View Full Version : Occupy Oakland. Why is no one talking about this?
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:01 AM
Why is no one talking about these protests? I don't mean it in the sense that we should talk about whether we agree with them or not, but we should talk about the response that our government is taking on them. Where is the media coverage in Oakland?! It is not okay for a police force to forcefully attack protestors. I'll admit that I was not there, nor do I know if the police had justification to use tear gas and rubber bullets on citizens, but I want to get to the bottom of this. Look at how they responded to the SF protests of the police killing a homeless man by shutting down cell phone communications to break up protests. I really think that the Oakland police and Mayor Quan just fueled the fire by ordering the forceful removal of protestors.
Parkbandit
10-26-2011, 11:07 AM
What media do you watch, to say Ron Paul has enjoyed increased media coverage due to his Money Bomb campaign.. and that no media outlets are covering the violence in Occupy Oakland?
Occupy Oakland was covered on ABC, NBC and CBS this morning.. as well as MSNBC and CNN. Yes.. I channel surf in the morning.
Oakland+Occupy+violence google search shows 2038 related articles... I would say it's being covered.
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:15 AM
To answer your first question about Ron Paul, here you go:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-spent-1-million-on-charter-flights/
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/can-ron-paul-win-gop?commentid=3248228
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-grabs-3rd-in-latest-quinnipiac-poll-of-ohio-republicans/
Those are just the first three google results from searching "Ron Paul" in news on google. The first one is critical of him, but at least it is coverage. There was a lot of coverage of him this weekend in response to his Money Bomb on top of the print media coverage.
As for the the Occupy Oakland part of of your response, I'm glad that they are covering it. I was at practice then class when those news broadcasts were being aired, so I missed them. Can you summarize whether they were being critical of the police force or the protests?
AnticorRifling
10-26-2011, 11:17 AM
If an internet meme is going to run for office it should be Pedo Bear, not Ron Paul.
Parkbandit
10-26-2011, 11:17 AM
As for the the Occupy Oakland part of of your response, I'm glad that they are covering it. I was at practice then class when those news broadcasts were being aired, so I missed them. Can you summarize whether they were being critical of the police force or the protests?
I just watched the "news", but didn't see any opinion pieces on the clash. I think most of the coverage was pretty much down the middle.. police used tear gas, but the crowds were throwing bottles, etc...
Atlanteax
10-26-2011, 11:20 AM
Look at how they responded to the SF protests of the police killing a homeless man by shutting down cell phone communications to break up protests.
Just goes to show that police officers always get shafted in public opinion.
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:24 AM
I just watched the "news", but didn't see any opinion pieces on the clash. I think most of the coverage was pretty much down the middle.. police used tear gas, but the crowds were throwing bottles, etc...
Fair enough. Maybe I jumped the gun on this thread. I'm sure that there will be a lot of discussion on this issue in the weeks to come.
Parkbandit
10-26-2011, 11:32 AM
Fair enough. Maybe I jumped the gun on this thread. I'm sure that there will be a lot of discussion on this issue in the weeks to come.
I'm sure the violence will be ratcheted up soon enough... Winter is coming and hippies hate snow.
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:48 AM
I'm sure the violence will be ratcheted up soon enough... Winter is coming and hippies hate snow.
And your bias emerges.
AnticorRifling
10-26-2011, 11:49 AM
And your bias emerges.
Agreed, can't believe he'd want that clean, crisp snow falling on those dirty hippies. No one likes dirty snow.
Gelston
10-26-2011, 11:50 AM
I saw coverage on it on Fox News this morning.
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:51 AM
Agreed, can't believe he'd want that clean, crisp snow falling on those dirty hippies. No one likes dirty snow.
No shit. I mean, I'm sure he hated those people who were protesting with this crazy ass Christian Reverend named Marting Luther King. Apparently their views that were against the system were aligned with hippies and in clear contrast to what was great for this nation. I mean, fuck them, they had no clue!
AnticorRifling
10-26-2011, 11:57 AM
No shit. I mean, I'm sure he hated those people who were protesting with this crazy ass Christian Reverend named Marting Luther King. Apparently their views that were against the system were aligned with hippies and in clear contrast to what was great for this nation. I mean, fuck them, they had no clue!
I assume you're talking about his son, Jr., the speech stealer. :)
WRoss
10-26-2011, 11:58 AM
I assume you're talking about his son, Jr., the speech stealer. :)
Touche!
AnticorRifling
10-26-2011, 11:59 AM
...although I don't think his name was Marting.
Parkbandit
10-26-2011, 12:54 PM
And your bias emerges.
I'm sorry.. was this the thread where no one can have an opinion either way?
~Rocktar~
10-26-2011, 01:02 PM
Because it's Oakland. After all, they didn't use lethal bullets and the protesters apparently were throwing things at cops that could be much more harmful than rubber bullets and tear gas. And I am pretty sure most of the protests with the Rev King didn't involve throwing bottles and stones, at least from those on his side.
Atlanteax
11-08-2011, 10:21 AM
http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/172/2011/11/07/100614_600.jpg
Indicative of how serious "Occupy Oakland" is taken...
AnticorRifling
11-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Savages, that window had a lamp shade and two light bulbs at home!
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 11:30 AM
No shit. I mean, I'm sure he hated those people who were protesting with this crazy ass Christian Reverend named Marting Luther King. Apparently their views that were against the system were aligned with hippies and in clear contrast to what was great for this nation. I mean, fuck them, they had no clue!
I don't recall the King supporters throwing molotov cocktails at the police in their marches.
Police in riot gear arrested dozens of protesters in downtown Oakland, where bands of masked protesters took over a vacant building, erected roadblocks and threw chunks of concrete and firebombs.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/APd1a042e77b3e4299823d62137fa3bbab.html
And this from the very same article just floors me.
"I cried. It's very disheartening. I am part of the 99 percent and have supported this movement," she said, adding that she blamed the city for letting the protest get out of hand. She added, "This shouldn't happen in a U.S. city."
I honestly don't even know what to say to a person like that.
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 11:50 AM
hell that person all surprised this came to firebombs and concrete being throw at cops don't know people very well. this is America... we always gotta outdo the other guy.
people protest... police try and keep the peace... people get mad at police internecine and it turns hostile... police use non lethal force to keep the peace... the protesters up it to potentially deadly force.
they gonna be out there with ak47's next... that or the government will step in with a shock and awe campaign.
AnticorRifling
11-08-2011, 11:53 AM
We don't use AK-47s in the US...
Buckwheet
11-08-2011, 11:54 AM
We don't use AK-47s in the US...
Some of us do.
Edit:Added Link which was no worky before.
LINKY (http://www.redjacketfirearms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=32&category_id=3&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=4)
AnticorRifling
11-08-2011, 11:56 AM
Fucking communist (although AKs are fun to shoot).
Buckwheet
11-08-2011, 11:56 AM
There is nothing communistic about a suppressed AK!
Androidpk
11-08-2011, 12:25 PM
If an internet meme is going to run for office it should be Pedo Bear, not Ron Paul.
Go fall down another hill.
Latrinsorm
11-08-2011, 12:37 PM
I don't recall the King supporters throwing molotov cocktails at the police in their marches.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/APd1a042e77b3e4299823d62137fa3bbab.html
And this from the very same article just floors me.
I honestly don't even know what to say to a person like that.Put yourself in their place. You've had a peaceful assembly broken up with tear gas and clubs. That was deplorable in Dr. Zhivago, and they were just a bunch of goofy Russians. Why do you think it's so important to allow people to air their grievances? Shove people far enough, and they're going to shove back.
Whether it actually was a 100% peaceful assembly is irrelevant. They think it was, and that colors their interpretation of the violent police response.
No shit. I mean, I'm sure he hated those people who were protesting with this crazy ass Christian Reverend named Marting Luther King. Apparently their views that were against the system were aligned with hippies and in clear contrast to what was great for this nation. I mean, fuck them, they had no clue!
You are so uneducated about this movement it is alarming. I don't even know where to begin. You're blaming the police and the mayor like they're one group, you don't even know that the police and mayor have been at odds over this the whole time. The mayor has probably been the most sympathetic mayor int he country to these people, the mayor is pretty far to the left. The police have been saying it has gotten out of hand a long time ago and should be stopped and the police union has been complaining to the mayor about the danger to public safety.
Seriously, do you know anything about what has been going on in Oakland? Or just in general out there, some of the same union people who, literally, stormed a port and took hostages with weapons up the west coast came down to join this rabble. The violence has been escalating, one guy had to go down and defend his store with a shotgun. Eventually one of these rioters (which is what they are) will be killed, and it'll be the fault of enablers like you and of those who have fanned the flames with inaccurate rhetoric like Obama.
Rather than trying to explain to you all the shit that has been going on, I'll show you in pictures.
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand9wf.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wfv.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wfmore.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vandwf2.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand8.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand7.jpg
Pay attention to the masks. People don't wear ninja masks in public unless they know they're doing something illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra5ks-Ei9o0&feature=player_embedded
Even Whole Foods is too capitalist for these commies.
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand6.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand2.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/vand10.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fpo.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/blockade.jpg
Nice Blockade, preventing people from going home, going to work, picking up kids, emergency services. The police would be totally out of bounds to break that up.
But what? These are all peaceful people who just want common sense Wall Street reform? (and I thought Dodd-Frank was supposed to fix Wall Street?).... maybe not?
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/o1.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cap.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ZZ10070858.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ZZ75A50BC3.jpg
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ZZ58F2A6CA.jpg
Some loons brought their kids along. Why would any parent think it is okay for kids to go to an event where adults feel the need to hide their faces?
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/kids.jpg
Of course, these people really are peaceful. That is why they have spraypainted the peace symbol all over the place. It is a message of love.
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2011/11/3/ap-p/f5220aad-9e8c-4322-93ef-2b24fb7fe010_preview.jpg
Shit, my bad, I was confuzzled. I got the anarchy symbol mixed up with the peace symbol.
More preventing people from working. Trying to stop goods from leaving the port. Some estimates put the cost to the local economy through lost productivity at over 10 million - this is before all the police overtime, cleanup, etc.
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/truxx.jpg
Where have I seen art like this before? Hrmmm....
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/311066_268206476549289_100000798165569_697749_1512 800417_n.jpg
These kind folks are going to stop at wall street reform?
http://www.libertysentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/occupy-oakland-620x317-300x153.jpg
Maybe not.
They set a police barricade on fire, and made a giant bonfire. Totally safe nonviolent activities.
http://jimbakkershow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-11-03T174814Z_01_BTRE7A20WAK00_RTROPTP_2_USA-PROTESTS-OAKLAND-300x200.jpg
This does not look dangerous at all.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.972619.1320476169!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_485/image.jpg
These two are obviously just on their way to church.
http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2011/11/Oakland2.jpg
Shit has gotten so bad, the less radical OWS members have had to publicly disavow what is going on in Oakland.
And you're bitching about tear gas and rubber bullets? If this wasn't happening in a moonbat city in a moonbat state and if it kept going on you'd probably have the National Guard called up.
This is what happens when you incite violence through inappropriate demagoguery and violent rhetoric. What happened to all the peace love, don't use words that connote violence, crap that came from the left after the Giffords shooting?
Gelston
11-08-2011, 01:44 PM
One thing that all this occupy stuff has made me full of hate. Hate for V for Vendetta masks. I'd like to occupy the factory that makes those, with HE.
Keller
11-08-2011, 01:44 PM
This is what happens when you incite violence through inappropriate demagoguery and violent rhetoric. What happened to all the peace love, don't use words that connote violence, crap that came from the left after the Giffords shooting?
Who is "you" in "you incite violence"?
Atlanteax
11-08-2011, 01:47 PM
Who is "you" in "you incite violence"?
WRoss and Back, of course.
Lord Orbstar
11-08-2011, 01:48 PM
Maybe there will be some understanding and perspective now. Thanks for posting that CRB. They are fucking assbags.
Keller
11-08-2011, 02:35 PM
People in disguise destroying private property as part of a public protest. Where have I seen that before . . . .
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2005_winter_spring/images/teaparty4.jpg
Lord Orbstar
11-08-2011, 02:37 PM
I know. Fucking Indians.
TheEschaton
11-08-2011, 02:38 PM
LOL, half those pictures were of protesters being peaceful. Hell, they posted a sign over a broken window imploring each other to be "better than this."
Oakland has always been a hotbed in terms of taking shit too far. Burning a police barricade is not okay. However, a general strike, blocking banks, even graffiti, isn't violence. They are disruptive, of course, but the point of a strike is to be disruptive. Furthermore, wishing for the death of capitalism is not only allowed in this country, but it isn't unAmerican, it isn't traitorous, and your general outrage and people's general outrage over a system that has fucked them over continuously for the past half century is rather oligarchical of you.
ETA: Property damage does not warrant riot police. Property rights do not supercede the right to assemble, the right to protest, or any of the enumerated rights, as far as I'm concerned. That's pretty much what these people are protesting in the first place.
Parkbandit
11-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Put yourself in their place. You've had a peaceful assembly broken up with tear gas and clubs. That was deplorable in Dr. Zhivago, and they were just a bunch of goofy Russians. Why do you think it's so important to allow people to air their grievances? Shove people far enough, and they're going to shove back.
Whether it actually was a 100% peaceful assembly is irrelevant. They think it was, and that colors their interpretation of the violent police response.
With thousands of arrests, reports of rape, assault, vandalism, etc... the only one who believes these protests are peaceful might be you.
Parkbandit
11-08-2011, 02:52 PM
LOL, half those pictures were of protesters being peaceful. Hell, they posted a sign over a broken window imploring each other to be "better than this."
You realize that the protesters broke the window in the first place, right?
Oakland has always been a hotbed in terms of taking shit too far. Burning a police barricade is not okay. However, a general strike, blocking banks, even graffiti, isn't violence. They are disruptive, of course, but the point of a strike is to be disruptive. Furthermore, wishing for the death of capitalism is not only allowed in this country, but it isn't unAmerican, it isn't traitorous, and your general outrage and people's general outrage over a system that has fucked them over continuously for the past half century is rather oligarchical of you.
ETA: Property damage does not warrant riot police. Property rights do not supercede the right to assemble, the right to protest, or any of the enumerated rights, as far as I'm concerned. That's pretty much what these people are protesting in the first place.
Seriously. You know what we should do... we should just talk to them.. let them know the legal problems that they could be in if they continue to vandalize private property.. and if that doesn't work, then just run!
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 02:53 PM
LOL, half those pictures were of protesters being peaceful. Hell, they posted a sign over a broken window imploring each other to be "better than this."
Oakland has always been a hotbed in terms of taking shit too far. Burning a police barricade is not okay. However, a general strike, blocking banks, even graffiti, isn't violence. They are disruptive, of course, but the point of a strike is to be disruptive. Furthermore, wishing for the death of capitalism is not only allowed in this country, but it isn't unAmerican, it isn't traitorous, and your general outrage and people's general outrage over a system that has fucked them over continuously for the past half century is rather oligarchical of you.
ETA: Property damage does not warrant riot police. Property rights do not supercede the right to assemble, the right to protest, or any of the enumerated rights, as far as I'm concerned. That's pretty much what these people are protesting in the first place.
I agree with much of what you said about the folks protesting peacefully - I think many folks fall in the group of protesters that I'm completely fine about them protesting. I've no problems at all with that.
I do have problems with them stopping a business from functioning. I do have problems with them vandalising and causing property damage. The right to protest, assemble, free speech only goes as far as allowing people to do that peacefully I've always thought. You can't infringe on another person(s) rights, at least, I don't believe you can.
As far as if it warranted riot police, or the national guard or any other authority - if people are breaking laws (like vandalism, rioting, setting fires, etc...) I think the government needs to step in and do what they can to prevent it and protect the general population.
Or can you break laws whilst claiming your "enumerated rights" as the backdrop for it being ok?
AnticorRifling
11-08-2011, 02:55 PM
LOL, half those pictures were of protesters being peaceful. Hell, they posted a sign over a broken window imploring each other to be "better than this."
Oakland has always been a hotbed in terms of taking shit too far. Burning a police barricade is not okay. However, a general strike, blocking banks, even graffiti, isn't violence. They are disruptive, of course, but the point of a strike is to be disruptive. Furthermore, wishing for the death of capitalism is not only allowed in this country, but it isn't unAmerican, it isn't traitorous, and your general outrage and people's general outrage over a system that has fucked them over continuously for the past half century is rather oligarchical of you.
ETA: Property damage does not warrant riot police. Property rights do not supercede the right to assemble, the right to protest, or any of the enumerated rights, as far as I'm concerned. That's pretty much what these people are protesting in the first place.
It's a protest, not a strike. Protest all you want but let those that don't agree with you still conduct their lives or are the protestors desires and wants greater than the other people's?
People in disguise destroying private property as part of a public protest. Where have I seen that before . . . .
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2005_winter_spring/images/teaparty4.jpg
You really are going to compare OWS's rail about capitalism, business, successful people, people with jobs, jews, and bankers with the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against a monarchy denying people democracy?
I'm comparing people who have marxist signs, say marxist things, and label themselves as communists with... wait for it... communists.
You see how your comparison fails and mine has more win than Charlie Sheen?
LOL, half those pictures were of protesters being peaceful. Hell, they posted a sign over a broken window imploring each other to be "better than this."
Oakland has always been a hotbed in terms of taking shit too far. Burning a police barricade is not okay. However, a general strike, blocking banks, even graffiti, isn't violence. They are disruptive, of course, but the point of a strike is to be disruptive. Furthermore, wishing for the death of capitalism is not only allowed in this country, but it isn't unAmerican, it isn't traitorous, and your general outrage and people's general outrage over a system that has fucked them over continuously for the past half century is rather oligarchical of you.
ETA: Property damage does not warrant riot police. Property rights do not supercede the right to assemble, the right to protest, or any of the enumerated rights, as far as I'm concerned. That's pretty much what these people are protesting in the first place.
I know the sign was funny. It shows how these protesters are fighting amongst themselves. The next day protesters were out cleaning up some of the damage. There are good people there, but they have to realize that, even if they don't condone the violence, they are inciting it, providing it cover, etc.
And you're incorrect. Property damage is a violent act. Vandalism is a violent act. Blockading something is a violent act. In some states if someone is damaging your property you're allowed to defend it with lethal force. I can't wait for these nitwits to go there.
Your free speech stops at the boundary of public property, period. Aren't you a lawyer? You should know this.
Finally, capitalism hasn't fucked anyone. The standard of living for the poorest people in our country, or in any capitalist country, has gone up very significantly over the past 50 years you say people have been fucked. Capitalism is the fuel that transports human civilization forward.
Your free speech stops at the boundary of public property, period. Aren't you a lawyer? You should know this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
TheEschaton
11-08-2011, 03:20 PM
On the contrary, the gap between the richest and poorest has become significantly larger, and the dollar buys much less than it did. The average family of 4 in this country makes something like 30k a year, and while this is, in a literal sense, higher than that of third world countries, our cost of living is disproportionately higher as well. Can you tell me how you would budget for 30k (before payroll tax, SSI, sales tax) a year for your family?
Action against property is not violence. Again, your livelihood isn't guaranteed, otherwise allowing homelessness would be criminal. You can't have capitalism both ways and say the poor deserve to be poor but business is a sacrosanct right that cannot be trampled on by the poor. Property is a right that is clung to by the property holders. There's a reason our founding fathers changed the French "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Lastly, I am a lawyer. But I'm not of the belief that a law existing means it should never be broken - that's a fallacy. While I'm not of the belief that breaking the law should be taken lightly, I don't think you can argue that revolution (which is what this is self-styled as being) will always be illegal.
4a6c1
11-08-2011, 03:35 PM
Hmmm. This is definately class warfare and I only see a few legislators listening. Poverty is becoming more widespread. Entitlements have been cut across the board while corporations and banks are given handouts. How is anyone suprised that it has come to this or that the poor feel victimized?
So what will happen now?
I see riots happening. People are desperate and when enough people are desperate something will change or change will be forced. Obama is smart but he has his backers to please. He'll wait until the last minute to do something beneficial to all parties and come out like a hero. OR....he will do something too small too late and something unprecedented will happen. OR....it will be in someone elses hands and things will only get worse. OR (x47,000,000)
Keller
11-08-2011, 03:39 PM
the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against a monarchy denying people democracy
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llm4qqjhpf1qdyg5q.gif
On the contrary, the gap between the richest and poorest has become significantly larger, and the dollar buys much less than it did. The average family of 4 in this country makes something like 30k a year, and while this is, in a literal sense, higher than that of third world countries, our cost of living is disproportionately higher as well. Can you tell me how you would budget for 30k (before payroll tax, SSI, sales tax) a year for your family?
Action against property is not violence. Again, your livelihood isn't guaranteed, otherwise allowing homelessness would be criminal. You can't have capitalism both ways and say the poor deserve to be poor but business is a sacrosanct right that cannot be trampled on by the poor. Property is a right that is clung to by the property holders. There's a reason our founding fathers changed the French "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Lastly, I am a lawyer. But I'm not of the belief that a law existing means it should never be broken - that's a fallacy. While I'm not of the belief that breaking the law should be taken lightly, I don't think you can argue that revolution (which is what this is self-styled as being) will always be illegal.
I didn't say there wasn't an income gap, of course there is. I said standard of living had increased, and of course it had.
You, being that envy must be tattooed in your forehead, feel that if I wrote a check for $1000 to your neighbor, you would be made poorer.
You also seem to erroneously think that success is a zero sum game. One cannot grow wealthy without taking a share of wealth from someone else?
Both of these things are incorrect, though they explain your warped world view.
Living on $30k a year? Easy, my family once lived on 24k a year. We didn't have iphones, and dvrs, and a house, but we had cable tv and an apartment.
You also hilariously think our country was not founded with a respect for property rights. This also partially explains your warped world view, since you apparently have no respect for the property of others. This makes it more morally convenient to seize it in during the revolution, eh comrade?
You will in fact notice property rights all over our constitution. Also, people tend to really like property rights. Notice the vast avalanche of public outcry against Kelo vs. New London. Furthermore, private property rights are the foundation upon which an organized society with legal commerce exists. When you look worldwide at countries with shitty economies, they almost always have very poor property rights.
edit: Link for you, explaining how an income gap != keeping poor people down. Mark Zuckerberg hitting it rich doesn't make any of us poor.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/08/liberal-programs-deserve-blame-for-incom
But is the fate of those lower on the totem pole cause for panic? Not really. The study reports that in the same period, households in the top quintile saw a 65 percent income gain; the vast middle in the 21st to 80th percentiles saw about a 40 percent gain; and the bottom quintile saw an 18 percent gain.
In other words, no group lost ground or even stagnated. So why all this breast-beating?
Few, besides vulgar Marxists, believe in the “immiseration of the masses” theory of capitalism anymore—the idea that the wealth of the top few is extracted by exploiting the labor of the bottom many. Burying this notion is one of the enduring intellectual victories of market theorists.
The post-liberalization successes of India and China have convinced even ardent liberals that markets play a crucial role in raising productivity and relieving scarcity, vastly expanding the proverbial social pie so that everyone has more to go around.
Of course, some gain more than others. But so what? Isn’t an unequal distribution of wealth preferable to an equal distribution of poverty? Is there any amount of inequality that liberal worrywarts would accept? Suppose the CBO had found that every group’s income increased by exactly 65 percent. Would they celebrate everyone’s good fortune or mourn the unwavering income gap? The question answers itself.
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 03:48 PM
On the contrary, the gap between the richest and poorest has become significantly larger, and the dollar buys much less than it did. The average family of 4 in this country makes something like 30k a year, and while this is, in a literal sense, higher than that of third world countries, our cost of living is disproportionately higher as well. Can you tell me how you would budget for 30k (before payroll tax, SSI, sales tax) a year for your family?
Action against property is not violence. Again, your livelihood isn't guaranteed, otherwise allowing homelessness would be criminal. You can't have capitalism both ways and say the poor deserve to be poor but business is a sacrosanct right that cannot be trampled on by the poor. Property is a right that is clung to by the property holders. There's a reason our founding fathers changed the French "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Lastly, I am a lawyer. But I'm not of the belief that a law existing means it should never be broken - that's a fallacy. While I'm not of the belief that breaking the law should be taken lightly, I don't think you can argue that revolution (which is what this is self-styled as being) will always be illegal.
I actually agree with alot of what you've said the past few pages. I don;t know if thats good or bad, but when a protest goes from being peaceful but disruptive to destruction of property, thats the point when it turns in to a riot to me and the police should be called in to break it up and arest the offenders.
I will say I don't know to much about whats going on out there, I've been following it only alittle bit and I was supporting the protesters at first. Its one thing to shut city down peacefully. putting your body in the way untill you are physically removed. its another to destroy what belongs to someone else and put people in danger just because they have more money then you.
I could even condone the spray paint. it can be cleaned up, painted over. illegal but still non destructive, non violent, and it gets the message across. But throwing shit thru windows, looting, bonfires, throwing concrete and firebombs at police when they are just trying to restore order.
some of the people are doing it right and I wish things could have continued to be done right, but there are enough there that turn this peaceful protest into a riot and the police need to get a handle of things before innocent people are hurt or killed, some of those innocents are even taking part in the protest.
Keller
11-08-2011, 03:51 PM
You also hilariously think our country was not founded with a respect for property rights.
http://www.publicdomaintreasurehunter.com/images/Cayuse-warrior.jpg
"IS THIS MOTHERFUCKER SERIOUS?" CHIEF LIGHTENING FOOT CANNOT FATHOM A MORE IGNORANT THING TO SAY
Tgo01
11-08-2011, 04:03 PM
Hey hey now, didn't we pay them like 50 bucks for millions of acres of land?
BriarFox
11-08-2011, 04:05 PM
I think the older a country gets, the more entertaining it becomes to watch people postulate how the country was founded, because it's less and less based in reality.
Latrinsorm
11-08-2011, 04:10 PM
With thousands of arrests, reports of rape, assault, vandalism, etc... the only one who believes these protests are peaceful might be you.I didn't say I believed the riots were peaceful. I said the person complaining in the article did. "Put yourself in their place" is the giveaway here.
Some loons brought their kids along. Why would any parent think it is okay for kids to go to an event where adults feel the need to hide their faces?To be fair, none of the adults in that particular picture are hiding their faces.
Vandalism is a violent act.Now I understand why the majority of the evidence you find damning comes down to graffiti, but seriously? I think you are too far removed from the threat of actual violence if you believe this.
Finally, capitalism hasn't fucked anyone. The standard of living for the poorest people in our country, or in any capitalist country, has gone up very significantly over the past 50 years you say people have been fucked. Capitalism is the fuel that transports human civilization forward.You know what else has gone up very significantly over the past 50 years? Communism in America. Wealth redistribution, welfare, publicly subsidized health care, have all seen enormous increases. The idea that America is a bastion of capitalism is just nonsense, which makes the nominal conflict between capitalism and communism that much more ridiculous.
There's a reason our founding fathers changed the French "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."I always figured it was because they couldn't tolerate the cognitive dissonance of putting liberty next to slaves (that is, property).
http://www.publicdomaintreasurehunter.com/images/Cayuse-warrior.jpg
"IS THIS MOTHERFUCKER SERIOUS?" CHIEF LIGHTENING FOOT CANNOT FATHOM A MORE IGNORANT THING TO SAY
Are you illiterate? Or can you just not read? It has to be one or the other.
Go read the constitution, read the bill of rights. Or have someone read them to you. See what you can find on property.
If I wanted to be a giant douche, like you keller, I could have latched onto E's post about "Life, Liberty" and say "BUT WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY BLAH BLAH BLAH."
You dweebs go on and keep believing that you have the right to destroy, damage, deface, or take the private property of another as part of your "rights" by lucking out in the abortion lottery. I bet your your tune would change pretty quick if someone broke in and took all your Wayne Newton albums and pantyhose. Suddenly property rights would become important to you.
:( A dweeb? CRB you vandalized our feelings.
Liagala
11-08-2011, 04:35 PM
You dweebs go on and keep believing that you have the right to destroy, damage, deface, or take the private property of another as part of your "rights" by lucking out in the abortion lottery. I bet your your tune would change pretty quick if someone broke in and took all your Wayne Newton albums and pantyhose. Suddenly property rights would become important to you.
But only your own personal property rights, and those of people who agree with you. The people on the other side of the fence (you know, those who were here first) have no right to their property.
Keller
11-08-2011, 04:35 PM
Are you illiterate? Or can you just not read? It has to be one or the other.
Go read the constitution, read the bill of rights. Or have someone read them to you. See what you can find on property.
If I wanted to be a giant douche, like you keller, I could have latched onto E's post about "Life, Liberty" and say "BUT WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY BLAH BLAH BLAH."
You dweebs go on and keep believing that you have the right to destroy, damage, deface, or take the private property of another as part of your "rights" by lucking out in the abortion lottery. I bet your your tune would change pretty quick if someone broke in and took all your Wayne Newton albums and pantyhose. Suddenly property rights would become important to you.
For those of you keeping score at home, today we've learned:
1. The Boston tea party wasn't a reaction against a regressive tax imposed to bail out the one of the largest companies in the world, but was a protest against "a monarchy denying people democracy."
2. The United States was founded with a respect for property rights.
3. crb is mad, bro.
Now I understand why the majority of the evidence you find damning comes down to graffiti, but seriously? I think you are too far removed from the threat of actual violence if you believe this.
Put yourself in a victim's shoes. Suppose your house, or your business, was vandalized. Maybe you're working and a brick sails through the window. Or some violent threat was spray painted on your wall. Or... maybe not even something defaced... maybe a cross was merely burnt in your yard.
Do you not think the victim would feel scared, threatened, violated?
You're off your rocker if you think these are not acts of violence. Especially if you watch the videos of them happening, especially if you see what happens to people who try to stop the activity.
You know what else has gone up very significantly over the past 50 years? Communism in America. Wealth redistribution, welfare, publicly subsidized health care, have all seen enormous increases. The idea that America is a bastion of capitalism is just nonsense, which makes the nominal conflict between capitalism and communism that much more ridiculous.
You're confusing communism with socialism. They're really close, and that can be forgiven, but to say communism in the US is natural is wrong. We have a democracy.
And as for all your social outreach bullshit. None of it has worked. All the federal housing programs have no moved the needle of homeownership at all. The homeownership rate is around the mid 60s, as it has been for a long time, all of the government programs aside. Medicaid and welfare have not reduced the number of poor people. Obamacare hasn't reduced the number of uninsured (actually, they've gone up so far, oops). Unemployment insurance has not reduced the number of unemployed people.
That you would deign to attribute the rise in a standard of living of the poor to these programs, is laughable.
We don't have to look at these issues hypothetically. The world is full of examples of what happens when a country initiates capitalism. Look at eastern Europe. Look at the difference between the two Koreas. Look at what China has done since they reformed their economy.
But by all means, if you hate our system, North Korea hiring, but I think its BYOF. Bring your own food.
But only your own personal property rights, and those of people who agree with you. The people on the other side of the fence (you know, those who were here first) have no right to their property.
IF you really want to argue if it was right or wrong for us to settle North America when it already had native americans... make a new thread. That is a completely unrelated discussion. By the way, they seem to be doing pretty well. The tribe members around here don't work, they get their casino money.
I could even condone the spray paint. it can be cleaned up, painted over. illegal but still non destructive, non violent, and it gets the message across.
I suppose the spray paint artists will also volunteer themselves after the protests are over to clean up and repair what damage results from said spray paint grafitti. Or offer to pay for its removal and or repair...
Keller
11-08-2011, 04:43 PM
By the way, they seem to be doing pretty well. The tribe members around here don't work, they get their casino money.
What.
The.
Fuck.
Keller
11-08-2011, 04:45 PM
IF you really want to argue if it was right or wrong for us to settle North America when it already had native americans... make a new thread. That is a completely unrelated discussion.
Step 1. Claim America founded with respect for property rights.
Step 2. Dismiss as unrelated any facts not consistent with statement in Step 1.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 04:46 PM
What.
The.
Fuck.
Are we arguing for giving all the of the US back to the rightful owners, the vikings?
Liagala
11-08-2011, 04:46 PM
IF you really want to argue if it was right or wrong for us to settle North America when it already had native americans... make a new thread. That is a completely unrelated discussion. By the way, they seem to be doing pretty well. The tribe members around here don't work, they get their casino money.
I'm pretty sure the last few pages of this thread have been discussing the Founding Fathers' views on property rights. I believe you even made a couple posts on that very subject. How am I wrong to continue it?
Also, you're right. They are doing very well now. Let's help your descendants out some, shall we? We can go find a group of people to kick you out of your home, kill your friends, rape your wife, take everything you own, and then write laws about how they own the land you're on right now, and property rights are very important. Your descendants 250 years from now will really appreciate it when they're rolling in dough for doing nothing. Sound good?
For those of you keeping score at home, today we've learned:
1. The Boston tea party wasn't a reaction against a regressive tax imposed to bail out the one of the largest companies in the world, but was a protest against "a monarchy denying people democracy."
2. The United States was founded with a respect for property rights.
3. crb is mad, bro.
The things we've learned today:
1. Keller is illiterate.
2. Keller is unable to read.
3. Keller is unfamiliar with the history of the United States.
In my effort to correct #3 let me point you to wikipedia. Please ask the nearest adult to read it to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
Let me sum it up for you, we wanted the right to vote.
You should see about getting your money back from whichever bastion of higher education you matriculated from. They would probably give it back willingly so long as you promise never to claim to be an alumnus, lest they be more embarrassed than Penn State at the moment.
Keller
11-08-2011, 04:49 PM
Are we arguing for giving all the of the US back to the rightful owners, the vikings?
Not at all.
I think it's fantastic that crb tried to assuage the theft of land from American Indians because "they've got casino money."
Are we arguing for giving all the of the US back to the rightful owners, the vikings?
It would make our national holidays awesome.
I'm pretty sure the last few pages of this thread have been discussing the Founding Fathers' views on property rights. I believe you even made a couple posts on that very subject. How am I wrong to continue it?
Also, you're right. They are doing very well now. Let's help your descendants out some, shall we? We can go find a group of people to kick you out of your home, kill your friends, rape your wife, take everything you own, and then write laws about how they own the land you're on right now, and property rights are very important. Your descendants 250 years from now will really appreciate it when they're rolling in dough for doing nothing. Sound good?
I have Cherokee Indian blood in me. Does that mean I get a handout? Not enough blood to get casino money alas, but a wee bit.
Our country was founded on respect for property rights of our country's citizens. Happy with the clarification? Obviously we have no onus to respect the property rights of members of other nation states we might conquer, or coerce, into granting us territory.
You're tossing out a red herring that because part of our country was built through conquest it invalidates anything in our constitution about personal property protection. That is a fucking specious argument, and you know it, or you should. I've no idea what grade level you attained prior to dropping out.
So, if you want to discuss whether or not it was right or wrong for our country to expand through conquest and coercion, make a new thread. We can discuss it. Personally one could argue that we were far more kind to the Indians than any nation had been to any other indigenous people anywhere in the world to that point. But that would be an argument for this other thread. And really, are "we" to blame for it because we inhabit the land now? A lot of shit went down before the US existed. Spain started it really, the French, the British, fucking Portugese, we all hate the Portugese right? Vikings were here long before any of those.
By the way, read the 4th amendment, or have it read to you.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 04:53 PM
It would make our national holidays awesome.
Legend has it that Irish monks predated them!
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 04:56 PM
I thought we conquered the America's through germ warfare?
Liagala
11-08-2011, 04:56 PM
But only your own personal property rights, and those of people who agree with you. The people on the other side of the fence (you know, those who were here first) have no right to their property.
Our country was founded on respect for property rights of our country's citizens. Happy with the clarification? Obviously we have no onus to respect the property rights of members of other nation states we might conquer, or coerce, into granting us territory.
Yes, I am happy with the clarification. Thank you. I'll let someone else call you out on the fact that you just said, "It's okay to take property from others via conquering or coercion. We still have great respect for our own personal property rights. Screw everyone else."
Not at all.
I think it's fantastic that crb tried to assuage the theft of land from American Indians because "they've got casino money."
I think its fantastic that Keller thinks its okay to steal, deface, and destroy another person's property because 200+ years ago people who probably aren't even related to most of us (who had ancestors who came later), did bad things to Indians.
I wonder how that would hold up in court.
"Do you have anything to say for yourself young man?"
"Well, 250 years ago people of roughly the same complexion as my ex girlfriend did bad shit to Native Americans, so I think it is okay if I slash the bitch's tires."
You're so right, the concept pf private property is totally invalidated because the Indians were given infected blankets. WHY DIDN'T I SEE THIS SOONER! THIS WILL REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD!
Oh, and lets remember too, Indians never hurt a white man.
Keller
11-08-2011, 05:02 PM
The things we've learned today:
1. Keller is illiterate.
2. Keller is unable to read.
3. Keller is unfamiliar with the history of the United States.
In my effort to correct #3 let me point you to wikipedia. Please ask the nearest adult to read it to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
Let me sum it up for you, we wanted the right to vote.
You should see about getting your money back from whichever bastion of higher education you matriculated from. They would probably give it back willingly so long as you promise never to claim to be an alumnus, lest they be more embarrassed than Penn State at the moment.
You should probably learn how to use the word "matriculate."
You should probably learn the difference between an historical event and a slogan.
You should probably learn that England wasn't a democracy in 1773.
You should probably learn that calling someone illiterate and telling them they can't read is redundant.
Keller
11-08-2011, 05:04 PM
I think its fantastic that Keller thinks its okay to steal, deface, and destroy another person's property
Where did I say that?
I made a joke about how the participants in the Boston Tea Party disguised themselves and vandalized private property, the very act you find so offensive.
No where did I say that stealing, defacing, or destroying another person's property is okay.
Keller
11-08-2011, 05:08 PM
Time to get back to work, but, crb . . . .
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/DynamicSheep/e11e7046155fd47ed77d25bf762e479a.gif
Yes, I am happy with the clarification. Thank you. I'll let someone else call you out on the fact that you just said, "It's okay to take property from others via conquering or coercion. We still have great respect for our own personal property rights. Screw everyone else."
Hey retard, I didn't say it was okay. I said this country was founded on respect for personal property. You dweebs said "NO NO WAHT ABOUT TEH INDIANS!" I pointed out how specious your argument was, and how it in no way disputed my point, considering Indians were not citizens of our country, and were in fact members of a different nation. Are you the same type of intellectual cripple who thinks the US constitution should apply to everyone in the world? Regardless of their citizenship or on which patch of dirt they happen to be standing?
E said this country was founded on "Life, Libery, and Happiness." And none of you losers jumped on the obvious "What about slavery and women!" argument. You can't even be consistent in your stupidity.
BriarFox
11-08-2011, 05:18 PM
CRB: "You are all stupid and I am smart. Behold my verbal diarrhea."
Everyone else: "Lulz."
Seriously, CRB, your position here is untenable.
Methais
11-08-2011, 05:20 PM
Pay attention to the masks. People don't wear ninja masks in public unless they know they're doing something illegal.
Unless they're ninjas.
As for this "occupy" bullshit as a whole, the solution to getting rid of these hippies has been figured out for years now, and I am shocked that nobody has done it yet:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103818/buzz-killer
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll154/spinarooni226/Slayer-1.jpg
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 05:21 PM
I suppose the spray paint artists will also volunteer themselves after the protests are over to clean up and repair what damage results from said spray paint grafitti. Or offer to pay for its removal and or repair...
I don't think there would be repair cost for spray paint. its not like breaking a window or burning a building, there is no actual repair to be done. spray paint if relatively easy to cover up or wash off. the property is not dammage, just temporary defaced. rent a power washer for a day or slap a new coat of paint on and its like nothing ever happened, not all that costly to undo.
large storefront windows, those are fairly costly, a hell of alot more costly then a can of paint and a few man hours. If you think its wrong for them to be doing, thats your view. I was trying to say my views on the difference in peaceful protesting and rioting. defacing public and private property, bad but still peaceful. Open destruction of public and private property, to me thats a riot.
Parkbandit
11-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Property is a right that is clung to by the property holders. There's a reason our founding fathers changed the French "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
They did... but I don't think it's for the reason you believe it to be.
You should probably learn how to use the word "matriculate."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriculate?show=0&t=1320790374
You should probably learn the difference between an historical event and a slogan.
Since you're apparently incapable of clicking a link... again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
American Revolution
"No Taxation Without Representation!" was used by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750.[citation needed] The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland.[1][2] By 1765 the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny."[3]
The British Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[4] By the 1760s the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.[5] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament contended that the colonists had virtual representation.
However, Pitt the Elder, amongst other prominent Britons and North Americans such as Joseph Galloway, debated and circulated plans for the creation of a federally representative British Parliament or imperial structure with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament. Despite the fact that these ideas were debated and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic,[6] it appears no Congressional demand for this constitutional development was sent to Westminster.[7]
The Americans rejected the Stamp Act of 1765 brought in by British Prime Minister George Grenville, and violently rejected the remaining tax on tea imports, under the Tea Act passed in May 1773, at the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown-in-Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce laws the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers.
Patrick Henry's resolution in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution, and that Virginia alone had the right to tax Virginians.[8]
You should probably learn that England wasn't a democracy in 1773.
????, to be fair, they had a bit of a hybrid system. But since you're insinuating that the "right to vote" I claimed we wanted, was nonexistent, I don't think I really need to be fair with you in your ignorance.
Fun after recess reading for you tommorow Keller:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/
I like this one especially:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/keydates/1215to1399/
1362 A statute established that Parliament must approve of all taxation
You should probably learn that calling someone illiterate and telling them they can't read is redundant.
No shit really?
Well if you support your arguments by making questionable supporting claims people will tend to argue with you. In this thread you have for some reason stated the 1st amendment does not apply to public property, then claimed we all need to re-read the fourth. Then descended into some weird spiral where you tried to prove that people shouldn’t break windows because the founding fathers wouldn’t want us too when the founding fathers were an armed band of rebels. If you stayed on point more yourself people would argue with you about irrelevant things less.
I doubt any of us actually agree with property damage being a good thing.
CRB: "You are all stupid and I am smart. Behold my verbal diarrhea."
Everyone else: "Lulz."
Seriously, CRB, your position here is untenable.
Then attack it factually you miserable twit.
Respect for private property isn't some radical belief of the far right. This is a pretty mainstream belief, you people are the ones who are off the reservation (+1 indian points for me!).
Well if you support your arguments by making questionable supporting claims people will tend to argue with you. In this thread you have for some reason stated the 1st amendment does not apply to public property, then claimed we all need to re-read the fourth. Then descended into some weird spiral where you tried to prove that people shouldn’t break windows because the founding fathers wouldn’t want us too when the founding fathers were an armed band of rebels. If you stayed on point more yourself people would argue with you about irrelevant things less.
I doubt any of us actually agree with property damage being a good thing.
You read my post wrong then. I said the first amendment does not apply to private property, and it doesn't. Google is your friend if you don't believe me. You have no right to protest, assemble, deface, install artwork, etc on or in private property without permission.
Your free speech stops at the boundary of public property, period. Aren't you a lawyer? You should know this.
.
And I posted a supreme court case from California that actually shows even your assertion about private property is not 100% true in California.
BriarFox
11-08-2011, 05:30 PM
Then attack it factually you miserable twit.
Respect for private property isn't some radical belief of the far right. This is a pretty mainstream belief, you people are the ones who are off the reservation (+1 indian points for me!).
I try to make it a point not to debate matters with people in love with the sound of their own voices. I don't always succeed, but I can count this thread as a victory.
.
And I posted a supreme court case from California that actually shows even your assertion about private property is not 100% true in California.
So you're on a public sidewalk protesting. You are on public property. The boundary of public property is end of the sidewalk, where it enters a building. Your right to protest stops at that boundary.
???? What is your problem G++?
Well I guess I did misread it, but you could take that to mean you were on either side. You could write the same thing about leaving your house and entering a park and take it to mean something different, which I did. So ok I got it now.
Still In California specifically right to assemble is not limited to public property.
I try to make it a point not to debate matters with people in love with the sound of their own voices. I don't always succeed, but I can count this thread as a victory.
And yet, here you are....
Should I do what you did then?
Briarfox: I could argue with you, but I won't, but I just needed to stop in to say I could, but I don't want to, so that you know that I know that I could. Got it?
Me: So argue then, bring up a fact, you're a twit.
Briarfox: No, I just said, I just wanted you to know I could argue if I wanted to, I don't actually want to argue you, I feel better about myself this way. I really dislike you, and want you to be wrong, but you're not, so I would have to be wrong if I argued with you, and I don't like being wrong, so I am not going to argue. But I have pride, so I wanted you to know that I knew I could argue but chose not to, okay?
Okay.
Well I guess I did misread it, but you could take that to mean you were on either side. You could write the same thing about leaving your house and entering a park and take it to mean something different, which I did. So ok I got it now.
Still In California specifically right to assemble is not limited to public property.
Incorrect, no state law can interdict the constitution.
Its a supreme court decision...we can disagree. When you disagree with the supreme court your just wrong.
Its a supreme court decision...we can disagree. When you disagree with the supreme court your just wrong.
Link?
And more importantly, a California Supreme Court decision, or a SCOTUS decision?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
Scotus.
I found this:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly-on-private-property
The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, discussed below, said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. Since that decision, most states that have encountered this issue have followed the Court’s view.
Despite Hudgens‘ clear statement of federal law, the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners. The California Supreme Court took the position that “all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare.” In the unanimous 1980 decision Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state court’s decision, noting that its own reasoning in Lloyd “does not ex proprio vigore (“of its own force”) limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power” (power to regulate the use of private property) “or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.” A state may, therefore, in the exercise of its power to regulate, adopt reasonable restrictions on private property, including granting greater freedom to individuals to use such property, so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision. (In this instance it would be a “taking” of a property owner’s right to exclude others.)
Even with the Court’s decision in Pruneyard, few states have recognized any state constitutional right to free expression on private property. The scope of these decisions is narrow. State constitutional provisions have been held to apply in only two private-property settings: shopping malls and non-public universities. Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.
That is a bad ruling. I would also disagree with you, G++, that if you disagree with the Supreme Court you're wrong. Kelo vs. New London was a bad decision, it was wrong, and a majority of states passed laws preventing such behavior from happening even though the Supreme court said it was constitutional.
This is also a bad decision, but you're right, apparently mall owners and non-public universities are less equal than other owners of private property. Though topically, banks and random office buildings would not appear to be venues for public protest under the law.
TheEschaton
11-08-2011, 05:42 PM
You will in fact notice property rights all over our constitution. Also, people tend to really like property rights. Notice the vast avalanche of public outcry against Kelo vs. New London. Furthermore, private property rights are the foundation upon which an organized society with legal commerce exists. When you look worldwide at countries with shitty economies, they almost always have very poor property rights.
The main property right in the body of the Constitution is currently crossed out, and had to do with black people counting as 3/5ths of a person. It was a conciliatory measure to the South who wouldn't sign the Constitution otherwise, and Jefferson didn't want it in. Unless you consider the Georgia signatories to be significant members of "the Founding Fathers," I find your claim untenable.
Oh, and the fourth amendment applies to seizures pursuant to criminal actions, and only applies to the government seizing things. Kelo was an outcry because the seizure was to build a mini-mall, a questionable "public purpose," it in no way condemns eminent domain as a whole. Which is, btw, a right of the government as sovereign power, enumerated in, you guessed it, the Constitution and only limited by the 5th.
But if you want to outline more property rights in the Constitution, I'd love to hear them.
Also, g++ literally posted a case from SCOTUS which said the first amendment DOES apply in private properties. Much like boycotts aren't illegal, and much like the sit-ins of the 60s were effective against an unjust segregationist system, these protests recognize that in a capitalist system, the only way to effectively protest is to cost people money.
Also, you're an idiot.
TheEschaton
11-08-2011, 05:46 PM
That is a bad ruling. I would also disagree with you, G++, that if you disagree with the Supreme Court you're wrong. Kelo vs. New London was a bad decision, it was wrong, and a majority of states passed laws preventing such behavior from happening even though the Supreme court said it was constitutional.
Oh, well, if that's the case, I disagree with the SCOTUS recognition of corporations as persons, which, btw, arose from oral dicta (ie, not part of the decision of that case) in a case without any arguments on the merits.
But hey, looks like corporations have rights anyways.
See what I did there?
WRoss
11-08-2011, 05:47 PM
This guy looks pretty fucking violent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0pX9LeE-g8
Most of the protestors are against the people causing violence. Here are protestors standing up to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqoFR1MPSH0
Here's pretty good footage of Scott Olsen, Marine veteran, being shot in the face at close range, then a flash bang being thrown into the crowd that is trying to carry him away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEj_4fqDbnM
I could keep going on and on about police injustice or renegade protestors ruining for the rest of them, but the simple fact is that I don't condone unnecessary and unprovoked violence from the protestors or the police. I have a much bigger problem when police use excessive force and aren't being held accountable for it. There have been countless citizens being arrested and held accountable for their actions. If our own police force is allowed to act unchecked, then what way is this nation headed.
Again, I'm not saying that I support these movements, but I support the freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.
I don't think there would be repair cost for spray paint. its not like breaking a window or burning a building, there is no actual repair to be done. spray paint if relatively easy to cover up or wash off. the property is not dammage, just temporary defaced. rent a power washer for a day or slap a new coat of paint on and its like nothing ever happened, not all that costly to undo.
Spend some time removing graffitti then get back to me.
Tgo01
11-08-2011, 06:04 PM
I don't think there would be repair cost for spray paint.
rent a power washer for a day or slap a new coat of paint on and its like nothing ever happened, not all that costly to undo.
Wait what?
The main property right in the body of the Constitution is currently crossed out, and had to do with black people counting as 3/5ths of a person. It was a conciliatory measure to the South who wouldn't sign the Constitution otherwise, and Jefferson didn't want it in. Unless you consider the Georgia signatories to be significant members of "the Founding Fathers," I find your claim untenable.
It would be easy to argue that Georgia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Abraham Baldwin, William Few, William Leigh Pierce, and William Houston had a far greater impact on the writing of the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson. That's due to Jefferson being in France throughout the entire convention and having absolutely nothing to do with what was, or was not included.
Jefferson did oppose the 3/5 compromise when it came up as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation though, so his opposition to the idea was on record.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
11-08-2011, 06:20 PM
We need more SCOTUS talk and law bookery in this thread.
You know I'll support your right to protest all day long. One of my favorite quotes is that misattributed Voltaire one.
However, the second you deface, steal, or destroy private property, or do something like blockade a street preventing other private citizens from picking up their kids, going to work, going home, or whatever. You're a criminal and you should be arrested. Your free speech does not allow you to infringe on the rights of others to conduct their lives.
If you have a message, the appropriate thing to do is to draw it on a piece of posterboard with a sharpie. You can even say things like "Go Communism!" and I'll support your right to do it. I'll laugh at you for being ignorant on economics, but I'll support your right to advertise your ignorance to the world. Deciding to forgo the posterboard and draw instead on the wall of a building is not appropriate.
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 06:56 PM
Wait what?
ya missed a few sentences inbetween... go back and read the whole thing.
@WRoss
thanks for posting those links, I've watched quite a few today but that second one was the first one I seen that showed just how split the people are. that split being the biggest problem with whats going.
you got one group that is really there to protest, they got my support. the problem is there is also a group that is there to riot, and for the most part hiding in the peaceful protesters. the police must act to stop those people running around destroying property, but they are shielded by the peaceful protesters the only option is to treat them all as hostile.
I support the peaceful protesters, the group defending the building from attack in the second video. I also support the police in there efforts to keep control of the rioters. I think 90% of those videos are edited to make the police look bad. they always make it look like the police are fireing for no reason. they never show what leads up to the point where they start saying that tear gas will be used. you told to disperse or teargas will be used, how many times in that 3rd vid?, and make no move you can't bitch about being teargassed.
I just wish those damned masked assholes weren't running around, something good may come if this. but as long as the police need to keep peace there will be clashes between them and the peaceful protesters.
I don't think there would be repair cost for spray paint. its not like breaking a window or burning a building, there is no actual repair to be done. spray paint if relatively easy to cover up or wash off. the property is not dammage, just temporary defaced. rent a power washer for a day or slap a new coat of paint on and its like nothing ever happened, not all that costly to undo.
Graffiti Facts : Costs of Graffiti
What Does Graffiti Cost Us?
Graffiti vandalism comes with a terrible price. Experts from the NoGraf Network performed a study on the cost of graffiti. In 1990, the National Graffiti Information Network survey estimated annual graffiti costs in the U.S. at $8 Billion. By the late 1990's, it was $15 Billion per year.
At the June 2008 NoGraf Network Conference of experts from the U.S. and around the world, the annual costs of graffiti was now estimated to be $25 Billion in the US.
Keep in mind that this cost does not include costs incurred by private property or business owners and it does not include any amount due to loss of business or decreased property value in graffiti prone areas.
Having a hard time grasping those numbers?
Here's a quick example of annual graffiti cost for one company in one city...
In 2002 the Executive Vice President of Norris, Beggs & Simpson Realtors a real estate and property management firm in Portland, Oregon reported the following when asked what the economic impact of graffiti was on his business.
"We spend approximately $80,000 per year on real estate signs. This includes the making of our signs, installation, removal and sign repair. Of this figure, approximately $8,000 represents the expense caused by graffiti, both in removal of the graffiti and the repurchase of damaged signs caused by graffiti. We are only one real estate company, but our experience with graffiti is a representation of the economic impact of this act of vandalism has on our industry."
That's one agency in one town. Think how much that $8,000 would be when multiplied by the number of Realtors nationwide. And it goes deeper than that.
Homeowner costs.
While performing the survey quoted above the NoGraf Network was told by the California Realtors Association that by their estimates purchase prices for homes decreased 20% in areas that are victimized by graffiti vandalism. With the median home price in California at the time being $522,590 you are talking about an impact to a property owner of nearly a $100,000. The economic impact of graffiti is immense.
Societal costs.
Perhaps an even stronger impact comes in the areas hardest to quantify. Decreased perception of safety, lower community pride, at risk youth, these are all effects of vandalism in a community. So well documented is the change to perception in safety when a neighborhood is covered in graffiti that no matter the setting from film to press conferences graffiti is shown in the background if a message of urban decay is desired.
Neighborhood and business impact.
The National Urban Institute has identified five neighborhood impacts from graffiti.
Intimidates residents - The far majority of the population has little understanding of graffiti culture and often time assumes that the vandalism in their neighborhood is the work of gangs. Their feeling of safety and security is diminished because of the fear of violent criminals. Sadly, assaults by vandals against property owners and other residents during a confrontation are becoming more common each year.
Scares Away Customers - Graffiti gives the impression that an area is economically depressed. People may believe a property or business owner does not care about the image the business is presenting. Customers may believe that if the property owner does not care about the outside of his store then they may not care about quality or good customer service. And the perception of decreased safety can make customers feel uneasy about being in an area that has graffiti.
Discourages Tourism - The same perception of safety factor works here as well. When visiting, tourists are usually seeking places of beauty and enjoyment in an area, not graffiti scrawled on every available surface.
Invites Street Gangs and other vandals - Whether the graffiti has been applied by gangs to communicate with their members and rivals, or by writers pursuing fame, vandals frequently choose areas where graffiti stays up and visible. The longer their graffiti stays up the longer their message is delivered. The amount of graffiti in an area and the time it is allowed to remain directly influence the amount of additional graffiti that will appear.
Attracts crime in general - The same neglect perceived by customers and tourists is also observed by criminals. Very few criminals pursue crime that brings them into direct confrontations with their victims or into the public eye. A neighborhood that is covered with graffiti and trash leads a criminal to believe that people who live and work in the area don't care or have given up. This is a breeding ground for increased crime.
The impact on youth.
The impact of graffiti on a young life is often the strongest and harder to repair. Vandals tend to develop antisocial tendencies for fear of identification and betrayal, the majority abuse alcohol and drugs, the practice of stealing or "racking" paint is widespread and a general disrespect for law or property is gained. None of these are traits or actions that a responsible parent wants to see their child involved in.
If a vandal reaches a level of volume before detection and prosecution they often face misdemeanor charges sometimes in the hundreds as well as multiple felonies. An effective graffiti enforcement strategy can result in vandals that face jail or prison time, huge fines and restitution amounts, probation and other penalties.
In one case study the vandal was sentenced to 13 months in prison, 4 years of probation with associated fees, a felony record, and $44,000 in restitution. The court also allowed for any remaining restitution due at the end of the vandals probation to be converted to a civil judgment, renewable every ten years until satisfied. The future of this vandal would have been impacted for many years had the dangerous alcohol fused lifestyle he had adopted led to his accidental death a few years later.
Again, the costs of graffiti in terms of hard numbers and its effect on society are enormous.
Nope no costs involved.
Tgo01
11-08-2011, 07:17 PM
ya missed a few sentences inbetween... go back and read the whole thing.
Why quote the sentences in between when the first sentence says there are no repair costs associated with graffiti then the second one says "yeah just rent a power washer or slap a new coat of paint over the graffiti, cause y'know those things are free right?"
Latrinsorm
11-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Put yourself in a victim's shoes. Suppose your house, or your business, was vandalized. Maybe you're working and a brick sails through the window. Or some violent threat was spray painted on your wall. Or... maybe not even something defaced... maybe a cross was merely burnt in your yard.
Do you not think the victim would feel scared, threatened, violated?
You're off your rocker if you think these are not acts of violence. Especially if you watch the videos of them happening, especially if you see what happens to people who try to stop the activity.I have had my house vandalized, and I have been physically attacked in the street. You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to rely on my opinions of the two types of events.
And as for all your social outreach bullshit. None of it has worked.I heard somewhere that the standard of living for the poorest people in our country has gone up very significantly over the past 50 years. I didn't say that there were less poor, unemployed, or homeless, I merely agreed that they are better off than they were in the Jungle. It could be argued that capitalism has been repressed over the last 50 and certainly over the last 100 years: regulation, trade agreements, etc. You can affirm that social(ist) programs haven't helped, but without a plausible alternative explanation (or evidence) it's hard to take such claims seriously, don't you agree?
But by all means, if you hate our system, North Korea hiring, but I think its BYOF. Bring your own food.I love our system. Take from the rich (who want to give it away anyway), give to the poor (who want to take it anyway). It's what the people want! What a country.
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 07:33 PM
The National Urban Institute has identified five neighborhood impacts from graffiti.
Intimidates residents - The far majority of the population has little understanding of graffiti culture and often time assumes that the vandalism in their neighborhood is the work of gangs. Their feeling of safety and security is diminished because of the fear of violent criminals. Sadly, assaults by vandals against property owners and other residents during a confrontation are becoming more common each year.
Scares Away Customers - Graffiti gives the impression that an area is economically depressed. People may believe a property or business owner does not care about the image the business is presenting. Customers may believe that if the property owner does not care about the outside of his store then they may not care about quality or good customer service. And the perception of decreased safety can make customers feel uneasy about being in an area that has graffiti.
Discourages Tourism - The same perception of safety factor works here as well. When visiting, tourists are usually seeking places of beauty and enjoyment in an area, not graffiti scrawled on every available surface.
Invites Street Gangs and other vandals - Whether the graffiti has been applied by gangs to communicate with their members and rivals, or by writers pursuing fame, vandals frequently choose areas where graffiti stays up and visible. The longer their graffiti stays up the longer their message is delivered. The amount of graffiti in an area and the time it is allowed to remain directly influence the amount of additional graffiti that will appear.
Attracts crime in general - The same neglect perceived by customers and tourists is also observed by criminals. Very few criminals pursue crime that brings them into direct confrontations with their victims or into the public eye. A neighborhood that is covered with graffiti and trash leads a criminal to believe that people who live and work in the area don't care or have given up. This is a breeding ground for increased crime.
Again, the costs of graffiti in terms of hard numbers and its effect on society are enormous.
Nope no costs involved.
this part of your post caught my eye... we are talking a bout a protest with people trying to disrupt business and get a point across. the first 3 of those 5 impacts make graffiti a good tool for these people. they are trying to intimidate and scare away customers. discourage people from going around those areas. I could be wrong but I don;t think this is going to be a really long term protest (1+years?)
I'll agree that the cost yearly is high specially for areas that have problems with it. but thats not what is being discussed. the cost to remove(not repair because it doesn't break anything) graffiti in the setting we have here, a protest/riot, would be less then the cost to repair actual damage(broken windows, doors, looting, maybe even some minor fire damage).
sooner or later this protest will end and the graffiti in the area will stop. that 8000 bucks a year the company spends on graffiti. good chunk of change. thats around 666 bucks a month, still alot of money. but now thats a real estate company, how many propertys does that 666 bucks cover in a month? 50? 100? 200? say 100... thats now under 70 bucks a month per property. this protest might last 2-3 months? might cost each property 200 maybe 300 bucks to remove the graffiti?
the cost to replace a window? normal house windows run 200-300 installed. I haven't found any numbers on a large storefront window but I'm sure its abit higher then that. those banks/ stores that there attacking in the vids have what? 4-10+ sheets of glass that are being broken?
the cost to remove/paint over the graffiti is going to be alot less then the actual damage being caused to the buildings and it gets the message out much better, as you can put the message in your graffiti.
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 07:38 PM
Why quote the sentences in between when the first sentence says there are no repair costs associated with graffiti then the second one says "yeah just rent a power washer or slap a new coat of paint over the graffiti, cause y'know those things are free right?"
because like it said in the post there is no cost to repair graffiti. graffiti doesn't break anything, the power washer and paint is the cost to remove/hide graffiti and its a hell of alot cheaper then the cost to repair actual damage to these buildings
Tgo01
11-08-2011, 07:40 PM
Glad to see you admit there are repair costs associated with graffiti, I'm sorry, 'removal/hide costs.' Now your argument appears to be that businesses should be thankful that protesters are only costing them a fraction of what they could be costing them if they chose to do more damage. Pretty sound argument right there.
Parkbandit
11-08-2011, 07:43 PM
Glad to see you admit there are repair costs associated with graffiti, I'm sorry, 'removal/hide costs.' Now your argument appears to be that businesses should be thankful that protesters are only costing them a fraction of what they could be costing them if they chose to do more damage. Pretty sound argument right there.
LOL
Gravebane525
11-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Glad to see you admit there are repair costs associated with graffiti, I'm sorry, 'removal/hide costs.' Now your argument appears to be that businesses should be thankful that protesters are only costing them a fraction of what they could be costing them if they chose to do more damage. Pretty sound argument right there.
i admitted there were costs to graffiti in my first post about the cost. and i guess you haven't kept up on the conversation. looks like you just jumped in to troll so i'll just leave it at that.
i admitted there were costs to graffiti in my first post about the cost. and i guess you haven't kept up on the conversation. looks like you just jumped in to troll so i'll just leave it at that.
I don't think there would be repair cost for spray paint. its not like breaking a window or burning a building, there is no actual repair to be done. spray paint if relatively easy to cover up or wash off. the property is not dammage, just temporary defaced. rent a power washer for a day or slap a new coat of paint on and its like nothing ever happened, not all that costly to undo.
hmmm
Tgo01
11-08-2011, 08:11 PM
sst you're missing the subtleties of his argument. There aren't any 'repair' costs to graffiti, just 'removal' costs.
Because it's a lot cheaper when you go to the hardware store and pay for things from your 'removal' fund then from your 'repair' fund.
sst you're missing the subtleties of his argument. There aren't any 'repair' costs to graffiti, just 'removal' costs.
Because it's a lot cheaper when you go to the hardware store and pay for things from your 'removal' fund then from your 'repair' fund.
Ohh, I see. Because major corporations can just tell one of their bank tellers to go to the hardware store and rent a power washer to remove graffiti off of their building. I'm sorry I did not know the world worked like that. You know, I think I have just learned more from Gravebane525 today about the issue than when I lived and worked in the LA/Vegas area. I guess it was just bullshit when the Army Corp of Engineers ended up passing out 3.8million dollars to repair the Los Angeles riverbed from a single tagging crew's work, because there are almost no costs involved.
http://puregraffiti.com/art/2009/09/mta-graffiti-crew-that-hit-l-a-las-vegas-2/
Tolwynn
11-08-2011, 08:18 PM
Even cheaper when you value the labor for removal at zero cost, too.
Methais
11-08-2011, 08:52 PM
I have had my house vandalized, and I have been physically attacked in the street.
Did you buy any cookies from them? I think these were my favorite:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/17/t1larg.samoas.jpg
WRoss
11-09-2011, 11:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=youtu.be
Another case of protestors clearly being violent.
Tgo01
11-09-2011, 11:12 PM
The police said "Move back 6 inches or we'll beat you!" and the protestors said "Fuck naww dog!" Glad to see those protestors standing up to the man like that over something very important.
Methais
11-10-2011, 11:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=youtu.be
Another case of protestors clearly being violent.
LOL @ the fat kid in the red shirt with his backwards backpack of +10 protection.
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll154/spinarooni226/BackpackofProtection-1.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.