Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
? Sorry dude it seemed relevant to the conversation.
No, it's the most relevant thing to the conversation. It either ends tonight or it's game over...... or is it?
Troll face was a hopefull face.
Fair enough, actually I think in a lot of ways they just saved the movement. Tons more people are going to show up if they think it will not be boring. It was in danger of imploding anyway. It is going to be an interesting news day for sure.
@druid
Typically that face means you are being a troll.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2011 7:00:58 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
They kicked them out to clean, I know, I know...some kind of mental warfare tactic. Except for the fact that it was inhumanly disgusting down there.
Bloomberg even said they're welcome to come back after the cleanup is finished.
EDIT: If you go to CNN.com, the front page just keeps putting different pictures of the same cop as it's main image. His faces are priceless, I just hope he didn't kill anyone because that man is RAGING on protesters in those pictures.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2011 9:01:51 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
They kicked them out to clean, I know, I know...some kind of mental warfare tactic. Except for the fact that it was inhumanly disgusting down there.
Bloomberg even said they're welcome to come back after the cleanup is finished.
EDIT: If you go to CNN.com, the front page just keeps putting different pictures of the same cop as it's main image. His faces are priceless, I just hope he didn't kill anyone because that man is RAGING on protesters in those pictures.
There are also reports they slashed tents, trashed the kitchen, shot tear gas, and threw 5000 donated books in a dumpster. They are welcome to come back but cannot bring any of their possessions or stay overnight. So there might be a little more to the story than your dismissive reply shows.
There are also reports they slashed tents, trashed the kitchen, shot tear gas, and threw 5000 donated books in a dumpster. They are welcome to come back but cannot bring any of their possessions or stay overnight. So there might be a little more to the story than your dismissive reply shows.
Yes, they slashed tents because people refused to leave. I don't feel sorry for the people who thought they would win a game of chicken with the NYPD after it had the backing of the mayor.
They simply picked up their stuff and went to another, busier area. People are already talking about how this is a "win" for the protest, and I don't get why the protest would feel that way. The city came, asked them to vacate, they (naturally) refused, so they removed them. The park is currently getting a MUCH needed scrub down while the city looks over the signed court order saying the protesters are allowed back in the park with all their stuff (a court order signed by a former civil-liberties lawyer who has been outspoken about supporting the movement). I have a very strong feeling this is not a legal court order, as she's ordering the city to allow people to occupy a private park, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure we'll find out in due time.
EDIT: As I posted this, Bloomberg made an announcement that they will allow protesters back into Zuccatti Park, but without any tents, sleeping bags, etc. They will not be able to bring any belongings into the park until a hearing is held later today.
These people are turning a park into their home. Sorry, I do not feel bad if they start stocking up on a "kitchen" and build a "library" that gets torn down in 5 seconds because they're building them with empty moving boxes and duct tape. Guess what? You're in NYC. They have one of the most extensive FREE libraries in the country. They have thousands upon thousands of places that will serve you food (a couple dozen of which are going out of business thanks to the protest.
So, I'm sorry, but they don't get pity because the big, bad NYPD emptied the park at the park's owner's request.
And if these clowns truly try to "shut down the city" I hope they're all thrown in jail. EARTH TO OWS....you are hurting the very people you say you're fighting for by doing this. Wake the Eff up! Hey, let's create widespread hardship for a city that houses over 8 million people, with 95% of them working class (at least)! Yeah, there's a plan. As has been my point from day 1, protesting a "symbol" of Wall Street doesn't bother ANY of the 1% because none of the 1% is on Wall Street. Also, they are planning to "shut down" 7 of the biggest subway hubs in NYC to "tell a story" about something or other. Why? WHAT IS THIS ACCOMPLISHING? Again, it's doing nothing but ruining the days of hard-working people such as myself. The OWS crowd had at least a stable, mild support from the working stiffs of NYC, once they start impacting those people, the protests may as well become a digital web conference. You think the NYPD is bad? Wait until you get every pissed-off NYer in the city who had to deal with working their day around these protesters.
And if I see one more entitled whiney baby talking about his or her tuition, I'm going to snap. I have more school loan debt than any of those clowns, most likely, so you know what I do? I work, and I pay my loan. I don't cry and stamp my feet because my parents, who have supported me for 20+ years, aren't paying my tuition for me. The fact that the OWS twitter feed continues to put up photos of people holding these sorts of signs is also pretty dumb. People are tired of the face of OWS being whiney college-aged kids who don't know what it truly means to struggle.
I've grown tired of the protests now. Get a clear, concise message. Get a heirarchy. Get a voice. And get hipsters, lazy trust-fund babies, and the rest of those clowns the hell out of your ranks, because their very existence at these things is hypocritical. I, like most of you, want change.
I don't see how ruining the days of regular, working class folks accomplishes that. I don't see how battling over a city block accomplishes that. I don't see how vilifying the NYPD accomplishes that. I don't see how marching to random intersections on the Lower East Side accomplishes that.
These people had the attention of the entire world, and they dropped the ball.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2011 9:52:08 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
^I disagree freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances is a old right in this country.
Where did I say it wasn't?
I'm saying don't do it in such a manner that the only people affected by it are the very people you say you're trying to benefit in your protests.
Not really, traditionally the idea has been to get people motivated and get your message out. I think their protest has done a good jib at this. I do appreciate that it affects you personally, but that does not really change their rights.
Post by ClarkGriswold on Nov 15, 2011 19:57:57 GMT -5
People attempting to neutralize the INTENT of OWS to ensemble their own set of ideals, is a deceit, and frankly a bit wearing. But I do enjoy a tragic comedy from time to time.
Post by ClarkGriswold on Nov 15, 2011 21:45:49 GMT -5
Do yourself a favor don’t assume. It makes you seem disingenuous. I refuse to indulge in conflict here. But I do enjoy a tragic comedy from time to time.
I'm saying don't do it in such a manner that the only people affected by it are the very people you say you're trying to benefit in your protests.
Not really, traditionally the idea has been to get people motivated and get your message out. I think their protest has done a good jib at this. I do appreciate that it affects you personally, but that does not really change their rights.
The Judge decided the city was right and the protesters are not allowed to camp in the park.
They simply picked up their stuff and went to another, busier area. People are already talking about how this is a "win" for the protest, and I don't get why the protest would feel that way.
Bad press for Bloomberg for one. A city council member arrested and beaten over the head. An attempted media blackout which lead to the arrest of a couple of reporters. Bloomberg claims it was to "protect them." From whom? They closed airspace in Lower Manhattan. Are the protesters that much of a threat? Do they have rocket launchers or something?
But it's interesting that The New York Post (LOL) and The New York Times were somehow ahead of the curve on the raid. I'm sure Bloomberg wouldn't want the "real" press beating everyone to the punch .
Also,
You have Oakland's mayor admitting that this was a coordinated action taken by several cities. I don't know which but I would guess NYC, Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle, Atlanta, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Nashville, Burlington, San Fransisco, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Miami....
Flonzo, I'll buy you a beer at the Brooers tent this Roo, if Nashville and Philadelphia aren't the next to go.
I'm not arguing that the cities acting together is somehow wrong but it will make many more people question their motives. Most importantly, who are they serving? Union members are involved, they will galvanize there ranks. Social media will pull more people in.
Also, legal representatives were blocked from the park: Retired Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith can’t believe what she saw this week. At the urging of her son, who joined the Zuccotti Park protests weeks ago, Smith had volunteered to be a legal observer in case of mass arrests.
She received a text message early Tuesday that a bust was imminent, so she got to Zuccotti around 1:30 a.m. As she exited the subway at Broadway and Dey St., she met a wall of cops in riot gear who were preventing people from getting anywhere near the park.
“There was a black woman standing next to me,” Smith said. “She kept frantically telling the cops her daughter was in park and she wanted to make sure the girl was okay.”
This actually helps take care of the Winter problem. Now they can't camp there, so they can't be criticized for dwindling ranks.....
It also helps take care of the right wing media over-blowing the violence and NO NO WORD!!!.... If they can't have a kitchen and a free place for the homeless and street punks to hang out, then that aspect of the negative attention will wane. These mayors actually made it possible for the protest to evolve, while taken care of some of the PR problems the camps were facing. I also think the coordinated actions will backfire on them. No matter of their real intentions, which I'm sure weren't self-serving at all. Bloomberg is only the 12th richest person in the country. He had no reason to be against it.
