[quote]Sloth wrote:
So there is a consensus that local governments/communities should not be able to hold the rights of public parks/green spaces, maintaining them and setting standards? Same with health/living codes? Ok, that’s interesting.[/quote]
They should not be squatted upon unless bought or rented. If it’s public property, let all of the public have access.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.
The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.
Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.[/quote]
Something tells me that, if a group of pro-lifers were treated this way, you’d be screaming about “first amendment” and “right to peacefully assemble” (and even pointing out that “there’s garbage on the ground!” is an entirely bullshit reason to disperse protestors), instead of jerking off over how FUCK YEAH COPS ARE BAD ASS BRAH! [/quote]
It would depend on if the also ACTED this way.[/quote]
You mean not dispersing immediately for any reason or no reason? You mean actually wanting to be able to exercise their first amendment rights, rather than have them stripped away with transparent legitimacy?
“You can’t protest here, there’s a sewer drain on the corner and someone might trip and get hurt. Sure, you have the right to protest, just not where, or when, anyone can think of any reason to force you not to.”[/quote]
You have no right to squat in parks and clog up public land. You have no right to trash a park. Free speech and assembly don’t in any way imply those things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Wonderbeard, you are not telling the whole story.
The mayor told protestors days in advance, that they would need to disperse for reasons of safety and cleanliness. There were reports of rats, drug needles, used condoms, and tons of trash that were not removed. The protestors were warned, they didn’t listen.
Some of you need to learn something when dealing with cops, they will wreck your shit if you don’t listen. They tell you to move, it’s not a request. If you don’t want to comply, no problem, just don’t complain when a baton gets shoved up your ass.[/quote]
Something tells me that, if a group of pro-lifers were treated this way, you’d be screaming about “first amendment” and “right to peacefully assemble” (and even pointing out that “there’s garbage on the ground!” is an entirely bullshit reason to disperse protestors), instead of jerking off over how FUCK YEAH COPS ARE BAD ASS BRAH! [/quote]
It would depend on if the also ACTED this way.[/quote]
You mean not dispersing immediately for any reason or no reason? You mean actually wanting to be able to exercise their first amendment rights, rather than have them stripped away with transparent legitimacy?
“You can’t protest here, there’s a sewer drain on the corner and someone might trip and get hurt. Sure, you have the right to protest, just not where, or when, anyone can think of any reason to force you not to.”[/quote]
You have no right to squat in parks and clog up public land. You have no right to trash a park. Free speech and assembly don’t in any way imply those things.[/quote]
Well I would say it would be better said the government has no right to use procedural blocks to interfere with your enumerated rights. They aren’t squatting in parks (does Cali have adverse possession laws?) what is clogging public land( I read this as you saying a group or person you disagree with using it).
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So there is a consensus that local governments/communities should not be able to hold the rights of public parks/green spaces, maintaining them and setting standards? Same with health/living codes? Ok, that’s interesting.[/quote]
Perhaps you could refresh me on where in the constitution it says administrative health codes hold the same force as the constitution? One would think that a public park would be the perfect venue for a protest by the public.[/quote]
Don’t other people also have a right to make normal usage of the park? You guys are your own worst enemies with the squatting. Also, let’s not pretend that the federal government can tell local governments when and how public spaces must be used. A local community has the power to set times and standards for a park that has jurisdiction over.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So there is a consensus that local governments/communities should not be able to hold the rights of public parks/green spaces, maintaining them and setting standards? Same with health/living codes? Ok, that’s interesting.[/quote]
Perhaps you could refresh me on where in the constitution it says administrative health codes hold the same force as the constitution? One would think that a public park would be the perfect venue for a protest by the public.[/quote]
Don’t other people have also have a right to make normal usage of the park?[/quote]
I don’t think the protesters wouldn’t let anyone into the park. They certainly have the right to be there. I would say if you are letting the government decide which groups are allowed to use the park(and what normal use of a public space entails) that the right of free assembly doesn’t exist.
