Wall street protests continue, 80+ protestors arrested - Polidicks

Peaceably does not include attacking cops.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32542702]Peaceably does not include attacking cops.[/QUOTE] You think these protesters are by and large attacking cops? I think not. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32542520]Anarchist agitator scum.[/QUOTE] Uh, what?

If what they want to do is civil disobedience (such as block the traffic). They should do it the most peacefully possible and most importantly: [b]Not be aggressive towards anyone, even verbally[/b]. If that happens, the protest is much less impressive and just becomes an uninteresting riot because it gives the police the right to repress the whole mass.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI[/media] postin some more because this is the only media outlet reporting on it

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32541309]Where in the united states constitution does it say people need a license or permit to use the first amendment[/QUOTE] Same place it says you can't slander your neighbor or yell bomb on a bus. Don't be intentionally dense, you know speech isn't an absolute right in any country.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32543559]Same place it says you can't slander your neighbor or yell bomb on a bus. Don't be intentionally dense, you know speech isn't an absolute right in any country.[/QUOTE] Of course I know that, I argue that it shouldn't be absolute all the time. Gathering in a public place to protest, however, should [i]always[/i] fall under freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32540470]Yeah, except that's not how it works. You kids are big on yelling CONSTITUTION any time anything even remotely relevant to it occurs, and yet there are dozens of blatant violations of it (and state constitutions, for that matter) sitting in statue books around the country because [I]nobody gives a shit.[/I] Ask almost any lawyer, the whole "supreme law of the land" thing isn't really a thing unless you're dealing with huge scale shit or cases in the public view.[/QUOTE] Clearly, you know fuck all about the constitution. Saying there are other violations of it, therefore it's null is flat out stupid. All matters that are covered under the constitution are in fact covered under the constitution. And how would you describe "huge scale shit" If it only matters on a large scale level, then what's that whole first amendment thing about? The constitution was written for the protective of each and every individual person. You clearly don't understand anything about the constitution. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541208]Considering they'd be well within their right to do so, and it'd be completely legal by both local laws and the Constitution, yes. Yes it is.[/QUOTE] That's like saying it's legal and constitutional to bar someone's free speech. That is a fucking stupid thing to say.

Scumbag America Starts country on basis of change and equality Arrests people for wanting change and equality

