Bigger Hypocrites than Christians/"Republicans"?

[AbyssalMage]

In America, we are allowed to protest, Its a Constitutional Right

The right to protest -- to free speech -- is not absolute, and does not trump everyone else's rights.

OWS were not obstructing your right to free speech or protest. They did inhibit your ability to shop (well anyone who attempted to shop where they protested). You do not have a constitutional right to shop, but I do have a constitutional right to protest. Ever been to a picket line? They attempt to inhibit your ability to purchase at that store/business. Now I can not physically place a barrier (or handcuff myself to something, just in case your thought of that also) to prevent you but I can use a non-linking chain of bodies to inhibit you. As long as you have the ability to pass I am not preventing/retraining or any other legal term politicians have thought of. There is a difference between inhibiting and preventing. The problem is many laws in the last 40 years have barred protesters from even inhibiting someone.

I have a right to protest, but not by pitching a tent in your living room.

Show me where they pitched a tent in a private residence!!! You can't 'cause your a right wing nut job/Fox "news" lemming, like the people OWS are protesting against.

If I attempt to protest in your living room, you have the right to call the police, and they have to right to take me, by force, away from there, even if I go kicking and screaming "but it's a PROTEST!".

Answer the above, and I can further enlighten you to this one.

There is always a balancing process, between your rights, and the rights of others.

Well, what are you balancing? Are you balancing my constitutional rights vs. protesters constitutional rights? They are the same, guess you never heard of equality and balancing equations?

Are we balancing protesters constitutional rights and a business's rights? Again, they are the same. Find in the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (it trumps your state laws) where it says a business has the right to make money at the expense of the people. I mean, come on, it's in the Bill of Rights for a reason, because States (remember the Bill of Rights were insurances that the Federal Government couldn't trample State rights and wasn't until the 14th Amendment that those rights were passed to the general mass) feared that States could be censored. They never feared business's being censored for a reason, think about that.

You can't break a content-neutral law, one that doesn't regulate speech directly -- such as, no camping in public parks -- by slapping the label 'protest' on your encampment. That is not how the Constitution works, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The founding fathers were not that stupid.

Well considering that "Parks" as we know them didn't exist but public spaces did, I think you better look in your history book, they did exactly that. They totally camped out in public spaces (and surrounding buildings) proving your statement false. Fox "news"/Right wing media is rotting your brain. History doesn't match up to what they are telling you.

p.s. Lol, I used "totally" in a statement

No one is restricting this group's right to protest, or their right to speak. But the fact that they're protesting doesn't mean they have a free pass to violate any law they choose, and when they violate those laws, we will take them, by force, and they will have earned it.

I guess you never looked up "Restrict." I would save you time and link it, but feel it may be a good exercise for you.

They are protesting against their government seeking a redress (Funny that appears in our constitution). The only laws they are violating are laws that inhibit their ability to protest their government 24/7 in the most public area available. They have video documentation (multiple news agencies) that they are organized, have a focused message, and have daily planning sessions that validates what they are doing as a "Protest."

Wanna try again?

p.s. I know you want to try again, but at least try to use that space between your ears this time

[AbyssalMage]

It's not an analogy.

Of course it is.

No it isn't, but I'll put it to you differently: if these rioters were physically obstructing your way to work, or home, or wherever you needed to be, and you, personally, had to write a check to clean up after them, what would you do?

Hmmm....I see 2 questions
If you are physically obstructing/inhibiting my way, I have the right to walk around you or do my business some where else. Obviously, I'll probably do my business some where else personally but that's the point of inhibiting someone so.....OWS 1; me 0 Now, if my only option is to do my business at location "A" because Location "B" is VERY inconvenient I will pass through the people who are trying to obstruct/inhibit me. OWS 0; me 1

Now to address your second question. Their was a multitude of ways to deal with the clean up. But I guess politicians only know how to solve problems one way, the way they solved it pretty universally, pass the bill off to the tax payers. It wasn't how they should of handled it, but they are like you Tudamorf, simple minded.

It's not analogy, it's a hypothetical question based on a real situation.

And like everyone else who had to do business around a OWS encampment, they answered that question daily. Amazing, the world didn't end like you were lead to believe. See, your learning, SLOWLY, that the world doesn't end when you protest 24/7 in a public place.

