It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Anyone Still Taking OWS Seriously?

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
I disagree. I don't think people should be allowed to occupy a space for an indefinite amount of time.


I'm sorry you feel that way but assemble means assemble means assemble.

Along those same lines, since the first amendment doesn't explicitly state exactly what free speech and press fully entails, maybe it would be Constitutional for the government to tell us what books we may read or what films we may watch.




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 





I'm sorry you feel that way but assemble means assemble means assemble.


No one is keeping people from assembling, they are keeping them from screwing over others in order to do so for a ridiculously long time.




Along those same lines, since the first amendment doesn't explicitly state exactly what free speech and press fully entails


It's not legal to threaten someone's life. There are limits to freedom of speech, just as there should be limits on freedom of assembly. Just as there should be limits on the second amendment, just as there should be limits on just about everything, excluding thought and love. You do realize that these protesters were taking away from ordinary people's rights to use the parks for extended periods of time don't you? Just imagine living next to one of those encampments... it would be awful.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 





illegally protest in public parks.


Protests are illegal in public parks?

So they would be legal in designated areas that are not seen by the public?

Exactly what TPTB want...people agreeing with this statement.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Was that your only point or can we talk about if you take OWS seriously anymore?

Sorry that came out catty. Read second post from top of this page.
edit on 12-12-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
We now have all the communism/facism one can stomache and none of the perks.
If there are any.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I wasn't aware that "ordinary people's rights to use the parks" was a right enshrined in the Constitution.

If it is actually there, I personally feel that the "right to use the parks" only entails use on odd days and twice on leapyear.



I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – John Marshall Harlan U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Patterson v. Chicago

edit on 12-12-2011 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


It's not. The point stands. It also doesn't say assembly meas holding common areas hostage for an undetermined amount of time. You really think people should be allowed to assemble wherever they want? How about the roads. Should protesters be allowed to shutdown Highways for as long as they please?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


i'm sorry, i'm having trouble understanding
how people assembling in the parks
and inviting anyone and everyone to join them
is taking away anybodies right to be there
?

if it's not obvious i am still 100% behind this.
sure, there isn't exactly a lot of news or attention right now
and yeah, a lot of people did some very silly things
but i can't honestly see any other way. leave the system how it is now and we're all in a lot of trouble.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by METACOMET
 


You really think people should be allowed to assemble wherever they want?


Obviously that decision can only be made by the free speech zone Czar.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by decepticonLaura
 





i'm sorry, i'm having trouble understanding how people assembling in the parks and inviting anyone and everyone to join them is taking away anybodies right to be there


Because not everyone wants to bring their children around filth, nudity, profanity, people defecating in plain view, possible fights with the cops etc. If that doesn't make sense I guess I'll say they are blocking the fields from intended use.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


You aren't going to answer that whole post because you know I'm right. There is no shame admitting when we're wrong. Now, answer this question; Do you think that it is OK for protesters to assemble for an unspecified amount of time on the freeway, blocking traffic?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

Do you recall the historical Birmingham march and Martin Luther King? They didn't assemble in the woods, but on the roadway. They didn't have a permit. As a result they were beat by the police and arrested.


The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. – Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham, 1967



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I think that the weather had a detrimental effect on OWS, but I see them making a resurgence, since things are only going to get worse. Or it could just turn violent, not really focused on OWS anymore. I still think OWS is important.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Answer the question. We all know you won't, but I'd be impressed if you did answer, especially honestly. Should people be allowed to take over a roadway for as long as they want?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

I applaud your strawman tactics, sir.

And to answer the question, yes and no. The right to do something does not always mean that doing it is right. There you go.
edit on 12-12-2011 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I for one take the movement seriously because we are in serious trouble as a nation. That people think being angry sitting in their home is the way to fight this shows how far gone most people are. The ones who even realize there's an issue. America totters on the edge of Economic collapse and has already declared world war IMO because we're bombing how many nations now? Six currently?

I noticed that so many Americans deserve what's coming to them that it's very sad for those of us who know and try to rally enough people to give a crap about anything. It's disheartening and really illustrates a lot of Americans are so selfish that they will literally not care until it's in their house. Always hoping it's someone else.

Since I think the outcome is inevitable now because of the selfish apathy of many Americans, I will find some dark humor in the comeuppance of so many. Might as well, because it's ALL BAD.

I don't think the Occupy is going anywhere, and will grow and grow because so many unemployed people can show up. I mean, with so many millions with no hope, they might as well get used as punching bags while most Americans laugh and call them hippies.

I noticed many Americans make me sick. Like people who don't think there's even a reason for the Occupy protests. You make me sick with your ignorance.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Just the mere fact that you would contain the rights of people to protest everything that's wrong in whatever way or wherever they choose leads me to believe that you are following an entirely different agenda.

I will say it here.

Peace



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


You say strawman, I say example.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I would never advocate taking away the right to protest. I only indicated that I don't believe camping wherever you want is a valid form of protest. You don't get to just up and take over whatever you want without time constraints.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by jude11
 


I would never advocate taking away the right to protest. I only indicated that I don't believe camping wherever you want is a valid form of protest. You don't get to just up and take over whatever you want without time constraints.


So if we can't protest where we want and can only do so wherever they say is ok, what is the point?

Your logic is defeatist from the onset if you only accept the guidelines of how they want you to protest.

Protesting according to their rules is a loss from the beginning.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join