Author Topic: Occupy deadbeats file suit over free speech. (Read 2402 times)

powderman · « **on:** April 30, 2012, 04:32:46 PM »

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aj8Wi_SWxsTqyq5yNKT6ijabvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTV1aDVoYzNnBGEDT2NjdXB5IHN1cHBvcnRlcnMgaW4gTmV3IFlvcmssIFdpc2NvbnNpbiBzdWUgb3ZlciBmcmVlIHNwZWVjaARjY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRjcG9zAzYEZwNpZC0yMjYxMTI2BGludGwDdXMEbWNvZGUDcHpidWFsbGNhaDUEbXBvcwM2BHBrZ3QDMgRwb3MDMQRzZWMDdGQtcG9sBHNsawN0aXRsZQR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMTI3NzUxNTA-/SIG=13em5b4cc/EXP=1335925780/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/occupy-protesters-york-wisconsin-sue-over-free-speech-000517073.html

They also are calling for huge demonstrations tomorrow, May 1st. POWDERMAN.

Matt · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2012, 08:46:00 AM »

as for the whole OWS thing, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR POSITION BUT WILL DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE IT TO THE DEATH!... How about you?

Matt

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2012, 09:15:45 AM »

I think there is a difference between to two.
Our laws say you can have a dissent and can protest.
The OWS crowd do not see our laws as valid. They, in the name, are an occupying force and are making thier own laws in the occupied spaces. They are eliminating the right to private property and public property and instituting their own take over of either priovate or public property and destroying it in the take over.
I am not sure if the people that do not see our laws as valid, get the protection of those same laws. "I do not believe in the constitution but want my constitutional rights!" some how is a disconnect.
It would be like an atheist yelling for god to save him. The two do not match.
And I understand that our laws have to protect the ones that do not understand the laws. Mental defects in committing a crime and not understanding it is a crime.
Maybe I just made the point that Liberalism is a mental defect and proved it.

powderman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2012, 09:16:41 AM »

MATT. Their rights should not infringe on the rights of others. I'm all for free speech but occupying buildings, sidewalks, streets, and parks have nothing to do with free speech when they deny the use of such things to everybody else. I was glad to see them cleaned from the park in downtown Lou. SAying what you want is free speech, nobody has denied them that. POWDERMAN.

Matt · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2012, 09:50:21 AM »

Quote from: powderman on May 01, 2012, 09:16:41 AM

MATT. Their rights should not infringe on the rights of others. I'm all for free speech but occupying buildings, sidewalks, streets, and parks have nothing to do with free speech when they deny the use of such things to everybody else. I was glad to see them cleaned from the park in downtown Lou. SAying what you want is free speech, nobody has denied them that. POWDERMAN.

Charlie, I hate to break it to you but Yahoo News is not going to give you the full story and neither will any of the other major networks. I have seen the videos of people minding their own business and getting cracked up side the head by police. Yes there have been many violations of Civil Rights in this whole mess.

But you folks go ahead and push and get protesting banned and when the time comes you feel the need to protest it will be completely illegal. I just really do not understand why so many can not take a step back and look at the bigger picture and see that we are simply being lead in the direction that the elite want us headed in as if rats in a maze after that slab of cheese.

Matt

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2012, 09:58:25 AM »

Quote from: Matt on May 01, 2012, 09:50:21 AM

Quote from: powderman on May 01, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
MATT. Their rights should not infringe on the rights of others. I'm all for free speech but occupying buildings, sidewalks, streets, and parks have nothing to do with free speech when they deny the use of such things to everybody else. I was glad to see them cleaned from the park in downtown Lou. SAying what you want is free speech, nobody has denied them that. POWDERMAN.

Charlie, I hate to break it to you but Yahoo News is not going to give you the full story and neither will any of the other major networks. I have seen the videos of people minding their own business and getting cracked up side the head by police. Yes there have been many violations of Civil Rights in this whole mess.

But you folks go ahead and push and get protesting banned and when the time comes you feel the need to protest it will be completely illegal. I just really do not understand why so many can not take a step back and look at the bigger picture and see that we are simply being lead in the direction that the elite want us headed in as if rats in a maze after that slab of cheese.

Matt

I never said we need to ban protesting.
I said for those that do not believe in our laws should they protect them?
The communists and the anarchists. that want to destroy our society. Should the constitution apply to them?

