Bigger Hypocrites than Christians/"Republicans"?

[Fyyr]

Arrested for resisting arrest.

That is dumb.

"Oh, we are arresting you"
"For what?"
"Are you resisting that arrest?"
"Yes"
"We are arresting you for resisting arrest"

[Tudamorf]

Arrested for resisting arrest.

That is dumb.

"Oh, we are arresting you"
"For what?"
"Are you resisting that arrest?"
"Yes"
"We are arresting you for resisting arrest"

They are already breaking the law, repeatedly, by squatting in these parks.

They were asked nicely, repeatedly, to obey the law, in a manner that still allows them to express their First Amendment rights. They refused.

Now that it's no longer considered politically correct for rich white liberals to ostensibly support these Occupy losers, the law is being enforced in every city nationwide, because in reality the overwhelming majority of people don't like them.

How do you expect that law to be enforced, if not by force? And when people resist the force of that arrest, how do you expect the police to react, but to use the greater force necessary to physically restrain and remove people?

[Fyyr]

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.

Their assembly is peaceful.

Until the government comes in, with their bully boy Droog cops, and maces them, runs them over with vehicles, and shoots them in the head.

They have a protected Constitutional right to assemble, peacefully.

Unless we just rescind the Constitution for convenience. Which appears is what is going on now.

They were asked nicely, repeatedly, to obey the law,

They don't have to obey a law which is UnConstitutional. They should ignore it. Some would say they have an obligation to ignore it.

They are already breaking the law, repeatedly, by squatting in these parks

They are not being arrested for squatting in parks. They are being arrested for resisting arrest. Which is FUCKING RETARDED!!

[Tudamorf]

They have a protected Constitutional right to assemble, peacefully.

Which does not extend to squatting in parks, damaging property, or endangering the public. That is why they were arrested.

They should ignore it. Some would say they have an obligation to ignore it.

It just goes to show how stupid they are. At the beginning, the guilty rich white liberals were vaguely on their side. If they were smart, instead of smashing up towns and creating repulsive makeshift ghettos, they would have obeyed the law and turned more people to their side. Instead, they alienated everyone who could help them.

Then again, if they were smart, they probably wouldn't be a bunch of unemployed losers to begin with, would they?

[Tudamorf]

In case you want to hear it from a judge, Fyyr:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-yo ... index.html

New York court upholds eviction of Occupy protesters

Police in riot gear cleared out them out early Tuesday morning, a move that attorneys for the demonstrators say was unlawful.

But Justice Michael Stallman ruled in favor of city officials and Brookfield Properties, the park's owner and developer, who have each raised health and sanitation concerns.

The order does not prevent Zuccotti park demonstrations, but says protesters' First Amendment rights not do include remaining there "along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain" the area.

Stallman said protesters' rights cannot come at the exclusion of those "who might wish to use the space safely."

It is constitutional.

A libertarian might even say that Occupy's collective fist got too close to our collective nose. (That is, if that libertarian weren't a hypocrite, something which is almost impossible by definition.)

[AbyssalMage]

In case you want to hear it from a judge, Fyyr:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-yo ... index.html

New York court upholds eviction of Occupy protesters

Police in riot gear cleared out them out early Tuesday morning, a move that attorneys for the demonstrators say was unlawful.

But Justice Michael Stallman ruled in favor of city officials and Brookfield Properties, the park's owner and developer, who have each raised health and sanitation concerns.

The order does not prevent Zuccotti park demonstrations, but says protesters' First Amendment rights not do include remaining there "along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain" the area.

Stallman said protesters' rights cannot come at the exclusion of those "who might wish to use the space safely."

It is constitutional.

A libertarian might even say that Occupy's collective fist got too close to our collective nose. (That is, if that libertarian weren't a hypocrite, something which is almost impossible by definition.)

And there is where the judge has it wrong!!!
Re-read his own quote before you insert you foot any deeper, it may come out your A$$

The demonstrators never impeded city officials from preforming there duties or other lawful citizens from using the space. That is in direct contrast to what he stated when defending his ruling. You can further argue that the city is liable for not cleaning up while the protests were occurring causing the problems they argued in court.

I know history isn't your strong suite, after all, you can't even decipher what a judge says is constitutional or not. The Judge is wrong about this, but I also live in a reality that the law will not be struck down because its unconstitutional, not at least in my life time, not by the current political climate.

[Tudamorf]

And there is where the judge has it wrong!!!

That is your opinion, but you are not a judge. No one elected you (or anyone who appointed you). Your opinions won't be enforced by any local, state, or federal government.

If you want to live in our society, you have to abide by our Constitution, not yours.

If you don't like the rules, you have the same option we have, to elect people with different opinions, or to convince the currently elected people to change their opinions (something the Occupy losers were too stupid to do, even though they had their foot in the door at the beginning).

If you try to take a shortcut, we're going to force the issue. Just as you'd force a squatting trespasser on your lawn off your property (think of what that means).

I know history isn't your strong suite, after all

It seems that your grasp of history is limited to the handful of successful protests over the centuries that were backed by the people.

However this situation is more analogous to the countless unsuccessful ones that weren't.

[AbyssalMage]

That is your opinion, but you are not a judge. No one elected you (or anyone who appointed you). Your opinions won't be enforced by any local, state, or federal government.

If you want to live in our society, you have to abide by our Constitution, not yours.

I would love to abide by our constitution, the problem is, both parties have made a "Frankenstein" of it to meet their own ends. No one would elect me, not because I wouldn't make a great official, but because the business's that run our political system wouldn't support me. And even if I did manage to get elected, my single vote wouldn't overcome the votes who were bought by business's. I'm under no such illusion so you have nothing to be worried about, you can continue to live in your shell.

If you don't like the rules, you have the same option we have, to elect people with different opinions, or to convince the currently elected people to change their opinions (something the Occupy losers were too stupid to do, even though they had their foot in the door at the beginning).

If you try to take a shortcut, we're going to force the issue. Just as you'd force a squatting trespasser on your lawn off your property (think of what that means).

There are many ways to change the rules. As a Democracy we have elected to use "1 man 1 vote" balanced by the court system to ensure that the majority never disfranchises the minority through laws. The problem is that the court system has a very spotty record. And if you live in a state where you elect your Judges (I can speak from experience living in Texas) I guarantee you that the majority enforce their will through the court system as well as the elected system. And the philosophy of elected judges is gaining steam. You can't think that is a coincidence do you?

It seems that your grasp of history is limited to the handful of successful protests over the centuries that were backed by the people.

However this situation is more analogous to the countless unsuccessful ones that weren't.

Actually, with very few exceptions, historically speaking they are very successful. I know your used to immediate satisfaction, but historically speaking, most protests take years or decades to become successful. So, speaking historically, by 2020 or so, if the business and politically bought elected officials don't do something to placate the demonstrators your looking at a complete restructuring of American Business's. Look back in your history books to around 1830's (I think 1880's was another time of great change but could be wrong) if your not sure what I am talking about (Just modernized).

Personally, I believe the protestors will be placated, whether its in the 2012 elections or later, but the fact remains, business's fear what happened in the 1830's (1880's, 1900's, & 1940's) and they will placate the protestors. After all, they have bought the political system, they can always change the rules again, I'm under no illusions.

[Fyyr]

More pro Wall Street police brutality...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET ... r_embedded#!

In Davis of all places.

Hell, I thought all the Davis cops smoked pot and shit. Nope, they are natzis like all the rest of them.

[Fyyr]

http://morallowground.com/2011/11/17/re ... sters-mom/

Police brutality against a judge. Not like I like judges or anything.