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2011 7:54:27 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
The police force used on that poor mother was unacceptable. There was also another case of a guy in Oakland who was shot by multiple rubber bullets and then was gassed by tear gas as he was down while protestors tried to come to his aid.
Acts like this are a demonstration of poor police work and require retraining for the officers involved, some form of desciplinary action, and restitution of damages for the victim.
As far as police trying to enforce sanitation issues and protecting against criminal elements I get that. Poor sanitation not only makes the place look awful but can lead to disease. And I dunno bout you folks but the McPherson Square site in D.C has attracted drug dealers and some thieves. So these are valid concerns. If sites just do a good job of cleaning up after themselves and prevent drug use on site. It shouldn't cause any problems. I'll get you all a pic of the on site rules at Occupy Freedom soon to give an idea of what is recommended. As one guy pointed out "Just act like an adult".
Where do you get the idea that money is protected by your free speech rights?! The First Amendment allows you the right to peacefully form an assembly, to practice freedom of religion, to freedom of expression, freedom of press, and the right to petition. There's no reference of money. Money is currency. It is a measure of capital. It is not a Constitutional right.
I didn't think boiling it down to $ = speech would be so hard for you to grasp or maybe you're just purposely twisting it to make some argument that is not close to what Citizens was talking about. $ is not a Constitutional right obviously.
Okay, you're gonna act patronizing about this. $=speech has been your ONLY talking point against sfa and myself on this thread. I'm just logically stating that $ does not equal speech because speech is defined by the First Amendment. Guess what money is not mentioned. I can't believe I had to repeat this point. Hootler Hairdo wrote: [/quote]Here you go here's the Buckley decision for you to ignore and not read: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.html[/quote]
By the way, Sfa is right about your first link not working. Before you assume I'm a pigheaded smurf, how bout you make sure it works. Okay, with all these cases shown, the reason you support the Citizens United vs the Federal Election Committee is because the Supreme Court said so. It doesn't bother you that the Supreme Court are letting more money get involved in a government already corrupted by money? Or that their recent decisions have been benefiting the powerful brokers in this country like corporations and lobbyists? That more often than not, the Supreme Court, on hotly contested political issues they vote along the lines of the party that appointed them. And lastly that it went from a Supreme Court that made great rulings on the liberties of people during the civil rights movement to turning our dollar "must" into a Consitutional "right".
Are you saying to ignore all that, just because it's written into law and the Supreme Court said so.
You say the decision violated the law. I say it is not covered by the law. Considering a corporation is defined as "an artificial person", and a PAC is not a person but conveniently defined as "not a corporation".
Not what I said. The law violated the Constitution and the valid, existing case law. The Citizens decision overturned the law. This is how the SCOTUS works. A PAC does not fit under the legal definition for corporation. Nowhere in the decision or The rights in the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE. Since corporations and PACS are not people, they do not get the same First Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong here but nowhere in the Citizens opinion or in my posts has the term "artificial person" been used. Not sure where you're getting that from.[/quote]
You said "Nowhere in rights of the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE". You are right it's not mentioned clearly in the 1st Amendment, its mentioned clearly in the beginning for the entire Constitution. We the People of the United States, In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America From Wikipedia: "Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
That is what I meant by an artificial person
[/quote]
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2011 5:33:23 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
These people are turning a park into their home. Sorry, I do not feel bad if they start stocking up on a "kitchen" and build a "library" that gets torn down in 5 seconds because they're building them with empty moving boxes and duct tape. Guess what? You're in NYC. They have one of the most extensive FREE libraries in the country. They have thousands upon thousands of places that will serve you food (a couple dozen of which are going out of business thanks to the protest.
So creating your own library and making a Kitchen is somehow bad? They were trying to make a point that maybe there is another way? Helped by online donations, it must be said. They also created this after their generators were taken. You keep rambling about them like they have been sitting there for two months without the ability to whip their own ass.