Baby steps Tudamorf, baby steps...

[Tudamorf]

The only laws they are violating are . . .

Precisely. They're violating laws, and are subject to arrest.

These laws are content-neutral, meaning they are constitutional so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest. In this case they are, since they are designed to keep parks clear and open to everyone. Constitutional challenges to laws of this type were rejected decades ago.

You cannot do an end run around these laws simply by slapping the label "protest" on your activity.

Show me where they pitched a tent in a private residence!!! You can't

A week or two ago, after they were kicked out of the parks, the Oakland Occupy gang broke into two private lots, that they "occupied" for less than a day before being kicked out by the police.

The relevant distinction is not public versus private property, but lawful activity versus unlawful activity.

You can't use the term "protest" as a shield against unlawful activity, whether it's illegally breaking into a private residence, or illegally camping in the park. You are free to protest, but you still have to follow the law, just like the people who aren't protesting. If you can't do that, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, the police will beat you with batons, spray you with pepper spray, or use whatever force is necessary to physically remove you and put you in jail, just as they would with any other criminal.

[Tudamorf]

And like everyone else who had to do business around a OWS encampment, they answered that question daily. Amazing, the world didn't end like you were lead to believe.

Who said anything about the world ending?

Residents and business owners alike hated those filthy encampments. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against them, even here, in one of the most liberal areas of the nation.

They are all being broken up by the police, and this idiotic movement is now nearly dead. On Black Friday they tried to protest at Union Square (a famous shopping block here) but apparently they could only find about 20 people to protest and were simply ignored by the masses of shoppers.

I'll tell you one thing. If I ever consider hiring someone and see an arrest on their police record for trespassing or a similar charge around this time, they're definitely not getting the job. And I know I'm not the only one.

[AbyssalMage]

The only laws they are violating are . . .

[1]Precisely. They're violating laws, and are subject to arrest.

[2]These laws are content-neutral, meaning they are constitutional so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest. In this case they are, since they are designed to keep parks clear and open to everyone. Constitutional challenges to laws of this type were rejected decades ago.

You cannot do an end run around these laws simply by slapping the label "protest" on your activity.

Wow, you take one step forward and 7 steps back. You really are thick headed aren't you?
[1]Breaking an unconstitutional law isn't against the law. You should of learned that in civics class (or your states equivalent).
[2]So you just stated that the law is unconstitutional because it serves the government interest, not the people. Maybe you are learning? Maybe? The Public space was never restricted. People were free to access it at all times. See, you even stated the second part of my argument, these laws were challenged and upheld decades ago, too bad people have been protesting for longer than decades. These laws were put in to protect governments (see [1]) and not the people. These laws DIRECTLY infringe on the "right to assemble."

Show me where they pitched a tent in a private residence!!! You can't

A week or two ago, after they were kicked out of the parks, the Oakland Occupy gang broke into two private lots, that they "occupied" for less than a day before being kicked out by the police.

The relevant distinction is not public versus private property, but lawful activity versus unlawful activity.

Hmmm....think I know the story your talking about (maybe, not positive) but it was obviously told two different ways. Won't comment about it only because the story I read was different and we are most likely not referencing the same "private" encampment.

You can't use the term "protest" as a shield against unlawful activity, whether it's illegally breaking into a private residence, or illegally camping in the park. You are free to protest, but you still have to follow the law, just like the people who aren't protesting. If you can't do that, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, the police will beat you with batons, spray you with pepper spray, or use whatever force is necessary to physically remove you and put you in jail, just as they would with any other criminal.

You are not subject to following "unlawful" orders. If the government tells you to do something, you have the right/responsibility to refuse the order if it is unlawful. That is what the protesters have chosen to do. History is marked with unlawful governments preaching something is lawful. ANY PERSON who follows an unlawful government is subject to the same punishment as the government. Luckily, our court/electoral system is only semi-broken, which means that its still very possible to have these laws stricken from the books. And although I know you prefer the "peaceful" way, there is a reason that the Founders made demonstrations constitutionally protected.

And you should really look up the word "protest" using the context of "freedom of speech" and "demonstrations." You may learn something, after all you didn't do very well or skipped your Civics Class.