Matt · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2012, 10:13:39 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on May 01, 2012, 09:58:25 AM

Quote from: Matt on May 01, 2012, 09:50:21 AM
Quote from: powderman on May 01, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
MATT. Their rights should not infringe on the rights of others. I'm all for free speech but occupying buildings, sidewalks, streets, and parks have nothing to do with free speech when they deny the use of such things to everybody else. I was glad to see them cleaned from the park in downtown Lou. SAying what you want is free speech, nobody has denied them that. POWDERMAN.

Charlie, I hate to break it to you but Yahoo News is not going to give you the full story and neither will any of the other major networks. I have seen the videos of people minding their own business and getting cracked up side the head by police. Yes there have been many violations of Civil Rights in this whole mess

But you folks go ahead and push and get protesting banned and when the time comes you feel the need to protest it will be completely illegal. I just really do not understand why so many can not take a step back and look at the bigger picture and see that we are simply being lead in the direction that the elite want us headed in as if rats in a maze after that slab of cheese.

Matt
I never said we need to ban protesting.
I said for those that do not believe in our laws should they protect them?
The communists and the anarchists. that want to destroy our society. Should the constitution apply to them?

Go read the Constitution and see if those groups you named are excluded and then you will have your answer. Until some of you understand that UNITED WE STAND and DIVIDED WE FALL has truth to it we are screwed. In fact there are a whole host of other issues that if folks dont wake up soon we are screwed.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM MEANS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY a concept that seems to scare the hell out of so many.

lakota · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2012, 10:33:41 AM »

Is this list of behaviors protected by the Constitution?

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-document-record-of.html
My favorite is the public disturbances section. I dont believe one has the right to block entry into a business or disrupt others as they attempt to patronize a business

Is plotting to blow up a bridge protected by the Constitution?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/01/occupy-cleveland-leaders-involved-in-bridge-bomb-plot

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2012, 10:39:31 AM »

I understand indivudual freedom and responsiblity.
What I am not understanding is your vitrial for anyone that opposes the OWS crowd?
I understand why they are protesting, it is all part of the class warfare and the anarchists and communists that are here in Oakland are destructive thugs.
They have marched into local business and demanded that they support them or they will be back with a mob to destroy the faclility.
Are threats free speech? Is coersion free Speech?
Is destroying Private property free speach? No, all are criminal acts and hiding behind the 1st amendment is not what free speech is about.
Free Speech is supose to be about telling the truth about a political canidate, politics, or about a political policy.
Why do we have a truth in advertising law but not one in politics?
The so called 99% are being manipulated to hate the wrong people.
They hate the banks for the forclosures but not the Democrats for making the law that made the banks give loans to people that could not or would not pay them back.
They are told to hate the Wall Street firms that made the companies like Starbucks and Apple possible with investments.
They hate the rich, and most of the arrested are from some of the wealthiest places in the country and are here on mommy and daddy's dime and are more thant willing to spend their $.
When Poeple like the ALFCIO are training these people in labor leadership and how to take over a Public or Private facility I see a problem. When People like George Sorros is funding these people I see a problem.
With the anarchists and communists that want to destroy our constitution, I see a problem with giving them the protection of the constitution while they are using those freedoms to try and tear it down.
Your comment of Divided we fall is interesting as the OWS 99% are exactly trying to devide the country into the haves and the have nots adn are trying to get rid of the haves not to help elevate the have nots

Matt · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2012, 10:51:13 AM »

Quote from: lakota on May 01, 2012, 10:33:41 AM

Is this list of behaviors protected by the Constitution?

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-document-record-of.html

So as with everything else a few bad apples are going to cause a whole Nation to give up a little more Freedom for a feeling a false security?

You do understand that the whole OWS movement is funded by those that want to rule the world right?
So if you do then you should understand that there will be parts of the movement that will carry out acts of aggression for the sole purpose of creating outrage from the public. It is a trick as old as politics itself and yet so many fall victim to it.
If you do the math on the number of people in attendance of the many protests and then see what the average of bad apples really is I think you may see the pattern.

Now as to the plot BY THE FBI to blow up a bridge that they then foiled themselves... what ever... UNDERWEAR BOMBER 3 and they just keep on putting out this crap and folks keep eating it up as fast as they can.... I think many want there to be a big bad wolf so that they can feel they are giving up their Rights and Freedoms for something...