So, I'm sorry, but they don't get pity because the big, bad NYPD emptied the park at the park's owner's request.
Bloomberg said, "it was his discussion and his alone."
And if these clowns truly try to "shut down the city" I hope they're all thrown in jail. EARTH TO OWS....you are hurting the very people you say you're fighting for by doing this. Wake the Eff up! Hey, let's create widespread hardship for a city that houses over 8 million people, with 95% of them working class (at least)! Yeah, there's a plan.
First, how do they have the numbers to shut down the city and how would they even do it? As we know, the police have an over-needed presence there.
As has been my point from day 1, protesting a "symbol" of Wall Street doesn't bother ANY of the 1% because none of the 1% is on Wall Street.
What??????? I could send you a 1000 dollars over paypal in a couple minutes. We don't have to be physically connected to exchange money.
This is so clearly untrue that it borders on insane. I love you Flonzo but come on.
Also, they are planning to "shut down" 7 of the biggest subway hubs in NYC to "tell a story" about something or other. Why? WHAT IS THIS ACCOMPLISHING? Again, it's doing nothing but ruining the days of hard-working people such as myself.
I think the Nov. 17 protest plans are pretty unhelpful. I fully agree with you. But from everything I've read, there is no plan to close down the subways and I'd actually like you to show us proof that it's planned. How would they even do it? As I've posted early the OWS websites are transparent. The livestreams are free to be viewed by everyone.
The " plan" seems to be to spread the message on the Subway lines. They are taking to the subways from their various areas in the city to spread their message. It's ridiculous to say they are going to shut down the subways. TWU local 100 are aligned with the movement. Dude, you need some better news sources.
The OWS crowd had at least a stable, mild support from the working stiffs of NYC, once they start impacting those people, the protests may as well become a digital web conference. You think the NYPD is bad? Wait until you get every pissed-off NYer in the ci
ty who had to deal with working their day around these protesters.[/quote]Again, they don't have the numbers to shut down the city. Overreactions from the police and mayor only help them.
And if I see one more entitled whiney baby talking about his or her tuition, I'm going to snap. I have more school loan debt than any of those clowns, most likely, so you know what I do? I work, and I pay my loan. I don't cry and stamp my feet because my parents, who have supported me for 20+ years, aren't paying my tuition for me. The fact that the OWS twitter feed continues to put up photos of people holding these sorts of signs is also pretty dumb. People are tired of the face of OWS being whiney college-aged kids who don't know what it truly means to struggle.
You made the choice to listen to these media outlets. You are going to base all your thoughts on a Twitter feed? That twitter feed somehow represents an international movement?
I've grown tired of the protests now. Get a clear, concise message. Get a heirarchy. Get a voice. And get hipsters, lazy trust-fund babies, and the rest of those clowns the hell out of your ranks, because their very existence at these things is hypocritical. I, like most of you, want change.
How is it hypocritical to have people show up to a leaderless movement and say stupid shit? You've been down there and all you have to say is negative stuff. So maybe, it's all for not. Did you stay for a general assembly?
These people had the attention of the entire world, and they dropped the ball.
These people had your attention and you wrote them off right off the bat. You posted biased videos and railed against them from the beginning. So making sweeping statements about them a couple months ago, sort of hurts your credibility about them "dropping the ball." Don't act disappointed with people that you have shit on from the beginning.
So creating your own library and making a Kitchen is somehow bad? They were trying to make a point that maybe there is another way? Helped by online donations, it must be said. They also created this after their generators were taken. You keep rambling about them like they have been sitting there for two months without the ability to whip their own ass.
Look, I get that they were trying to make due with what they had, but this isn't some city with 300,000 people. When you have a city this big, you can't let people bend (or flat-out break) rules. If they let the protesters use generators, you would soon have many homeless people taking generators where they can find them and using them all over the city. This will inevitably lead to fires and, ultimately, deaths. The people of this city, for all their positives, have a huge negative and that is they LOVE to take advantage of the system. If they see one little weakness, people will exploit it forever.
I'm a big reader, so I didn't like to see that they were throwing out books. But this isn't the end of literature, or people's access to it. Down on the LES every other block a guy is selling novels for $2. I'm also willing to bet my father's copy of Rules For Radicals that I gave to one of the protesters was one of the books tossed. I would have much rather seen them take the books and donate them, which would've taken basically no effort on the part of the city. That was indeed a dumb move by the NYPD. But, in all fairness, the "library" refused to relocate. They could've taken those tubs of books and moved them a block or two away and saved the books. It's still the NYPD's fault, don't get me wrong, but they were trying to make a stand against a green-lit NYPD, which probably wasn't the best decision.
But the overall theme of what I said is the same. That park isn't their home, and I don't think they should receive special treatment that other people who live outside don't get.
Yes, ultimately it was Bloomberg's choice, but Brookfield Properties gave him a little push in writing a letter saying the city was violating the law by letting people camp/sleep there (which is true).
First, how do they have the numbers to shut down the city and how would they even do it? As we know, the police have an over-needed presence there.
I exaggerated, but it is not that hard to split up a couple thousand people and cause havoc. Stand across bridges, tunnel entrances, flood and "occupy" subway stops, etc. This is what they were planning on doing, according to their meeting on 6th Ave. and Grand St. and their website (they never followed through because of the court order they had signed allowing them to return to the park). I did end up having to walk about 1.5 miles to another subway line because they were holding a "temporary" protest at the stop I usually take from one of my job sites. They were lucky I was listening to M83, which is just too happy a brand of music for me to start losing it. But I was close, even with "Midnight City" blasting.
What??????? I could send you a 1000 dollars over paypal in a couple minutes. We don't have to be physically connected to exchange money.
This is so clearly untrue that it borders on insane. I love you Flonzo but come on.
I don't get what you mean here. I was saying that their protesting "Wall Street" isn't real. Finance makes up 2.7% of the 1%, so they're protesting a fraction of that fraction of the American population that is the "1%". Bank of America is based in Charlotte. Goldman Sachs is in Jersey City. JP Morgan Chase is in midtown. What I mean by "the 1% isn't on Wall street" is that it's a ghost town. The only shops down there at this point are boutique investment banks, which are 15-30 employee shops that don't rake in millions.
So, sure, I'm willing to accept that a handful of the super-rich operate down there, but the vast majority do not. For the record, the two biggest pieces of the "1% pie" are doctor's and lawyers.
I think the Nov. 17 protest plans are pretty unhelpful. I fully agree with you. But from everything I've read, there is no plan to close down the subways and I'd actually like you to show us proof that it's planned. How would they even do it? As I've posted early the OWS websites are transparent. The livestreams are free to be viewed by everyone.
The " plan" seems to be to spread the message on the Subway lines. They are taking to the subways from their various areas in the city to spread their message. It's ridiculous to say they are going to shut down the subways. TWU local 100 are aligned with the movement. Dude, you need some better news sources.
Okay, they want to "shut down Wall Street" and "Occupy the subways" at the 16 biggest stops in the city. They are doing it to generate support? Because bottling up a subway hub during the beginning of rush hour (3pm is when every single construction worker in NYC gets off unless they're working OT, btw) might not be the best way to do that. Like I said, you don't need THAT many people to cause some widespread havoc in the city during rush hour.
And shutting down the subway may not be their intention, but it's entirely possible they blow up more than one of these stops by "occupying" them.
You made the choice to listen to these media outlets. You are going to base all your thoughts on a Twitter feed? That twitter feed somehow represents an international movement?
No, I don't, and no, it doesn't. I just found it irritating that the OWS twitter feed (which has well over 100,000 followers) would act that irresponsibly. That is not "putting your best foot forward", if you will. I'm not basing my thoughts on the media, either. SFA, as you know I've been down there multiple times, so I've seen with my own eyes just how many of those types of protesters are piggy-backing the OWS protests. I won't put a # on it, but anything higher than "0" is too many for me (and it's a growing # of people judging by my handful of visits).
Mini rant: And since when is tuition something that the gov't forces upon someone, anyway? Tuition is tuition, schools don't just surprise you with a random tuition amount. Is tuition getting to be expensive? Yeah, but I paid as much as anyone in the country (Fordham!!!! 8th most expensive school in the country!!!! I'm retarded!!!!!), but I don't hold the "system" or the gov't accountable for that. It was a decision I made, and I live with it. People signed up for their loans, so I hate that they are even mentioned as part of the "movement". I wish that OWS would filter the discussion through people who know what they're talking about. Not let anyone with a mouth to breath out of go there and scream their "wish list", which is how I see the "tuition" crowd. /end rant
How is it hypocritical to have people show up to a leaderless movement and say stupid poop? You've been down there and all you have to say is negative stuff. So maybe, it's all for not. Did you stay for a general assembly?
It is hypocritical for jobless, 20-somethings who live off their parents to protest the 1%. That's pretty straight-forward. Again, I realize that everyone there is not part of this demographic, but there are a lot of people that are. You're only as strong as your weakest link, I guess.
I don't have just negative things to say about my visits down there. One of my previous posts I even said I was relieved to find people who I could have an actual discussion with, where they were clear on what they wanted to see changed. But for every one or two of those conversations, I've had people scream at me, call me "the man" (when I had a 4 week beard, was covered in construction dust and was eating a pb&j sandwich sitting on a garbage can...somehow I was "the man", though), throw stuff at me, berate me and so on without ever even taking a single second to conversate with me. That's why I may come off as negative overall, because the people there haven't given me a ton of reason not to be.
I want to see change, I want to see the elimination of lobbyist or corporate-controlled politicians working with secret agendas. But I don't think it will ever happen with the way things are currently operating.
These people had your attention and you wrote them off right off the bat. You posted biased videos and railed against them from the beginning. So making sweeping statements about them a couple months ago, sort of hurts your credibility about them "dropping the ball." Don't act disappointed with people that you have poop on from the beginning.
I've said numerous times I want to see the movement succeed. But what is "success" for the movement? I don't even think that they know at this point. Numerous times I've voiced disappointment in the way they're going about trying to enact change. People said at first it was about raising awareness. Mission accomplished. Everyone in the free world knows about the OWS movement. Now, they're waiting. What is the next move? You can't protest forever and I haven't seen a singular voice take over that can be a rudder for this floating ship.
I dislike when people personally attack others without having ever taken a moment to speak to them first. I know a good amount of people who have walked by that park and been verbally attacked, and sometimes (like when one of them spit on my father, or when one of them threw something at a co-worker of mine), worse. I am fairly certain that this was done by people that have no affiliation with the actual movement, or are just there for the wrong reasons. I get that, but like I said before, these people are still going to be associated with OWS until there is some structure given to the movement. I am a full supporter of wanting accountability in the gov't ranks, but the movement has turned into an open mic night of grievances. I don't see how that will accomplish the goal of an honest gov't, especially when people are allowed to just protest whatever they want. At one point I looked around and felt like I was on the set of the movie PCU.
So I'm not just dumping on people because I dislike them, or I disagree with them, or I dismiss what they're trying to accomplish. I just don't know how they are going to accomplish anything with the current structure (or lack thereof).
I didn't think boiling it down to $ = speech would be so hard for you to grasp or maybe you're just purposely twisting it to make some argument that is not close to what Citizens was talking about. $ is not a Constitutional right obviously.
Okay, you're gonna act patronizing about this. $=speech has been your ONLY talking point against sfa and myself on this thread. I'm just logically stating that $ does not equal speech because speech is defined by the First Amendment. Guess what money is not mentioned. I can't believe I had to repeat this point.
Is the right to privacy not a Constitutional right then? Miranda rights aren't Constitutional rights too, right? That darned thorn in the Conservative judges side called substantive due process also not a Constitutional protection. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution through the lens of existing case law. Both these ideas are the foundation of our court system. So to say the First Amendment doesn't expressly say $=speech is irrelevant.
By the way, Sfa is right about your first link not working. Before you assume I'm a pigheaded smurf, how bout you make sure it works. Okay, with all these cases shown, the reason you support the Citizens United vs the Federal Election Committee is because the Supreme Court said so. It doesn't bother you that the Supreme Court are letting more money get involved in a government already corrupted by money? Or that their recent decisions have been benefiting the powerful brokers in this country like corporations and lobbyists? That more often than not, the Supreme Court, on hotly contested political issues they vote along the lines of the party that appointed them. And lastly that it went from a Supreme Court that made great rulings on the liberties of people during the civil rights movement to turning our dollar "must" into a Consitutional "right".
Are you saying to ignore all that, just because it's written into law and the Supreme Court said so.
No there are SCOTUS cases and lines of reasoning that are, to me, obviously incorrect. But just because you don't agree with the implications of a decision does not mean that you can say that it was not founded properly in case law and the Constitution.
Here's a recent example of the SCOTUS deciding against "the power brokers in this country" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co. The fact is they make decisions on the legal arguments, not on whatever conspiracy theory grounds you have going. They have to say why they make decisions they make. This is why the Citizens opinion was over 100 pages. Here I'll try another link: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf You can't ctrl+f this one, but you can hopefully still read it. Feel free to google it if my link doesn't work.
You said "Nowhere in rights of the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE". You are right it's not mentioned clearly in the 1st Amendment, its mentioned clearly in the beginning for the entire Constitution. We the People of the United States, In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America From Wikipedia: "Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
That is what I meant by an artificial person
Actually, iirc, one of the problems with deciding Roe v. Wade was there was no clear enumeration of what is a person and what is not a person in the Constitution. Feel free to legally define what a person is, and I will change my mind. If you heard about the Prop 26 mess in MS, then you will know they were trying to get a Constitutional amendment to define personhood because there is no existing one. Still, Corporate personhood rights have existed in this country for over 100 years. There have been numerous liberal courts that did not overturn this Constitutional principle. The Court is insulated from outside pressure. All of the members graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford law schools and are principled people, as is evidenced by their writings, and are all probably stupid rich based on the name next to their degree. I don't see any reason to think that they are influenced by money.
Not really, traditionally the idea has been to get people motivated and get your message out. I think their protest has done a good jib at this. I do appreciate that it affects you personally, but that does not really change their rights.
The Judge decided the city was right and the protesters are not allowed to camp in the park.
I was just kidding, ITM. I use the word "camping" because they had set up "camp" at the park. The city didn't rule against their right to protest, it ruled against their right to "set up camp".
Post by itrainmonkeys on Nov 16, 2011 11:34:36 GMT -5
They sure did. Not arguing that.
At this point though it's not just about one area. So i'm interested to see where this goes from here. The media blackout and the sneak attack (why do it in the middle of the night? that's sketchy) are things that concern me though.
Well, Bloomberg basically said they did it to minimize injury and resistance (alright, that's at least partially valid since the protesters were asleep) but also to try and limit the affect clearing out the park would have on the park's neighbors, which I don't buy. I mean, it's not a very residential area, but sending 1,000 cops into a park in the middle of the night is probably waking people up when they use flood lights, bullhorns and sirens to alert the protesters of the order. I guess he was referring to the businesses that line the park? I know these businesses were complaining to the city about the protesters killing their business, but I doubt that had any say into Bloomy's decision.
Bloomy just seems worn out by both sides tugging on him for 2 months. And as far as 1%ers go, Bloomy is actually one of the good guys.
Going in at night like they did just sends the wrong message IMO.
I'd be okay with it if they didn't blatantly lie (the "neighbors" thing) and if they hadn't simply thrown away 5,000 books. I don't get why they threw away the books. The tents, the "kitchen", etc.? I get it, those things make it seem like a permanent dwelling. But, books? C'mon.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Nov 16, 2011 12:33:38 GMT -5
Seems like throwing away the books is a a way for the cops to stick it to the protesters who criticize them so much. Not saying it's right....but I doubt their instructions were "throw away the books and personal belongigns".
I definitely think it was a big middle finger from the cops to the protesters. I have close friends that are cops and I know for a fact they were not on-board with the tossing of books. They still are stationing a ton of neophyte officers down there, which may have played a role in throwing some of this stuff away. They're much more likely to take a protester yelling at them as an "attack", when a veteran cop is likely to not even blink twice.
The sad thing is, all those people are part of the 99%, and the 1% is watching the 99% squabble amongst themselves. Hopefully this changes soon.
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2011 12:59:27 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top