To the second postedit part of your post they can only make laws that aren’t in conflict with the constitution. Generally political speech is given fairly broad protections. Its indeed possible that moving or ending a political protest could be found unconstitutional while moving out some people playing frisbee at 11. Also there is the question of enforcement My house directly backs onto a public park no one ever gets arrested for staying past the parks hours, if suddenly there were a protest there and those people were moved out then it would clearly be seen as a legal device only used to limit a political protest.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So there is a consensus that local governments/communities should not be able to hold the rights of public parks/green spaces, maintaining them and setting standards? Same with health/living codes? Ok, that’s interesting.[/quote]
Perhaps you could refresh me on where in the constitution it says administrative health codes hold the same force as the constitution? One would think that a public park would be the perfect venue for a protest by the public.[/quote]
Don’t other people have also have a right to make normal usage of the park?[/quote]
I don’t think the protesters wouldn’t let anyone into the park. They certainly have the right to be there. I would say if you are letting the government decide which groups are allowed to use the park(and what normal use of a public space entails) that the right of free assembly doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Well, when your squatters squat, discard trash, use drugs, and clog up the park, no normal usage isn’t exactly going to happen. Pissing on the trees tends to kill the atmosphere. Trampled grass and trash sort of kills the scenery and takes up the open space. These are squatters, not protestors. They’re killing their own movement.
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room.
Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
So you are just gonna go with total anarchy to get what you want then?
Because you are suggesting only obeying laws that you agree with.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
In that regard…if you get what you want, government LAWS that distribute the wealth more evenly…by your logic the wealthy don’t like the laws of the land, so they can ignore them and sue for any repercussion?
Right?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
Should we disregard law and order every time we don’t get our political way? Should we be a nation of eternally trashy squatters, fighting for control of park spaces and major intersections? Maybe the tea party could fight the OWS crowd for time in the park to protest Obamacare? Maybe every time the Democrats are in power, republicans should trash parks and become a pain in the ass, settling in as an eyesore, health hazard, and business dampner in parks and streets. And, vice versa when the Republicans have power. Maybe the Green party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party supporters can team up and piss in the parks when either is in power. Maybe we could devolve into a nation of “I’m going to squat here and not move until I get my way” juveniles. Maybe instead of parks we could have trampled dirt, broken park lights, clogged fountains, and dead/dying trees. Maybe instead of intersections we could have protest/squat-of-the-day congestions.
Get a dorky sign, stand in the park, throw your trash away, and go home after hours. If chaos, which is the implication in politically/culturally diverse nation, is the best defense of this movement then I’m not surprised. Protest, don’t squat. The Tea Party seemed to have figured out how to do it. This is a pluralistic nation. To actually behave as you suggest would be flat out chaos.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
In that regard…if you get what you want, government LAWS that distribute the wealth more evenly…by your logic the wealthy don’t like the laws of the land, so they can ignore them…
Right?
[/quote]
Bingo.
I can’t wait til an outbreak of something like cholera, tuberculosis, or some other shit breaks out. Then people will point the finger at each other blaming one another. Then you look at Tea Party rallies, where the only thing that breaks out are pills of Geritol.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
So you are just gonna go with total anarchy to get what you want then?
Because you are suggesting only obeying laws that you agree with.
[/quote]
I think you should break laws you don’t find moral if thats what you mean even if this has a significant personal cost.
Laws that don’t revolve around morality I think people make an economic analysis of and follow them if they choose to if thats what you mean by obeying laws I agree with thats what every single person does.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
In that regard…if you get what you want, government LAWS that distribute the wealth more evenly…by your logic the wealthy don’t like the laws of the land, so they can ignore them and sue for any repercussion?
Right?
[/quote]
They would make an economic analysis of the cost and obey them or not as they so chose and they could face the consequences that way in the case of laws that don’t involve moral issues.
I don’t feel tax law is particularly in the moral realm but sure if they felt it was somehow immoral they should always disobey and be willing to suffer the personal cost. I
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
Should we disregard law and order every time we don’t get our political way? Should we be a nation of eternally trashy squatters, fighting for control of park spaces and major intersections? Maybe the tea party could fight the OWS crowd for time in the park to protest Obamacare? Maybe every time the Democrats are in power, republicans should trash parks and become a pain in the ass, settling in as an eyesore, health hazard, and business dampner in parks and streets. And, vice versa when the Republicans have power. Maybe the Green party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party supporters can team up and piss in the parks when either is in power. Maybe we could devolve into a nation of “I’m going to squat here and not move until I get my way” juveniles. Maybe instead of parks we could have trampled dirt, broken park lights, clogged fountains, and dead/dying trees. Maybe instead of intersections we could have protest/squat-of-the-day congestions.