Matt

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2012, 10:52:05 AM »

Their protests should be at city halls, in front of state and federal congresses, etc. They loose that right when they hinder people from going to work, or they damage private property. They can protest in city parks, but not on private property unless they have permission from the property owner. They have the right to protest their greviences, not create anarchy.

What are their grevences?
What can the government do about it?

We still have the right to have corporations, private property, etc. You can't violate others property or civil rights, or right to work. Then you cross the line.

DDZ · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:18:05 AM »

There would be no problem if the OWS crowd protested legally. Tea party gatherings are held all over the country, but you don't hear of the disruption from them, like comes from the OWS crowd. Taking over public parks for weeks, occupying buildings they have no business in, taking over streets and sidewalks so that no one can pass, and destroying public property is not peaceful protesting. Not even close. Actually their message would be better, and louder if they didn't act like a bunch of animals.
Maybe I have been watching the wrong news reports. I'm sure CNN and MSNBC have footage of peaceful OWS crowds.
Has there been police hitting people at tea party rallies or stopping tea party rallies? I could be wrong but I have not heard of any thing like that at a tea party rally. If it didn't happen maybe there is a difference between tea party protesting and OWS protesting.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:24:37 AM »

I can't believe that someone is saying that vandalism is a constitutional right.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:32:49 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on May 01, 2012, 10:52:05 AM

Their protests should be at city halls, in front of state and federal congresses, etc. They loose that right when they hinder people from going to work, or they damage private property. They can protest in city parks, but not on private property unless they have permission from the property owner. They have the right to protest their greviences, not create anarchy.

What are their grevences?
What can the government do about it?

We still have the right to have corporations, private property, etc. You can't violate others property or civil rights, or right to work. Then you cross the line.

If you roll footage from the beginning of the OWS people or go to one of the protests they really can not tell you why they are protesting other than rattle off some silly class warfare mantra. most have a problem stringing a few thoughts together.
Andf the topics range from evil banks, and the rich to free drugs for all and some a re violent in their speech and others in coherent.
I have agreed you should be able to say what you want, you should not be allowed to get away with coersion, intimadation, extortion, or damage to public or private property ( unless it is your own- Buy a flag you can burn it in protest- just not in a no flamable area like a refinery or other place that would pose a danger to others) Clearly extortion is a crime and is not protected speech. Threats are not protected speech. The courts have time and time again said that laws can limit your speech- Shouting fire in a crowded theater. Speech that can cause physical harm to other people for example.
Now you have the right to say what you want. You do not have the right to be heard.
The inchherant rambling of the OWS people trying to explain their positions on everything for example. They can say it, I do not have ot stop as I pass by them and listen to them. I do have the right to yell things at them.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #14 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:34:44 AM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on May 01, 2012, 11:24:37 AM

I can't believe that someone is saying that vandalism is a constitutional right.

Does this mean we can go down to the Occupy campsites and trash their belongings in free speech against thier cause? So I can go slash tents on the next rainy day?

BUGEYE · « **Reply #15 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:42:51 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on May 01, 2012, 11:34:44 AM

Quote from: BUGEYE on May 01, 2012, 11:24:37 AM
I can't believe that someone is saying that vandalism is a constitutional right.
Does this mean we can go down to the Occupy campsites and trash their belongings in free speech against thier cause? So I can go slash tents on the next rainy day?

according to Matt, I guess you can.

lakota · « **Reply #16 on:** May 01, 2012, 12:18:09 PM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on May 01, 2012, 11:34:44 AM

Quote from: BUGEYE on May 01, 2012, 11:24:37 AM
I can't believe that someone is saying that vandalism is a constitutional right.
Does this mean we can go down to the Occupy campsites and trash their belongings in free speech against thier cause? So I can go slash tents on the next rainy day?

