Freedom of Assembly Has Died

[wkmac]

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law -- why no coverage?


i know some here have no ability to look beyond the box but it's not a far stretch to assert these same restrictions on a Tea Party rally should the politics of it necessate the need to do so. Remember, Bush got detention without trial and Obama got capital punishment without trial so there you go!

Both parties Dance on the Volcano's edge while throwing the rest of us into the flames.

Hitler's policies were not forced on the people but were welcomed with singing of anthems and saluting to flags!

 

[texan]

Twice today.

I agree.

 

[brett636]

You mean to tell me a group of unemployed college students, homeless druggies, and general miscreants can't squat on a public piece of property and deny its access to the people who actually pay for it? I for one, am completely outraged!

Well, maybe not, my give a crap widget is broken today.

 

[bbsam]

You mean to tell me a group of unemployed college students, homeless druggies, and general miscreants can't squat on a public piece of property and deny its access to the people who actually pay for it? I for one, am completely outraged!

Well, maybe not, my give a crap widget is broken today.

So...you suport the muslim, communist, fascist President Obama?

 

[wkmac]

So...you suport the muslim, communist, fascist President Obama?

LOL! Funny how life works sometimes!

BTW: When Brett mentions "limited gov't" (not that this doesn't apply to others here) makes you wonder what he really means when he sez it. I'm thinking he and most just want to "limit" democrats in charge and that's the beginning and end of it. But when a boot is crushing your throat, what party stamp is on it becomes meaningless IMO.

 

[brett636]

Given the source of the article i have to take the entire thing with a grain of salt. Either way with the OWS protests there were widespread problems consisting of numerous crimes such as rapes, theft, and destruction of both private and public property requiring a constant police presence costing those of us who pay for such services tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was a public health concern with diseases like ring worm and tuberculosis spreading throughout the camps. I believe its not tough to make the argument that the OWS style of protest is too costly and dangerous, not to mention ineffective, to allow to continue.

I still wonder why wkmac, who wants us to believe no government is the answer to all our problems, aligns himself with the largest pro big government movement in modern times.

 

[wkmac]

Given the source of the article i have to take the entire thing with a grain of salt. Either way with the OWS protests there were widespread problems consisting of numerous crimes such as rapes, theft, and destruction of both private and public property requiring a constant police presence costing those of us who pay for such services tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was a public health concern with diseases like ring worm and tuberculosis spreading throughout the camps. I believe its not tough to make the argument that the OWS style of protest is too costly and dangerous, not to mention ineffective, to allow to continue.

I still wonder why wkmac, who wants us to believe no government is the answer to all our problems, aligns himself with the largest pro big government movement in modern times.

Maybe it's about defending their rights in order to protect my own should the time come to express them. Besides, anything that 's up the 2 party state, I give them some benefit of doubt. And no, I have no expectation that you'll even begin to understand that last point!

 

[bbsam]

I hardly see wk as aligning himself with anyone...which means he could never win elected office which would make him the perfect Libertarian candidate.

 

[wkmac]

I hardly see wk as aligning himself with anyone...which means he could never win elected office which would make him the perfect Libertarian candidate.

The perfect libertarian candidate would never run for office to begin with!

 

[brett636]

Maybe it's about defending their rights in order to protect my own should the time come to express them. Besides, anything that 's up the 2 party state, I give them some benefit of doubt. And no, I have no expectation that you'll even begin to understand that last point!

What about my right as a taxpayer to not have to watch my hard earned tax dollars going towards paying police overtime to babysit these loons as they rape and pillage each other as well as the innocent public? Also i understand your point perfectly, but it doesn't mean i necessarily agree with it.

 

[brett636]

I hardly see wk as aligning himself with anyone...which means he could never win elected office which would make him the perfect Libertarian candidate.

One day he is libertarian, tomorrow an anarchist, another day he is a liberal. wkmac makes mitt romney seem consistent on political issues.

 

[HubBub]

What about my right as a taxpayer to not have to watch my hard earned tax dollars going towards paying police overtime to babysit these loons as they rape and pillage each other as well as the innocent public?

Ignoring the hyperbole for a moment, where in the constitution is this "right" outlined? I'd love to invoke my "right" to save myself a gob of money on needless defense spending, amongst other things. Thanks in advance!

 

[wkmac]

One day he is libertarian, tomorrow an anarchist, another day he is a liberal. wkmac makes mitt romney seem consistent on political issues.

And it just drives you nuts because you can't figure it out either. Makes it that much more fun for me too!

