NYC Protest - "Occupy Wall Street"

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just wanted to see what everyone thought of this and was hoping to see some responsible post here. It has been going on for a few weeks now and it is barely starting to see the light of day recently in the media, but the news it does get is all sides of the spectrum seems to talk negative.

 

[Sam48]

Not to be partial or anything because maybe it's just me, but, why is it that the liberals always seem to be the ones getting arrested at their own protests? I can't blame the officers of NYC, the protesters were camping out on the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I've heard alot of differing stories. I also know that the protesters have been pepper sprayed a few times by police for reasons not know quite yet. I respect the fact that they want political change and are tired of big business trying to buy out elections. I don't agree with you that it is only liberals I mean there are all different walks of life their. The media seems to paint this picture it is young out of work, bums...when middle aged and older people ranging into the 50s and 60s are there as well.

 

[Omnis]

I heard about an Occupy DC protest but not Wall St.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I heard about an Occupy DC protest but not Wall St.

Hey Omnis nice to see you in this thread like the 2012 Election one. Yes there has been protest on Wall St. due to like I said. A large portion of people tired of what America is becoming. Less of the American dream and more so of American greed.

 

[Joey D]

My thoughts?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."

Or if that's not enough, Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

The Government screwed up, people are out to protest in which they are given the right to by the law of the land. Just as the Tea Party people are allowed to assemble to speak their opinions, the Occupy Wall St. protesters should be allowed to as well.

I think the police are over stepping their bounds and should be put into check. I've seen armature YouTube videos and it disgusts me, but I'm guessing that's the way our country is attempting to go towards. I don't think very many people want to live in a police state, but when people can't voice their disgust for the government or even photograph police officers I think we have a problem.

Oh and don't get me started on the Anwar al-Awlaki situation where the US government branded one their own citizens guilty until proven innocence and then felt the need to Hellfire his ass. I'm pretty sure US citizens have the right to a trial. But whatever, I guess that's the continuation of how America is changing.

But I do support the protesters and I agree with their message. While it's similar in a way to the Tea Party, I don't think they are massive idiots with no clue of basically anything (but even then it's kosher for them to speak out).

The way I see it, the government has stopped representing the majority of the people and started supporting the majority of the money. Of course people are eventually going to get pissed and start taking action.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Thank you Joey D I too feel the same way

 

[BobK]

My thoughts?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."

That's from the US Constitution. We don't use that any more.

Or if that's not enough, Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal standing in the US, nor anyplace else in the world to my knowledge.

Sadly, though, yes the US is becoming a police state, and I suspect some would argue that we already are. The "no pics at town meetings" is particularly disturbing. The whole point of a town meeting (well one of them anyway) is to ensure openness.

In the case of the Wall Street protesters, if they were peaceably assembling then the police way overstepped their bounds. Not surprising, I'm afraid.

 

[Dapper]

This is the majority's version of the tea party.

 

[Keef]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal standing in the US, nor anyplace else in the world to my knowledge.

It's really not even worth quoting. What a useless document, and I'm embarrassed that my country had anything to do with it. Every other American should be too.

 

[Joey D]

Why? Doesn't the GTP Constitution Team constantly go on and on about Human Rights?

 

[Keef]

Why? Doesn't the GTP Constitution Team constantly go on and on about Human Rights?

There are three universal human rights: Life, Liberty, and Property. The reason "Property" didn't make it into our Declaration of Independence is because some of the founders thought property was a trivial matter and that it should be taxed to finance government. That's ironic, because "Pursuit of happiness" is an even broader term that encompasses Property, and matters that would already be covered under Life and Liberty. So far, Life, Liberty, and Property together are the purest and most logical expression of human rights.

The motley collection of rights written in the UN document includes numerous ones which cannot logically exist because they defy others in the very same document. The list makes no logical sense. It's basically just a bunch of wishes written by a committee of bleeding hearts who want to feel like they're helping the world.

 

[Bdx]

Real nice and peaceful with signs like "EAT THE RICH" in the crowd, gee i wonder were these people got their class warfare hatred from.💡

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't see it a class warfare, just getting tired of Lobbyist winning a bigger voice than the actual normal everyday person. This is what seems to be the true anger, among other things that are not being broadcast on the evening or daily news. A sound bite doesn't really do the cause justice as it begins to pop up all over the U.S. now.

 

[CSLACR]

I think all the laws that make it next to impossible to "prove" anything anyone does started this fire a looooong time ago.

You can't record a phone conversation or person without telling them first. Pretty much hands all power to government and business in itself.
They've done a pretty good job making themselves untouchable, and we'll continue to stand by and idly bicker, but nothing will really change, because a revolutionary war is seemingly no longer feasible.

And yes, that's the extreme I believe it would take for any real change.
The irony is the people of America could easily overpower the government still, they just don't know it, and as long as it doesn't happen to us, we'd rather let it go.

 

[McLaren]

Oh and don't get me started on the Anwar al-Awlaki situation where the US government branded one their own citizens guilty until proven innocence and then felt the need to Hellfire his ass. I'm pretty sure US citizens have the right to a trial. But whatever, I guess that's the continuation of how America is changing.

According to this govt. website, is a list of ways to lose your citizenship in the US.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jSuXMvp1Q&sig2=r6lnyBsZLkU3_-BlpvxBig&cad=rja

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

The man joined Al-Qaida. He preached & had ties with the hijackers of 9/11. He made it his goal in life to attack the very country he was born in & even made plots to be carried out.

He traded his US Citizenship for terrorism against America & he has paid for his actions with his life. I see his death as a justified execution. If he decided this country was worth trading for a terrorist group & believed we should not live the way we do and thus, should be attacked for it, why should he be given any of this nation's rights. They were obviously worth fighting against for him anyway....

 

[CSLACR]

According to this govt. website, is a list of ways to lose your citizenship in the US.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jSuXMvp1Q&sig2=r6lnyBsZLkU3_-BlpvxBig&cad=rja

The man joined Al-Qaida. He preached & had ties with the hijackers of 9/11. He made it his goal in life to attack the very country he was born in & even made plots to be carried out.

He traded his US Citizenship for terrorism against America & he has paid for his actions with his life. I see his death as a justified execution. If he decided this country was worth trading for a terrorist group & believed we should not live the way we do and thus, should be attacked for it, why should he be given any of this nation's rights. They were obviously worth fighting against for him anyway....

That's a fair point... But it's 100% based on the opinion he was guilty.
Guilty until proven innocent, if I'm not mistaken we generally give fair trials to those not even citizens of the US, no?
Saddam Hussein ring a bell?

 

[McLaren]

That's a fair point... But it's 100% based on the opinion he was guilty.
Guilty until proven innocent, if I'm not mistaken we generally give fair trials to those not even citizens of the US, no?
Saddam Hussein ring a bell?

Folks can say what they wish otherwise, it's their opinion like my own, but the man actively preached & told people that we are devils, & that those who wish to kill us do not need religious permission from him or anyone else. He actively supported terrorism in the US through a blog & even a friggin' Facebook page.

He said that Jihadists & Americans will never come together and that it was either them or us. To him, we are not worthy of life & should be murdered. Well, then that :censored:hole isn't worthy of our rights either. Just another terrorist scumbag, as far as I'm concerned

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Folks can say what they wish otherwise, it's their opinion like my own, but the man actively preached & told people that we are devils, & that those who wish to kill us do not need religious permission from him or anyone else. He actively supported terrorism in the US through a blog & even a friggin' Facebook page.

He said that Jihadists & Americans will never come together and that it was either them or us. To him, we are not worthy of life & should be murdered. Well, then that :censored:hole isn't worthy of our rights either. Just another terrorist scumbag, as far as I'm concerned

I see where both sides are coming from on this and McLaren is the more intelligent on the otherside that thinks he should have been a target. Most are like "go america, kill em all dead!!!" like I've seen that everywhere from a good number of people. And CSL I think tht is the reason why America wont be fixed...too many people want to believe there gov't cant do anything wrong or too many see it but still have this vast nationalism feel. I love this country but like I always say, I can't stand the things my gov't does. That's different than loving the country you live in based on what it was found upon and that is the law of humanity. All of us should be free in the context that we live life and respect all those around us so long as they too respect life and freedom of all.

I don't see how one can be nationalistic in America but dislike what their gov't does. I mean the gov't doesn't just do corrupt things or stupid things by accident. The feel to me is that if you don't clap your hands for everything America does, whether it be a new war or something else then you're not a patriot.

 

[McLaren]

I see where both sides are coming from on this and McLaren is the more intelligent on the otherside that thinks he should have been a target. Most are like "go america, kill em all dead!!!" like I've seen that everywhere from a good number of people. And CSL I think tht is the reason why America wont be fixed...too many people want to believe there gov't cant do anything wrong or too many see it but still have this vast nationalism feel. I love this country but like I always say, I can't stand the things my gov't does. That's different than loving the country you live in based on what it was found upon and that is the law of humanity. All of us should be free in the context that we live life and respect all those around us so long as they too respect life and freedom of all.

I don't see how one can be nationalistic in America but dislike what their gov't does. I mean the gov't doesn't just do corrupt things or stupid things by accident. The feel to me is that if you don't clap your hands for everything America does, whether it be a new war or something else then you're not a patriot.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe our govt. is always right with its decisions or believe in "Kill 'em all!", & I would normally oppose the killing of a US citizen without a fair trial.

But, I just believe Anwar was an exception based on the decisions he made & his choice to actively encourage the killing of American citizens. I think he was a threat to this nation and in this instance, I supported the govt.'s decision to kill him. It doesn't really matter to me what country he came from, the man was a terrorist & people like him are not needed in this world if all they intend to do is kill/encourage the killing of others. :2cents:

 

[Omnis]

That's what dangerous about the Al-Awlaki precedent though. I think everyone would agree that he deserved to die. What about in the future if people are killed willy nilly?

Anyway, some protest-guy video that you won't see on Commy News Network:



Brooklyn!

 

[Keef]

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe our govt. is always right with its decisions or believe in "Kill 'em all!", & I would normally oppose the killing of a US citizen without a fair trial.

But, I just believe Anwar was an exception based on the decisions he made & his choice to actively encourage the killing of American citizens. I think he was a threat to this nation and in this instance, I supported the govt.'s decision to kill him. It doesn't really matter to me what country he came from, the man was a terrorist & people like him are not needed in this world if all they intend to do is kill/encourage the killing of others. :2cents:

As Omnis just said, if you support the assassination of one US citizen, you support assassination of all US citizens. The only difference between you and him is that he committed a crime called treason.

 

[McLaren]

As Omnis just said, if you support the assassination of one US citizen, you support assassination of all US citizens. The only difference between you and him is that he committed a crime called treason.

Omnis did not say that & I do not support the assassination of all US citizens. I only see Anwar as a justified exception due to his actions, even though he had lost his citizenship long ago according to the govt.'s outline.

 

[Keef]

Back in the old days the government would revoke a person's citizenship if they went overseas and fought in a foreign regular army against the US. Not only was Awlaki not a member of a foreign regular army, but the Supreme Court declared this rule unconstitutional in a 1967 citizenship-revocation decision.

I did not say you supported the assassination of American citizens. What I said, and what Omnis insinuated, was that if you support the Federal government's power to assassinate one American criminal suspect without due process, then by logical necessity you must support the power against all American criminal suspects without due process. Slippery slope, etc. It's a very simple concept. To apply one value to one thing but another value to another thing which is exactly the same thing is illogical. You would agree that you can't use the letter B when you're tired of writing W's, you can't pay $1 if you don't feel like paying $2, and when you're trying to solve for "x" you can't simply make up a number.

 

[McLaren]

Back in the old days the government would revoke a person's citizenship if they went overseas and fought in a foreign regular army against the US. Not only was Awlaki not a member of a foreign regular army, but the Supreme Court declared this rule unconstitutional in a 1967 citizenship-revocation decision.

Anwar was very much part of a foreign army, if the evidence is to believed. The man was a cleric within' Al-Qaida. And if that rule was deemed unconstitutional, I find it funny a govt. website still lists it as a way to lose your citizenship.

Your link is also silly, imo.

In order to lose his citizenship, it must be shown that the U.S. citizen joined the foreign military or swore allegiance to another state "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" -- a very tough standard. There's no evidence that Awlaki ever formally renounced his U.S. citizenship.

I think a 23 minute long video telling other jihadists that America is the devil, that its citizens must be killed, & that nobody needs religious permission to attack the US is a pretty sure sign that the man relinquished his citizenship. Then again, our govt. is so ass backwards, that everything must be shown word-for-word for something to be proven.

I did not say you supported the assassination of American citizens. What I said, and what Omnis insinuated, was that if you support the Federal government's power to assassinate one American criminal suspect without due process, then by logical necessity you must support the power against all American criminal suspects without due process. Slippery slope, etc. It's a very simple concept. To apply one value to one thing but another value to another thing which is exactly the same thing is illogical. You would agree that you can't use the letter B when you're tired of writing W's, you can't pay $1 if you don't feel like paying $2, and when you're trying to solve for "x" you can't simply make up a number.

This is all fine & dandy, but I do not consider Anwar a US citizen at the time of his death. Then again, I don't believe he should have been allowed any sort of US right if he was captured alive, to begin with. The country meant nothing to him.

Positive this will be my last post, as I'm not looking for a debate, just giving my opinion specifically on Anwar's death (not the decision to assassinate any US citizen without trial; that I do not support). It is also off topic.

 

[Keef]

Anwar was very much part of a foreign army, if the evidence is to believed. The man was a cleric within' Al-Qaida. And if that rule was deemed unconstitutional, I find it funny a govt. website still lists it as a way to lose your citizenship.

Being that "army" is defined as the military forces of a nation, then no, he was not a member of an army. Al-Qaida is not an army or military and hails from no nation. It's not even a militia. It's a guerilla organization at best.

...so ass backwards, that everything must be shown word-for-word for something to be proven.

Does the term "binding contract" mean anything to you? In any situation it is possible that some ridiculous, convoluted circumstance could occur, whether we're talking about a science experiment or registering your kids for middle school. Documents bro.

This is all fine & dandy, but I do not consider Anwar a US citizen at the time of his death. Then again, I don't believe he should have been allowed any sort of US right if he was captured alive, to begin with. The country meant nothing to him.

What if I didn't consider you a citizen because you're showing substantial evidence that you don't respect the laws of our country? Not trying to be an asshole, I'm just saying that an asshole could make that argument right now.

Positive this will be my last post, as I'm not looking for a debate, just giving my opinion specifically on Anwar's death (not the decision to assassinate any US citizen without trial; that I do not support). It is also off topic.

We're all well and glad he's gone, believe me. He was a terrible person. Problem is, he was not disposed of correctly and the precedent this incident has set puts all American lives in danger from their own government.

 

[McLaren]

Being that "army" is defined as the military forces of a nation, then no, he was not a member of an army. Al-Qaida is not an army or military and hails from no nation. It's not even a militia. It's a guerilla organization at best.

Sorry, but no, the definition of army goes much further than that. Army can also refer to the forces of a political state within a nation. Al-Qaida is defined by many as a stateless army at that.

What if I didn't consider you a citizen because you're showing substantial evidence that you don't respect the laws of our country? Not trying to be an asshole, I'm just saying that an asshole could make that argument right now.

Again, no. I respect the laws of this country & I believe no law was broken; I do not consider Anwar a US citizen, if a government website's outlines on "How to lose a US citizenship" are anything to go by.

We're all well and glad he's gone, believe me. He was a terrible person. Problem is, he was not disposed of correctly and the precedent this incident has set puts all American lives in danger from their own government.

That's such a load of rubbish. The man was a terrorist & the govt.'s senior lawyers agreed in every sense that his death was a justifiable one.

You had a better chance of him endangering your life when he was alive than now.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe our govt. is always right with its decisions or believe in "Kill 'em all!", & I would normally oppose the killing of a US citizen without a fair trial.

But, I just believe Anwar was an exception based on the decisions he made & his choice to actively encourage the killing of American citizens. I think he was a threat to this nation and in this instance, I supported the govt.'s decision to kill him. It doesn't really matter to me what country he came from, the man was a terrorist & people like him are not needed in this world if all they intend to do is kill/encourage the killing of others. :2cents:

Oh no I agree with you and you've made me see it in a different light, but to be honest I don't care about what terrorist they kill. To me it's all a big joke, so they can do what they're doing to protesters.

Omis: Thanks you

 

[slims]

I did not say you supported the assassination of American citizens. What I said, and what Omnis insinuated, was that if you support the Federal government's power to assassinate one American criminal suspect without due process, then by logical necessity you must support the power against all American criminal suspects without due process. Slippery slope, etc. It's a very simple concept. To apply one value to one thing but another value to another thing which is exactly the same thing is illogical. You would agree that you can't use the letter B when you're tired of writing W's, you can't pay $1 if you don't feel like paying $2, and when you're trying to solve for "x" you can't simply make up a number.

A simple concept? Sounds more like a stupid one to me. That's like saying that because I like one car in GT5 I like all the other cars too because they are also cars. That's like saying that because I support the execution of a criminal who has murdered 20 people that I support the execution of all criminals regardless of their crime.

To me a more simple concept would be to realize that things which may seem exactly the same actually have their own individual traits which make them different. The real world isn't as black and white as propositional logic. This is why someone can support the assassination of a man who was a known terrorist but not support the assassination of an ordinary American citizen. But whatever, I think I'm going to run off now though, because by disagreeing with your post I have therefore disagreed with every post on the entire forum.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

A simple concept? Sounds more like a stupid one to me. That's like saying that because I like one car in GT5 I like all the other cars too because they are also cars. That's like saying that because I support the execution of a criminal who has murdered 20 people that I support the execution of all criminals regardless of their crime.

To me a more simple concept would be to realize that things which may seem exactly the same actually have their own individual traits which make them different. The real world isn't as black and white as propositional logic. This is why someone can support the assassination of a man who was a known terrorist but now support the assassination of an ordinary American citizen. But whatever, I think I'm going to run off now though, because by disagreeing with your post I have therefore disagreed with every post on the entire forum.

I liked everything you said but then you ruined it with that last part...unless...ah I see what ya did thar!!!