EPTSee now a days in the U.S. things that are your (according to the constitution) unalienable rights endowed from your creator, require you to get a permit (or permission) from your local government (sounds like an alienation from your right to me), costs a fee, and they are open to decline. Things like protests, gathering (or your right to association and to assemble) and your right to bear arms. They are not going to give you permission to use wall street even if you ask. Sorry, but we have decided to deny your rights today, if you don't obey we will arrest you. See the constitution is a piece of paper, the people with the guns make the rules. Enjoy your protest.
Occupy Wall Street - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
See now a days in the U.S. things that are your (according to the constitution) unalienable rights endowed from your creator, require you to get a permit (or permission) from your local government (sounds like an alienation from your right to me), costs a fee, and they are open to decline. Things like protests, gathering (or your right to association and to assemble) and your right to bear arms. They are not going to give you permission to use wall street even if you ask. Sorry, but we have decided to deny your rights today, if you don't obey we will arrest you. See the constitution is a piece of paper, the people with the guns make the rules. Enjoy your protest. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
The protest is going to be ineffective and will last as long as it remains civil disobedience. I have a strong suspicion that it will devolve into simple criminal mischief without purpose or posterity within the first 24 hours and be dispersed by the police. Do I hope this affects things? Of course. Will it? Nope probably not. | ||
|
stork4ever
United States1036 Posts
The "people with the guns" (police/soldier) protects/up hold the constitution. It is not perfect and there are lawsuits all the time testing the limits/meaning of our constitution. There is recourse if you feel your rights were taken away. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On September 18 2011 07:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The problem is that the 99.9% are the ones working for the 0.1% executive demographic, which (if the movie Inside Job is to be believed It's not to be believed. It's unevidenced propaganda just like the secret, obama deception ETC | ||
|
whatever
Mexico693 Posts
| ||
|
gesgi
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
moltenlead
Canada866 Posts
Yes some banks fucked up majorly, and paid the price for it as well, but a political witch-hunt to get re-elected really isn't solving any problems, and I am guessing that the political blame towards the big banks is what is pushing people here. Anyone who works and doesn't meet their targets will be fired, so let these people just try to get their jobs done. | ||
|
bellweather
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
On September 18 2011 09:07 stork4ever wrote: You don't go to jail if you protest. You go to jail if you violate a law and if you start messing with the police. They NYPD is probably happier that this kind of protest is going on, versus the other crazy protest/guy in megaphone that occurs all the time in NYC. The "people with the guns" (police/soldier) protects/up hold the constitution. It is not perfect and there are lawsuits all the time testing the limits/meaning of our constitution. There is recourse if you feel your rights were taken away. History says otherwise, here's a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings The "people with the guns" follow orders, that is all. They WILL completely ignore your rights when ordered to. The constitution clearly states that only congress can declare war, last time that happened was WWII, how many wars have we been in since? The supreme court ruled in the 70's that a warrant must be obtained to wire tap, congress over ruled that with the patriot act. Which they don't actually have the power to do, but guess what, they did it anyway. Freedom of expression and speech are also in the constitution, but our government sensors television, which is also a direct violation of the constitution. The constitution guarantees you the right to a lawyer and a trial, but if you are labeled an enemy combatant you are denied all of these rights and they've done it to at least one American citizen already. By the way, there is no criteria for being labeled an "enemy combatant" our government can give this label to whomever they choose and are not required to disclose a reason. I totally agree that protests are needed in this country, but they really need a greater number of people to do it. When the Iraq war started we saw one of the biggest anti-war protests in world history, guess what 10 years later our troops are still in Iraq. They will probably just arrest them for something ambiguous like "disturbing the peace" I'd imagine. But again the people with the guns (or the people in charge of the people with guns) make the rules, they do what they want, and a 230 year old piece of paper (the US constitution) isn't going to stop them, is it? BTW, the protesters may want to bring gas masks, unless they like the smell of tear gas. | ||
|
QurtStarcraft
United States162 Posts
Whats wrong with the bigwigs on Wall Street they keep this country and the world from falling apart and your complaining on what they are pain? When is the last time your 10$ an hour job had any effect on the world economy? | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On September 18 2011 09:37 InsideTheBox wrote: These people are sheep with absolutely no sense of what the industry does, let alone willing to question or demand an actual purpose to the event. I ask anyone who actually supports the "cause" what they think it will do and what they would deem a success. The only thing this event will achieve is the herding of other mindless sheep into a mass of uneducated unfocused screams. Which is how democracy works, if I'm not mistaken. You get enough people to believe that Candidate A is the devil, and Candidate B wins by acclamation. I think it's just an attempt to pry people out of office. Kinda like what happened last Congress but with Obama this time. Honestly I understand the message and what they're trying to say, but mostly I just want to see where this goes because you never know, something good might finally happen. | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On September 18 2011 09:08 whatever wrote: Everyone knows the protest won't do much, everyone including those protesting. Can you guys stop remarking it in such a condescending manner? That's not really the reason people like me have a problem with this. Most protests do not do much, but it helps when protests actually have definable goals. Each civil rights protest by itself didn't do much either, but because they were well organized and relentless they accomplished a lot. It is also really important that besides the easy to remember goal of equality, they also had very important subsets of goals that were clearly visible. This would be things like desegregation of schools and the ability to ride wherever one wanted on a bus. What are the goals of this protest? What is the message? That rich people suck? I have no sympathy with any of the protesters, and I do not count myself among the rich. I just do not care for rebels-without-a-cause. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
Appropriate video for this thread, watch closely, it was filmed on Wall Street.  | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Edit: I see buses coming through, so maybe not as bad as it seems just yet. The protesters are going for a Gandhi-style approach (i.e. trying not to be violent in any way so police don't start putting them down just yet), so anything can happen. But aside from "financial terrorism" I actually don't see a clear motive yet. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On September 18 2011 09:41 Reborn8u wrote: Freedom of expression and speech are also in the constitution, but our government sensors television, which is also a direct violation of the constitution. first amendment speech is actually extremely protected right now, more than ever in past centuries. the concepts the supreme court relies on are very limiting to the gov't, although theres always more to be done. the rationale behind the FCC (federal communications commission) is that there is a limited amount of spectrum, airwaves available, and it pervades everything. if you have a standard tv, you get this whether you want them or not. because you have no choice to seek it out or not (like on the internet you have to type in a specific website and choose to go there where on tv its just there) and theres a limited amount, it needs to be regulated to best benefit the public (like airing politics, educational media, tv, psa's, all sorts of other requirements to be a broadcaster on public airwaves). | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
Go after the people who actually gave the money away: Geithner, Paulson, Bernanke etc... And I doubt the cops will do anything, i mean, these arent anti-war protestors. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
On September 18 2011 08:10 TOloseGT wrote: I have two friends working on Wall Street and believe it or not, they're people, lol. So were the members of the Wehrmacht. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
The "Why are they doing this?" everyone (including me) is asking apparently is supposed to be debated during the actual protest. Let's see how that goes. And many of the amendments (including the first) are debated so because they're not clearly worded. People always want to question what speech they're free to and what they can restrict. Compared to say, the 19th amendment which pretty much says "All women can vote. No exceptions, no excuses." | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On September 18 2011 10:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/16/technology/occupy_wall_street/ The "Why are they doing this?" everyone (including me) is asking apparently is supposed to be debated during the actual protest. Let's see how that goes. And many of the amendments (including the first) are debated so because they're not clearly worded. People always want to question what speech they're free to and what they can restrict. Compared to say, the 19th amendment which pretty much says "All women can vote. No exceptions, no excuses." If the bolded part is actually the case, and none of you know what you are doing, then shouldn't this be a rally? To protest something you kind of have to know what you are protesting... | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
I really hope the people leading it actually knows how the economy works because I remember 5 years ago when "the people" demanded banks should lend to people more freely because being a lending institution that is their duty and we all know how that turned out. | ||
| ||
