedoms you remove the freedoms of the individuals who own said corporation.
Click to expand...

It's hardly free assembly if you have to pay an entrance fee (ie buy shares in the company).
 
JihadJane said:
Earlier in the thread, as well as insanely claiming that protestors were sleeping in their own feces, you brought up the general problem of sewage and how it disgusted you to see buckets of **** and piss wandering around, looking for a home. What's your solution?
Click to expand...

My solution is for these people to get the hell out of my city and organize in their own communities. Theses fools have done nothing but stand around and hold signs while they continue to hurt the working of people of NYC. Now they are threatening to clog our court system by demanding a trial for every misdomeanor arrest. Perhaps at one of their "teach-ins and discussion groups" they can learn the actual meaning of civil disobedience -- accept the punishment to show that it is the law that is wrong, not the action.

These people are nothing but thugs who think they can take over our city with mob justice and violence. Due to protestors two cops were hospitalized recently and a subway stop was shut down during yesterday's morning rush hour. Meanwhile I don't know anyone who would dare walk near Zuccotti Park at night, despite the police presence there. NYPD overtime is now over $3 million.

So much for trying to help the other 99%. I can only hope we have an early and harsh winter.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Not at the beginning, they didn't. They were similarly criticized for not having specific demands while they burnt down police stations and then stopped people sleeping with their noises.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894e9d57e71bc6a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Tunisian uprising wanted Ben Ali and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Egyptian uprising wanted Hosni Mubarak and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Libyan uprising wanted Moammar Ghadafi and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Syrian uprising wants al-Assad and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. Don't start getting into this historical revisionist crap in an attempt to justify keeping your pet cause ambiguous.
 
WildCat said:
I just want to know what's so confusing about "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

If the 1st Amendment applied only to individuals, as many here want to claim, then Congress can make the New York Times send every issue to a government censor to approve or disapprove, however they see fit. After all, freedom of the press applies only to individuals, not corporations like the New York Times. The law overturned in Citizens United excepted news media, because the Congress that passed it thinks freedom of the corporate press exists only at their blessing, not because of anything in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Conflict of interest laws exist which limit speech, and have been supported by legal precedent. A prosecutor or defense attorney cannot have a private dinner with the judge presiding over their trial for instance, freedom of speech notwithstanding. Judges are not allowed to accept gifts from defendants.

I do not think politicians should be permitted to accept gifts - of any kind - from entities their job entails regulating. That can't possibly not be a conflict of interest.
 
Checkmite said:
Wrong. The Tunisian uprising wanted Ben Ali and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Egyptian uprising wanted Hosni Mubarak and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Libyan uprising wanted Moammar Ghadafi and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Syrian uprising wants al-Assad and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. Don't start getting into this historical revisionist crap in an attempt to justify keeping your pet cause ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Very true, especially in the case of Tunsia. It only took a month of protesting to out Ben Ali.
 
A former Clinton pollster surveys the Zuccotti Park crowd and discovers that they are hard-left:

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
Click to expand...

He goes on to note that the Democrats are running a real risk by identifying with these scruffy layabouts.

Meanwhile, the biggest problem facing the OWS crowd? The somewhat casual morality of their members:

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine how a protest movement about getting something for nothing could possibly attract people of less than the highest integrity.
 
Indeed Brainster. I find it ironic that people who have stolen a park from it's owners and the people of The City of New York are now complaining that their private property has been redistributed.
 
Skepticemea said:
It's hardly free assembly if you have to pay an entrance fee (ie buy shares in the company).
Click to expand...
Maybe you're not a native English speaker, but free has different meanings. You're free to buy any car you like, but the car itself isn't free.
 
Checkmite said:
Conflict of interest laws exist which limit speech, and have been supported by legal precedent. A prosecutor or defense attorney cannot have a private dinner with the judge presiding over their trial for instance, freedom of speech notwithstanding. Judges are not allowed to accept gifts from defendants.

I do not think politicians should be permitted to accept gifts - of any kind - from entities their job entails regulating. That can't possibly not be a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't see how that is relevant here.

This was a law that not only restricted free speech, it restricted political speech, which should be the most sacrosanct of all.
 
Skepticemea said:
It's hardly free assembly if you have to pay an entrance fee (ie buy shares in the company).
Click to expand...

How is it different from The Girl Scouts of America (fees) or a labor union (dues)? The "free" part of free assembly doesn't mean the cost is free to join, it means you are free to assembly with those you choose to, it's up to you if you want to pay for it.
 
WildCat said:
Perhaps you have access to information the prosecution doesn't? Have you contacted them?

Again, if you have evidence of your claims you should contact a federal prosecutor.
Click to expand...

We covered this already, you have the same info I have, you're being intentionally dense and this discussion is over.
 
Let's see.

Brainster quotes a former Clinton pollster without a )telling us it's from WSJ (strike 1) and b)

Douglas Schoen is an American political analyst, pollster, author, and commentator. He is a political analyst for Fox News. He partnered with political strategist Mark Penn and Michael Berland in the firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland. He believes that lower taxes would be a successful Democratic strategy, opposed President Obama's Affordable Care Act, warned the Democratic Party to reject the Occupy Wall Street protest, and recommended that President Obama not run for reelection in 2012.[3][4]
Click to expand...

Is himself right-wing. Sourcefail.



Also

I can't imagine how a protest movement about getting something for nothing could possibly attract people of less than the highest integrity.

Indeed Brainster. I find it ironic that people who have stolen a park from it's owners and the people of The City of New York are now complaining that their private property has been redistributed.
Click to expand...

Bias noted.
 
Checkmite said:
Wrong. The Tunisian uprising wanted Ben Ali and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Egyptian uprising wanted Hosni Mubarak and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Libyan uprising wanted Moammar Ghadafi and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. The Syrian uprising wants al-Assad and his government - gone. Specifically, from the beginning. Don't start getting into this historical revisionist crap in an attempt to justify keeping your pet cause ambiguous.
Click to expand...

And Occupy Wall Street wants to occupy Wall Street.

None of the uprisings you mention started off with a specific list of demands.

One demand that is emerging from the current uprising spreading out from the US is legal action against the financial fraudsters.

We are now seeing top US white collar crime expert, William K.Black, starting to work with Occupy Wall Street to Prosecute the Wall Street Mafia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom