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.

 

Banks Cooperating With Each Other and Police to Track Occupy Protesters

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag
 





You can't be serious. Ok, let me ask you this. Where in the constitution does an American citizen have a right to 1) break windows on private banks, 2) set trash cans on fire, 3) vandalize vehicles, 4) obstruct people from entering businesses, 5) block roadways....I can go on.


The Bill of Rights that you are (presumably) referring to is not a grant of rights to the People but is rather an express prohibition on government from trampling over rights, including any rights not enumerated which is the express meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Your argument is the wrong strategy and misunderstands rights as poorly as the one you have argument with.

No person - citizen or otherwise (the Bill of Rights makes no distinction of citizenship) - has the right to destroy another persons private property. No person has the right to recklessly start fires, vandalize vehicles or obstruct justice. All of these crimes are injurious to the rights of others and this is precisely how we can tell what is a right and what is not, by the injury, or lack thereof, that is caused by an action. Given the clear meaning of the Ninth Amendment it is pointless to demand others "show" you or anyone else where a right to cause injury is enumerated by Constitution.




edit on 1-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


Way to play both sides!


I keep hearing about OWS's constitutional right to protest. I was also asked why I don't support their right. The First Amendment says: 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. Blocking access to buildings, shutting down bridges, vandalism, etc aren't covered by the first amendment, sir. 

I don't see any constitutional protection for the things I listed, therefore my argument stands. The conduct of OWS in not protected. 




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Way to play both sides!


I don't "play" sides, and the only side I am on is the side of unalienable rights for all people everywhere. You on the other hand are undeniably "playing" a side and it sure as hell ain't in support of unalienable rights that preexist any government.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

I don't "play" sides, and the only side I am on is the side of unalienable rights for all people everywhere. You on the other hand are undeniably "playing" a side and it sure as hell ain't in support of unalienable rights that preexist any government.


Where's your outrage for the rights of the people who were prevented from earning a living today because they were blocked by protestors?

I support OWS's freedom of speech and their right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. However, this right doesn't negate the ridiculous behavior they display. You can't break laws and infringe on the rights of others and then cry 'first amendment' and expect no repercussions.


OWS needs to stick to 'peaceably assembling and petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances' rather than acting like miscreants.
edit on 1-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You quoted my initial reply to you regarding "Constitutional rights" in its entirety and now pretend that I did not make it perfectly clear that no individual has the right to abrogate and/or derogate another individuals rights. You do this because you allow your own rage to unbalance you and you want to take a pathetic "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. You will stupidly ignore the fact that I have openly stated that no person has the right to destroy another persons private property just because I will turn around and defend any persons right to protest, of which I have not even done in this thread, it is just by your own ignorant assumptions that you base your beliefs upon.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Where's your outrage for the rights of the people who were prevented from earning a living today because they were blocked by protestors?


People say that all the time, but the the reality is the protests didn't really disrupt much. Nobody was "prevented from earning a living" because of an occupy protest. You ought to be concerned instead how people are "prevented from earning a living" because of state and federal legislation.

The latter doesn't occur on one block in NYC, it occurs everywhere in the nation for all allegedly "free" men.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by seabag
Where's your outrage for the rights of the people who were prevented from earning a living today because they were blocked by protestors?


People say that all the time, but the the reality is the protests didn't really disrupt much. Nobody was "prevented from earning a living" because of an occupy protest. You ought to be concerned instead how people are "prevented from earning a living" because of state and federal legislation.

The latter doesn't occur on one block in NYC, it occurs everywhere in the nation for all allegedly "free" men.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



If what you say is true then Mark Epstein must be a liar. Stacey Tzortzatos must be guilty of hyperbole. The angry residents and businesses of Wall Street must all be a part of the "1%" and lying just to undermine the saintly "OWS".



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I never attempted to defend the unlawful actions. I'm talking about the right to peaceably gather and protest for a redress of grievances. You can't honestly assert with a straight face that anywhere near a majority of these people are getting violent or destructive. Seriously. Just like you can't say the majority of TPers were racists holding bone-in-nose signs, no matter how much they were plastered over the TV.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That's not even the point. I'm trying to tell you that you need to be more concerned with the invasion via your government on your ability to start an honest business. Hell, even if your aren't even an American it applies.

You want to talk about stuff that really doesn't even matter while the federal government is trying to crack down on community food markets and stuff like that. You are one stupid person if you think all this irrelevant crap really matters, look at what is affecting and governing the people.

If important people don't start "getting it", there is going to be some # that's gonna go down.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That's not even the point. I'm trying to tell you that you need to be more concerned with the invasion of your government on your ability to start an honest business. Hell, even if your aren't even an American it applies.

You want to talk about stuff that really doesn't even matter.


You're not paying attention! Long before this pretentious so called "99%" took to the streets to pout and pump their fist in the air there have been many warrior poets struggling as individuals to stand tall against tyranny. Your lecture, at the expense of owning up to the damage some have done under the guise of "OWS" rings hallow and reveals a profound ignorance.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I wasn't even talking about OWS.

Wake up.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I wasn't even talking about OWS.

Wake up.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Yes you were, and you were replying to my post that itself was a reply to these remarks you made:




People say that all the time, but the the reality is the protests didn't really disrupt much. Nobody was "prevented from earning a living" because of an occupy protest. You ought to be concerned instead how people are "prevented from earning a living" because of state and federal legislation.


If you are not willing to defend every individuals rights, regardless of their station in life, regardless of their color, religion, or creed, then your pretentious arguments of invasion mean nothing. The only invasion that anyone needs to worry about is the invasion of tyrants who would insist that unalienable rights is just a "theory" and has no basis in law.

For Christ sakes, you wake up!


edit on 1-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If you are not willing to defend every individuals rights, regardless of their station in life, regardless of their color, religion, or creed, then your pretentious arguments of invasion mean nothing. The only invasion that anyone needs to worry about is the invasion of tyrants who would insist that unalienable rights is just a "theory" and has no basis in law.


Sorry, I don't really understand doublespeak. If you want to talk, speak as if you were a normal person and not a philosophical malicious lawyer.

But actually you are kind of right in a strange sort of way, you could have just explained it easier. Stop being so odd and use conformity to your advantage and advance the idealisms of free men and good will.
edit on 1-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
OWS has all the right to protest. They also have an OBLIGATION,to police themselves. Kick the anarchists out,if they are co-opting your movement,or giving it a bad name.In reality,the rule of common sense,doesn't apply to mobs.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 





Sorry, I don't really understand doublespeak. If you want to talk, speak as if you were a normal person and not a philosophical malicious lawyer.


If you don't understand doublespeak then why are you speaking it? You are now on record, the very same as the O.P., for dismissing unalienable rights as a universal law applicable to all. This makes you just as bad as the O.P. in this regard, and the both of you are tools of tyrants. Wake the hell up!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If you don't understand doublespeak then why are you speaking it? You are now on record, the very same as the O.P., for dismissing unalienable rights as a universal law applicable to all. This makes you just as bad as the O.P. in this regard, and the both of you are tools of tyrants. Wake the hell up!


Well, I guess you are going to have to explain it more than just conjecture if you want to convince me. I know full well what I support and believe in.

If you have nothing but criticism then you should be silent, if you have nothing good to do then you should move out of the way.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If you don't understand doublespeak then why are you speaking it? You are now on record, the very same as the O.P., for dismissing unalienable rights as a universal law applicable to all. This makes you just as bad as the O.P. in this regard, and the both of you are tools of tyrants. Wake the hell up!


Well, I guess you are going to have to explain it more than just conjecture if you want to convince me. I know full well what I support and believe in.

If you have nothing but criticism then you should be silent, if you have nothing good to do then you should move out of the way.


You just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper don't you? To hell with my unalienable right to publish or speak freely, if it ain't in agreement with yours, then you would silence me. Why should I worry about the "invasion" you claim I should be worried about when clearly you are a tyrant yourself?

You want to move me out of the way? Try it!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


See? You're going off on nonsense again.

Somehow I'm a tyrant, and this internet forum is I guess (according to you) some kind of government?

Trust me I've tried that with ATS as far as the censorship goes, and believe me this website is no democracy. You are talking about nonsense and avoiding the actual things I am telling you. Wow, what a surprise.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77


If you have nothing but criticism then you should be silent, if you have nothing good to do then you should move out of the way.


Sorry,but that doesn't work. His voice,counts just like mine,and yours.I have been very vocal,about OWS. They have their right to protest. Anarchists don't have a right to destroy property. Its simple,really.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Right, and so does my voice. That quote was my voice.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Sure, my resistance to your tyranny is nonsense. This has nothing to do with this internet forum and everything to do with the words you are on record for - words by the way I and others, see Sonny's post above, will zealously defend you have the write to post - which reveal you have absolutely no regard for the unalienable rights of all. Do you need me to dumb that down for you? You only care about your own rights and the rights of those you chose to care about, and could care less about any other persons rights.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join