 

[bbsam]

And it just drives you nuts because you can't figure it out either. Makes it that much more fun for me too!

I don't know what you are, but you seem like a decent enough guy no matter what label you attach to yourself.

 

[wkmac]

I don't know what you are, but you seem like a decent enough guy no matter what label you attach to yourself.

Thanks bbsam and for a communist, marxist, liberal, democrat, (dude you gotta help me here, what else do they call you here) you ain't too bad yourself. As to labels, I guess human works the best. Oh wait, aren't you one of those too? WOW, ain't that cool!

 

[brett636]

Ignoring the hyperbole for a moment, where in the constitution is this "right" outlined? I'd love to invoke my "right" to save myself a gob of money on needless defense spending, amongst other things. Thanks in advance!

This is not a valid, nor relevant argument. First off the government has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, and whether they do so or not is debatable, what is not debatable is the fact that no direct government action sponsored or initiated the OWS protests. As the protests continue and persist they require a constant police presence. This police presence is not free and cost the taxpayers money. Police resources are not infinite just like any other resource so officers who should be tasked with covering the streets of their locality is instead spent babysitting homeless druggies, unemployed college students, and general miscreants who, in large part, are not contributing to the taxpayer base that funds the police who are now their baby sitters. This is a waste of taxpayer resources and the government again has a duty to not only end these protests with force if necessary, but place rules and restrictions in place to ensure they do not continue in the future, if for anything else, to protect the valuable government resources that become usurped in whatever district these protests tend to fester in.

 

[Just_another_day_at_work]

What about my right as a taxpayer to not have to watch my hard earned tax dollars going towards paying police overtime to babysit these loons as they rape and pillage each other as well as the innocent public? Also i understand your point perfectly, but it doesn't mean i necessarily agree with it.

I think there is a way bigger problem: the war in the middle east and how those (tax, future tax)dollars getting spent. And we don't have a clear answer why we are there, I know I know those terrorists.
You know a single war probably would have been able to pay the police for years to protect and serve the public including the protesters.

 

[brett636]

I think there is a way bigger problem: the war in the middle east and how those (tax, future tax)dollars getting spent. And we don't have a clear answer why we are there, I know I know those terrorists.
You know a single war probably would have been able to pay the police for years to protect and serve the public including the protesters.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The wars in the middle east were a direct result of a legislative action by a government body. You can debate the merits of being there and not being there because of this. The occupiers were not the direct result of a government action, but were a group of people who, in large part, are failures at life and felt the government needs to spend more money on them because of their failures. Since they could not get the government to directly support them they decided it would be best for the government to indirectly support them by providing babysitting services involuntarily as a result of their occupying public lands. The general tax paying public does not need this burden on the services they are paying for, and thus asks their representatives to put a stop to it, and they did.

 

[HubBub]

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The wars in the middle east were a direct result of a legislative action by a government body. You can debate the merits of being there and not being there because of this.

All things are debatable. The effectuality of merely debating "legislative actions" based on false pretenses made by unaccountable individuals with contrary self-interests to your own is itself highly debatable.

...HYPERBOLE/STRAWMAN FILTER...

The general tax paying public does not need this burden on the services they are paying for, and thus asks their representatives to put a stop to it, and they did.

So let's ad up the cost of policing, emergency services and publicly funded and completely overpriced cleanup. Then subtract the cost of policing, emergency services and publicly funded cleanup that would have been necessary regardless, for the mentally ill and chemically dependent homeless that gravitated to some of the camps. Then subtract the completely unnecessary police overtime and other ridiculous budget expenses justified by certain public officials. Then calculate what portion of that sum that will come from your personal taxes. That's the price for which you'll sell your constitutional rights. You're a pretty cheap date. Personally, I'm gonna hold out for a little more cash or maybe a shiny object or something.

 

[Just_another_day_at_work]

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The wars in the middle east were a direct result of a legislative action by a government body. You can debate the merits of being there and not being there because of this. The occupiers were not the direct result of a government action, but were a group of people who, in large part, are failures at life and felt the government needs to spend more money on them because of their failures. Since they could not get the government to directly support them they decided it would be best for the government to indirectly support them by providing babysitting services involuntarily as a result of their occupying public lands. The general tax paying public does not need this burden on the services they are paying for, and thus asks their representatives to put a stop to it, and they did.

Don't think so. I (forced to) pay federal taxes for our government activities including wars, you know I really don't need that burden and I don't know if you follow the news now-days, but it's NOT our government body who decides how our military operates it's the UN, NATO.
Just for refreshment to reality, Panetta in the face:
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube