My God, you are an idiot.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There was a threat of disease. It was all good.

c"mon former obama doj jack booted thug, defend this?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Gotta love that new, more transparent White House. Assholes.

Anyone want to defend our new jackbooted Korematsu overlords?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it's a mass of 100 different voices, with 40 or so wanting to overthrow our government and put a communist state in, but at least they all voice their opinion and the several views are known across occupy, which is why they don't try to make any demand or positions.

occupy would be more successful if it had a dictator of thought like Ty, but politics board would benefit from a free sharing of facts and viewpoint like seems to occur at occupy.

"occupy needs more toadies!!!" I've registered the trademark.

There is an impact. The 99% lingo is in. That is good.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Anyone want to defend our new jackbooted Korematsu overlords?

Ah, no, I'll leave those who defended similar things in the Bush administration to do that. Hank, Club? This is the sort of thing you approve of, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a coincidence at all. The anarchists are exploiting the peaceful protesters and hijacking their event. They see an opportunity. They take advantage of the fact that people like club will see them as one big group, which serves as a justification for the suppression of legitimate, peaceful protest.

Yes, but what I was saying is that those other protesters did not invite and probably do not want the anarchists to participate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yes, because I have no ability to think for myself and just blindly follow the right wing puppet masters wherever they want to lead me.

You believe that anyone on the left that gathers in protest is doing so for a worthy, noble cause. "We shall o-ver-cuuuuuum, We shall cum-bi-ahhhhhh"

Club, if you weren't swallowing bullshit whole you'd be ale to articulate some actual danger at the LA site.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

How many times do I have to distinguish between these two?

The aren't different in any way relevant to this discussion.

Also, fine, it doesn't give you pause to suggest that people need authorization to exercise their constitutionally protected right to assemble? Especially when they are assembling to exercise their constitutionally protected right to political speak on the most traditional of open public forums?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

again, "no camping" has been pretty basic law since Reagan's second admin. That cities let it go for a few months doesn't mean it isn't still the law.

Where is the line between an all night protest and camping? Lots of places have draw it at no tents, leaving anyone without a tent to stay. Maybe it could be drawn at no sleeping (although maybe that's impractical).

Either way, how does that get you to arresting everyone in the park at a given moment?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I would love for you to be trial counsel on the other side for a trial, just once. do you not see how simple your argument is?

This one would be fun:

Hank: your honor, conditions were dangerously unsanitary

Judge: how?

Hank: we'll, someone shit in a park

Me: silent with a slight smirk

Judge: someone? Who?

Hank: we'll, I don't know

Judge: when?

Hank: i don't know

Me: silent with a growing smile

Judge: more than once? Was this an ongoing problem?

Hank: maybe, but I don't know, it's entirely possible

Judge: so someone whom you can't identify at a time you can't identify may have deficated in the park, but you don't have any evidence of even one incident, much less an ongoing problem?

Hank: that's right, but think of the children. Poo means disease your honor, even hypothetical poo I have no evidence for

Judge: so your solution to this problem was to arrest everyone in the park?

Hank: yes, your honor, it was the only way to make sure no one would poo there ever again

Judge: I see. Mr. Adder, anything you want to add?

Me: no, your honor, that pretty much covers it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1119473.html

the gov is passing a law that will let us lock up most of these occupiers, it's all good.

What an unconstitutional, cynical piece of bullshit legislation. Good on Rand Paul, Udall, And the others in opposition, and the White House for saying they will veto.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

This one would be fun:

Hank: your honor, conditions were dangerously unsanitary

Judge: how?

Hank: we'll, someone shit in a park

Me: silent with a slight smirk

Judge: someone? Who?

Hank: we'll, I don't know

Judge: when?

Hank: i don't know

Me: silent with a growing smile

Judge: more than once? Was this an ongoing problem?

Hank: maybe, but I don't know it's entirely possible

Judge: so someone whom you can't identify at a time you can't identify may have deficated in the park, but you don't have any evidence of even one incident, much less an ongoing problem?

Hank: that's right, but think of the children. Poo means disease your honor, even hypothetical poo I have no evidence for

Judge: so your solution to this problem was to arrest everyone in the park?

Hank: yes, your honor, it was the only way to make sure no one would poo there ever again

Judge: I see. Mr. Adder, anything you want to add?

Me: no, your honor, that pretty much covers it.

here's what you said: the desire to relieve themselves in the outdoors does not make them meaningfully different than your average State College partier on a Friday night.

you have no ability to form an intelligent argument, you show that over and over. your analogy sort of falls apart for any of 4 reasons. If you made that argument in front of a judge I would bring in a wheel that has the 4 glaring reasons your arguments is silly. I'd invite the Judge's law clerk to spin the wheel, then make the argument that comes up.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

here's what you said: the desire to relieve themselves in the outdoors does not make them meaningfully different than your average State College partier on a Friday night.

you have no ability to form an intelligent argument, you show that over and over. your analogy sort of falls apart for any of 4 reasons. If you made that argument in front of a judge I would bring in a wheel that has the 4 glaring reasons your arguments is silly. I'd invite the Judge's law clerk to spin the wheel, then make the argument that comes up.

Hank, it was a joke.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hank, it was a joke.

poll: post hoc, or no?

Post hoc- Hank
No- ?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Also, fine, it doesn't give you pause to suggestion that people need authorization to exercise their constitutionally protected right to assemble? Especially when they are assembling to exercise their constitutionally protected right to political speak on the most tradition of open public forums?

Do you not understand that there are practical reasons for requiring authorization?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Do you not understand that there are practical reasons for requiring authorization?

I understand that there are types of assembly, such as those that will block roads or those intended to take place in less than traditional open forums, for which there are practical considerations that could make authorization a tolerable necessity. That's why I said, "give you pause," not, "how could you ever think authorization could be needed?"

But someone who claims to be a strong advocate for speech (and/or assembly) should be very wary of government claims that practical considerations require a particular time, place and manner restriction, much less about the notion that "authorization" is needed.

But, by the way, I would actually be pretty surprised if a permit is required to hold a protest in a public park in front of city hall.