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32543640]Of course I know that, I argue that it shouldn't be absolute all the time. Gathering in a public place to protest, however, should [i]always[/i] fall under freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541294]Failure to do so (see previous post) is a crime and considered unlawful assembly. It is not protected by the Constitution. End of story.[/QUOTE] I'm going to need you to source this. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32542318]That they're inexperienced.[/QUOTE] Inexperienced in what? [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;32542581]I don't even know what you're talking about. Of course it matters what people's moralities are. It's only applicable if it's enforced. If no one is willing or able to enforce the US constitution, then it might as well not exist. Mexico is a good example of this, drug cartels have close to free reign in many parts of Mexico. It's against the laws for the cartels to operate, and it's against the law to murder policemen, but both happen and people are rarely punished for it. The Mexican police in many states are unwilling and unable to enforce the rule of law, so the law might as well not be there. This has no point, it's just repeating something I said in another thread. Of course rights are different from person to person, that's why rights are suppressed. I might believe I have a right to freely practice my own religion, but everyone else might disagree with me and suppress that right.[/QUOTE] You seem to be arguing just to argue at this point. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=KingKombat;32543932]i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people[/QUOTE] How are they doing either. Note: Protesting isn't freedom of speech it's freedom of assembly. Well, they kinda combine.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32543880]Clearly, you know fuck all about the constitution. Saying there are other violations of it, therefore it's null is flat out stupid. All matters that are covered under the constitution are in fact covered under the constitution. And how would you describe "huge scale shit" If it only matters on a large scale level, then what's that whole first amendment thing about? The constitution was written for the protective of each and every individual person. You clearly don't understand anything about the constitution. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] That's like saying it's legal and constitutional to bar someone's free speech. That is a fucking stupid thing to say.[/QUOTE] You are talking ideally. This isn't an ideal situation, and ideal situations are rare. Realistically the constitution doesn't mean much more than symbolism. The constitution can't force someone to do something, because it is just a piece of paper that holds an ideal for society. It is a piece of paper the shows what a model government can and can't do. The constitution means NOTHING if it's not observed and enforced. In fact I think the point of view that all people are given rights at birth is inherently damaging. It teaches a person that they can be complacent about their rights, that their rights are magically protected from people who would try to suppress them. That is dangerous, people need to continually earn their rights through knowledge and action. If citizens are complacent and comfortable rights are easy to be taken away and compromised. Citizens need to be aware of the constant danger to have their rights removed and continually fight and take action when groups threaten those rights. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=KingKombat;32543932]i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech means you have the RIGHT to be a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32543932]i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people[/QUOTE] So where do you think it's "acceptable" to protest? In a place where you can't see it and it has no impact on anything?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32544141]So where do you think it's "acceptable" to protest? In a place where you can't see it and it has no impact on anything?[/QUOTE] Totally agreed. Freedom of speech can't have limits, diluting it makes it less powerful. Inconveniencing other people gets the message across. They might be inconveniencing people in traffic, but it stands to say the banks and corporate greed have inconvenienced the entire nation anyhow.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32544050]You are talking ideally. This isn't an ideal situation, and ideal situations are rare. Realistically the constitution doesn't mean much more than symbolism. The constitution can't force someone to do something, because it is just a piece of paper that holds an ideal for society. It is a piece of paper the shows what a model government can and can't do. The constitution means NOTHING if it's not observed and enforced. In fact I think the point of view that all people are given rights at birth is inherently damaging. It teaches a person that they can be complacent about their rights, that their rights are magically protected from people who would try to suppress them. That is dangerous, people need to continually earn their rights through knowledge and action. If citizens are complacent and comfortable rights are easy to be taken away and compromised. Citizens need to be aware of the constant danger to have their rights removed and continually fight and take action when groups threaten those rights. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] Freedom of speech means you have the RIGHT to be a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people.[/QUOTE] Okay, so the constitution is symbolism and having rights is idealism then you go on a rant about... What the ever loving fuck are you even getting at? You are all over the place and contradicting yourself after each sentence.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32543932]i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people[/QUOTE] "Those American people wanting representation before taxation? God, they're so annoying and being general fuckwads."

[QUOTE=NicoleEmilid;32544657]"Those American people wanting representation before taxation? God, they're so annoying and being general fuckwads."[/QUOTE] That wasn't how it happened at all.

I didn't know 'fuckwad' was defined as being an adequate excuse to stop your 1st amendment right. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32544787]That wasn't how it happened at all.[/QUOTE] Clearly you missed the point.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32544622]Okay, so the constitution is symbolism and having rights is idealism[/quote] No, our constitution is symbolic, saying that the constitution has any magical power to give us rights is idealism(and borderline delusional). [quote]then you go on a rant about... What the ever loving fuck are you even getting at? You are all over the place and contradicting yourself after each sentence.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that we aren't born with any rights. In fact, by the strictest definition of rights we really have none. In order to be able to express ourselves freely, to practice the religions we want, to carry weapons, and be safe from unwarranted searches and seizures, we need to fight every day. If you are expecting the constitution to just "grant you rights", you don't know anything about the real world. The constitution has no practical power and we are only granted rights upon birth in a symbolic sense. If YOU don't fight for your rights, then you forfeit them. My point is that you can't EXPECT the constitution to do anything for you, you have to take the action. Society grants itself rights, people grant themselves and others rights, you aren't born with them.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32543470][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI[/media] postin some more because this is the only media outlet reporting on it[/QUOTE] At least some good has come out of the brutality: It's bringing attention to the protests and the issue of brutality itself.

hoodoo, quit spamming dumbs and being a baby. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32543880]Clearly, you know fuck all about the constitution. Saying there are other violations of it, therefore it's null is flat out stupid. All matters that are covered under the constitution are in fact covered under the constitution. And how would you describe "huge scale shit" If it only matters on a large scale level, then what's that whole first amendment thing about? The constitution was written for the protective of each and every individual person. You clearly don't understand anything about the constitution.[/QUOTE] I know the difference between what the U.S. Constitution [I]should be[/I] versus [I]how it is actually used.[/I] Hell, there's more to this issue than the U.S. Constitution- are you even aware of how the relevant statutes violate New York's supreme law? Hell, do you even know that the states have their own constitutions? I'm sick of people who have never studied any actual law or spoken to a cop or federal prosecutor or judge in their life pretending they know what does and doesn't matter about our founding documents in the real world. [QUOTE=Zeke129;32543640]Gathering in a public place to protest, however, should [i]always[/i] fall under freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Do you accept that certain "public" areas still merit being restrained, such as the lobby of a facility or busy thoroughfare, because the congestion and lack of design for accommodating large numbers of people can lead to injury and property damage? And if so, why can't you accept that certain places will define what is and isn't potentially dangerous based on factors unique to that location? You're sure as hell not a New Yorker, but I'm willing to bet you'd agree on that first point for at least one public place near you, so why are you claiming this is ridiculous if you've not in the least familiar with the relevant area's congestion issues? I'm really not trying to argue against you so much as make you say something of fucking substance rather than this passive-aggressive hoo-rah constitution civil disobedience fight the power crap.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32545228]No, our constitution is symbolic, saying that the constitution has any magical power to give us rights is idealism(and borderline delusional). I'm saying that we aren't born with any rights. In fact, by the strictest definition of rights we really have none. In order to be able to express ourselves freely, to practice the religions we want, to carry weapons, and be safe from unwarranted searches and seizures, we need to fight every day. If you are expecting the constitution to just "grant you rights", you don't know anything about the real world. The constitution has no practical power and we are only granted rights upon birth in a symbolic sense. If YOU don't fight for your rights, then you forfeit them. My point is that you can't EXPECT the constitution to do anything for you, you have to take the action. Society grants itself rights, people grant themselves and others rights, you aren't born with them.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything that I'm talking about? [editline]30th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32549702]I know the difference between what the U.S. Constitution [I]should be[/I] versus [I]how it is actually used.[/I][/quote] If the government passes a law, or commits an act, the supreme court rules on its constitutionality. This is checks and balances. There IS no difference in how it's used and how it should be used, only isolated illegal acts that go unanswered. Even if there's this rampant 'we don't give a shit' attitude in the government about the constitution, how is it relevant? Again, you are basically saying since there are unanswered violations, it should be made null. [quote]Hell, there's more to this issue than the U.S. Constitution- are you even aware of how the relevant statutes violate New York's supreme law? Hell, do you even know that the states have their own constitutions?[/quote] The 10th amendment was not the articles of confederation, now matter how much it excites you, federal law will always trump state and local law, unless they agreed to let certain aspects be covered under the state constitution, such as local and state agencies. New York state and city, where I live btw, does not have laws that prevent the First Amendment. If you can find me some documentation about this, then you'll have a point. Until then, you should keep your arrogant authority apologist shit to yourself because it's not doing anything for you. [quote]I'm sick of people who have never studied any actual law or spoken to a cop or federal prosecutor or judge in their life pretending they know what does and doesn't matter about our founding documents in the real world.[/QUOTE] You have shown ZERO knowledge of the constitution, between misunderstanding distribution of states rights and it's system of balances. Don't fucking tell me you've studied the law then pull this shit. And a cop is local, I doubt they have any more knowledge about constitutional matters than your average person, it's a bit silly that you're implying we need to talk to them to understand anything. Not only that, what the actual shit does this mean: "what does and doesn't matter about our founding documents in the real world." So you're basically nitpicking what YOU want out of the constitution and what exactly 'doesn't matter' in the constitution. There are parts of it that are, of course, a bit outdated, but the clauses following each one bring it to date. The third amendment, which brought about posse comitatus. [editline]30th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32549702] Do you accept that certain "public" areas still merit being restrained, such as the lobby of a facility or busy thoroughfare, because the congestion and lack of design for accommodating large numbers of people can lead to injury and property damage? And if so, why can't you accept that certain places will define what is and isn't potentially dangerous based on factors unique to that location?[/quote] There are exceptions. Buuuut, if they're that enclosed, I wouldn't be having a big protest there, now would I? There are indeed exceptions at the most extreme level OKAY, but, this isn't the case. You know, the majority of the protesters are in the park near by. For the most part they're not taking up much space there. You're sure as hell not a New Yorker, but I'm willing to bet you'd agree on that first point for at least one public place near you, so why are you claiming this is ridiculous if you've not in the least familiar with the relevant area's congestion issues?[/quote] THERE IS BARELY TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA I've gone over this before, congestion is both a small issue and for a better part of the back streets where the protesters are. The NYPD and DOT cause more congestion than these protesters ever have. Go back and read my post from before. [quote]I'm really not trying to argue against you so much as make you say something of fucking substance rather than this passive-aggressive hoo-rah constitution civil disobedience fight the power crap.[/QUOTE] You have done NOTHING but imply you want the protests to be completely stopped. If you're that fucking offended by people standing up against their government, go live in North Korea, I'm sure you'd have a blast there. [editline]30th September 2011[/editline] Now you obviously have a contempt or something about the protesters. So far, it's you throwing a tantrum about how they blocked a few roads in a city with either blocked roads or a 150 other roads surrounding where you need to go. I'm not sure if your argument even goes past that.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32543932]i didn't know freedom of speech meant being a general fuckwad and inconveniencing other people[/QUOTE] Yes because instigating huge financial reform is much less important than making you walk one extra block to get around them Get over yourself You're the same as so many other people on facepunch, you see people actually fighting for something and it [i]pisses you off[/i] because you've never even attempted to do the same

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32551766]Yes because instigating huge financial reform is much less important than making you walk one extra block to get around them Get over yourself You're the same as so many other people on facepunch, you see people actually fighting for something and it [i]pisses you off[/i] because you've never even attempted to do the same[/QUOTE] The idea that they're there for "no good reason" and only to block traffic is complete nonsense. They're there because it's the fucking New York Stock Exchange.

hi everyone I'm a facepuncher I'm siding with wall street because I'll be rich and one of them some day! the american dream told me so face it guys you're fucked, these protests are for you

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32551944]The idea that they're there for "no good reason" and only to block traffic is complete nonsense. They're there because it's the fucking New York Stock Exchange.[/QUOTE] Half the streets back there are blocked off.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32543941] Inexperienced in what?[/QUOTE] Everything.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32569384]Everything.[/QUOTE] What a compelling argument. Can you try being, oh just a little bit more, specific. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] And what is with you conservatives contempt for uni students? Like is the prospect of higher education THAT fucking scary to you?

What are these protesters trying to accomplish exactly?

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32569515]What a compelling argument. Knocked it right out of the bloody park.[/QUOTE] Oh, sorry, my mistake. College students should run the country. Everyone knows that 19 is the age where you are at your intellectual best. All old people should be shot because they have no idea how to run a country and are just holding the wonderful socialist utopia (that our generation totally invented by the way) back.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32569515]What a compelling argument. Can you try being, oh just a little bit more, specific. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] And what is with you conservatives contempt for uni students? Like is the prospect of higher education THAT fucking scary to you?[/QUOTE] Well it isn't a suprise that old people who have done a lot in life tend to be conservatives. Winston Churchill himself stated that an old liberal was somebody without a brain.