Get a dorky sign, stand in the park, throw your trash away, and go home after hours. If chaos, which is the implication in politically/culturally diverse nation, is the best defense of this movement then I’m not surprised. Protest, don’t squat. The Tea Party seemed to have figured out how to do it. This is a pluralistic nation. To actually behave as you suggest would be flat out chaos.[/quote]
It was more like this when we started. People have much less courage in their convictions than they used to. We are a fairly nonviolent society anymore which is why people are outraged by throwing bottles and by the police using flashbangs and rubber bullets.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
So you are just gonna go with total anarchy to get what you want then?
Because you are suggesting only obeying laws that you agree with.
[/quote]
I don’t function on the basis of the law, however, if I am doing something unlawful, I keep it out of the public eye. The key to successful law breaking is a low profile.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can’t wait til an outbreak of something like cholera, tuberculosis, or some other shit breaks out. Then people will point the finger at each other blaming one another. Then you look at Tea Party rallies, where the only thing that breaks out are pills of Geritol.[/quote]
Black death!
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
In that regard…if you get what you want, government LAWS that distribute the wealth more evenly…by your logic the wealthy don’t like the laws of the land, so they can ignore them and sue for any repercussion?
Right?
[/quote]
They would make an economic analysis of the cost and obey them or not as they so chose and they could face the consequences that way in the case of laws that don’t involve moral issues.
I don’t feel tax law is particularly in the moral realm but sure if they felt it was somehow immoral they should always disobey and be willing to suffer the personal cost. I[/quote]
Soooo, basically, if people you agree with break laws they feel are wrong, but were put in place to help the community curb drugs, prostitution, and violence and keep parks clean and usable by everyone, and police stop them, the police are evil and infrindging on their rights…but if someone you don’t agree with feels that paying more the 50% of their income is wrong and they get arrested, they’re suffering the consequences of their actions? Got it. That seems fair.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but you can’t squat in a park (or in the middle of the road for that matter) governed by standards existing before the movement even began, interfering with duly authorized safety, health, grounds keeping, and usage, practices and pretend it’s protected speech. Do what the tea party did, go home or get a room. Come back at appropriate times, go home, come back. Rinse and repeat. This is squatting, not protesting. And it’s arrogance and disregard for others has already doomed this movement to growing ridicule and dismissal. [/quote]
So would it be a fair take that your position is that its ok to protest the government only insofar as you follow the rules the government sets out? Going beyond those rules means you should be removed by violence if necessary?[/quote]
In that regard…if you get what you want, government LAWS that distribute the wealth more evenly…by your logic the wealthy don’t like the laws of the land, so they can ignore them and sue for any repercussion?
Right?
[/quote]
They would make an economic analysis of the cost and obey them or not as they so chose and they could face the consequences that way in the case of laws that don’t involve moral issues.
I don’t feel tax law is particularly in the moral realm but sure if they felt it was somehow immoral they should always disobey and be willing to suffer the personal cost. I[/quote]
Soooo, basically, if people you agree with break laws they feel are wrong, but were put in place to help the community curb drugs, prostitution, and violence and keep parks clean and usable by everyone, and police stop them, the police are evil and infrindging on their rights…but if someone you don’t agree with feels that paying more the 50% of their income is wrong and they get arrested, they’re suffering the consequences of their actions? Got it. That seems fair.[/quote]
There is a lot of economic theory on why people try to criminalize issues of personal morality, however I’d certainly agree you accept the fact of the consequences if you engage in acts that are against the law.
I am fine with arresting the protesters. Someone throws a bottle arrest them. If you want to enforce a curfew arrest them all take it to court we can hash it out whether it was unlawful or not. Move them violently…not so much.
I think every protester should have went in with the idea I am ok with being arrested and charged with trespassing or whatever and I’ll go to court. The idea that they should be ready to take tear gas and flash bangs not so much.
The backpedaling by the Oakland politicos and PD is amusing as well.