[AbyssalMage]

And like everyone else who had to do business around a OWS encampment, they answered that question daily. Amazing, the world didn't end like you were lead to believe.

Who said anything about the world ending?

Residents and business owners alike hated those filthy encampments. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against them, even here, in one of the most liberal areas of the nation.

Well, I can understand why business's hated them, after all, they lost business, which was 1/2 the point of the protests. Some residents fully supported them, the ones who aren't brainwashed with Fox "news" at least. It was entertaining to watch how they (Fox) took a 180 when covering the TEA party and when they covered OWS. But you would know nothing about that, being who you are.

They are all being broken up by the police, and this idiotic movement is now nearly dead. On Black Friday they tried to protest at Union Square (a famous shopping block here) but apparently they could only find about 20 people to protest and were simply ignored by the masses of shoppers.

Funny, they are being broken up, but maybe its only in your "neck of the woods" that the movement is dieing. Most of it is moving into the courts around here, for the same thing we are debating. And honestly, I think the weather has more to do with the less protesting. On Black Friday here, they arrested 100 people for protesting. It made for a 15 sec clip on the morning news, then it was all about the lines and what people were buying.

I'll tell you one thing. If I ever consider hiring someone and see an arrest on their police record for trespassing or a similar charge around this time, they're definitely not getting the job. And I know I'm not the only one.

You have that right

[Tudamorf]

Breaking an unconstitutional law isn't against the law.

But it's not unconstitutional. That's the whole point.

The U.S. Supreme Court set out the standard a long time ago for content-neutral laws, and while you're free to disagree with it, it's their opinion that is backed by democracy (since we elect the President and members of the Senate) and their opinion that will be enforced with guns.

If you think people should be allowed to commit crimes in the name of a protest, feel free to convince a majority of voters, who will then elect the appropriate politicians who can make the legislative or judicial modifications you desire. Until that time, sit down, shut up, and obey the law, or you WILL be punished for breaking it.

[AbyssalMage]

Breaking an unconstitutional law isn't against the law.

But it's not unconstitutional. That's the whole point.

The U.S. Supreme Court set out the standard a long time ago for content-neutral laws, and while you're free to disagree with it, it's their opinion that is backed by democracy (since we elect the President and members of the Senate) and their opinion that will be enforced with guns.

If you think people should be allowed to commit crimes in the name of a protest, feel free to convince a majority of voters, who will then elect the appropriate politicians who can make the legislative or judicial modifications you desire. Until that time, sit down, shut up, and obey the law, or you WILL be punished for breaking it.

So you are PUBLICLY announcing on this forum that you are a fascist racist? You really should be careful how you construct your opinion about how we/U.S. decide what is constitutional and what isn't.

P.S. I don't believe you are a racist or fascist (at least by anything you have posted here) but your reasoning is DANGEROUS! Hitler (and many other people, including the U.S.) ruled by that logic. I hope you now understand why you should really educate yourself

[Tudamorf]

So you are PUBLICLY announcing on this forum that you are a fascist racist? You really should be careful how you construct your opinion about how we/U.S. decide what is constitutional and what isn't.

I'm PUBLICLY announcing what the law actually is, as opposed to what you think it is or want it to be.

It's what the U.S. Supreme Court says, and they get the last word in this area.

your reasoning is DANGEROUS! Hitler (and many other people, including the U.S.) ruled by that logic

What logic? Guns enforcing the opinions of the government? Every nation rules by that logic; they only differ in the manner in which they select their government.

The only nation that doesn't rule that way is the hypothetical world of the anarchists, which can never exist in the real world.

[Tudamorf]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Cal students sue over police tactics at protest

Two dozen UC Berkeley students and community members filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday, accusing university police and Alameda County sheriff's deputies of brutalizing them as they tried to set up an Occupy camp on campus.

Wait, wait, I thought lawyers were the evil top 1%? Not only do the Occupy losers want to fund lawyers now, but they want to get that funding by raising tuition on all of the other students. I thought they were unhappy about those tuition increases.

So we have Occupy losers taking money from poor students to enrich themselves and rich lawyers. Predictable, of course, but nevertheless a hilarious example of hypocrisy.

By comparison, Christians and "Republicans" are mere amateurs.