It might be a good life lesson for them. "hey man! you cant destroy my stuff man! because its mine man!"...and then maybe an epiphany will occur...then again maybe not.

ironglow · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2012, 12:49:21 PM »

This I will defend; and have defended:
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press,
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.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

THIS I WILL NOT DEFEND!!!!!: !

powderman · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2012, 04:06:25 PM »

I don't think anybody here objects to protest in the right place and manner. I remember the students being maced after they were ordered to leave, too bad. They did NOT have the right to block the sidewalk and deny others passage or the use of it. Destroying property whether public or private is not a right, it's criminal and should be treated as such. They want to protest?? Great, go to the source. Congress and the whitehouse is the problem, not public parks and businesses. I still say the dnc is backing them, all part of obamas plan. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2012, 04:00:32 AM »

Of course the DNC supports these anarchist rioters.. here's Nancy Pelosi speaking for the DNC and in favor of the destructive nihilists.. she is introduced by Sgt Schultz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Bg_AB2pBg

Naturally the prez supports them; they are another way of fracturing our society..class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare, any kind of strife they can stir up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2012, 06:05:48 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on May 02, 2012, 05:44:58 AM

Quote from: DDZ on May 01, 2012, 11:18:05 AM
There would be no problem if the OWS crowd protested legally. Tea party gatherings are held all over the country, but you don't hear of the disruption from them, like comes from the OWS crowd. Taking over public parks for weeks, occupying buildings they have no business in, taking over streets and sidewalks so that no one can pass, and destroying public property is not peaceful protesting. Not even close. Actually their message would be better, and louder if they didn't act like a bunch of animals.
Maybe I have been watching the wrong news reports. I'm sure CNN and MSNBC have footage of peaceful OWS crowds.
Has there been police hitting people at tea party rallies or stopping tea party rallies? I could be wrong but I have not heard of any thing like that at a tea party rally. If it didn't happen maybe there is a difference between tea party protesting and OWS protesting.
.
If the Tea Party was deemed a real threat to the Powers That Be and to their agenda, instead of adjuncts, I can guarrantee they would get their collective heads busted in, too; as well as be villified by the media. Guarrantee it .
.
Thing about demonstrations is when The Powers That Be see a real threat or challenge to their supremacy thats when the head busting begins.....to say , "this is what you get when you demonstrate against us or demand we clean up our act". And to that end the riots are often provoked by the PD, and that is a proven fact.
.
.
..TM7

Have you seen an Occupy protest?
The Police are there and are not provoking anything.
The Oaklabnd Police are usually out numbered 5 to 1
And what they are doing is keeping the stupid and dangerous from getting out of control.
In the first Occupy the Port of Oakland protests many marched and most went by our office with out problems. There were some that were breaking car windows, that were spray painting and destroying anything they came across.
I saw the police try to isolate the troublemakers and get them under control before it spread to others into a full blown riot. For the most part the police were calm and just let the trouble makers they were watchig and to march not destroy.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2012, 06:54:45 AM »

I have no problem with arresting criminals and stopping fraud.
I am all for reforming the reform and getting away from Government regulations that have created the fraud and the crimes. I am all for going after the people that wrote the legislation that has caused people to make stupid desicions that are social engineering and crony capitalism rather than sound busines practice.
The idea of the government safety net has caused more fraud with people thinking their investments are safe while people like Madoff were stealing them blind.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2012, 07:46:36 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on May 02, 2012, 07:18:48 AM

Quote from: mcwoodduck on May 02, 2012, 06:54:45 AM
I have no problem with arresting criminals and stopping fraud.
I am all for reforming the reform and getting away from Government regulations that have created the fraud and the crimes. I am all for going after the people that wrote the legislation that has caused people to make stupid desicions that are social engineering and crony capitalism rather than sound busines practice.
The idea of the government safety net has caused more fraud with people thinking their investments are safe while people like Madoff were stealing them blind.
.
OK well seems like should join up with OWS, except for the fact your solution to crime or fraud is to have no regs or game rules so I suppose there wouldn't be any fouls..
.
I think it is generally agreed by just about any economists....that the cause of the financial recession was not because of regulations and oversight, but from a lack of oversight and fair play....we're dealing with a 'fallen man' when it comes to economics.
Remember what Bernie said?

"I learned at a very young age that the market was a rigged game..." ...Bernie Madoff.
.
..TM7

But Bernie was one of the over seeers and that was one of the problems is that people raised red flags and all were quelled because of the regulations.
We would not have derivitives of derivitives. We would have stocks, we would have bonds and we would have futures. Except for the acts of congress to rig the events and make themselves, campaign contributors, and their friends rich.
You should be able to understand your investments in ten words or less.
You own X shares of ____ Company they make/ sell ______
You own X Shares of a mutual fund based in ____ consisting of ____Companies
You own bonds the higher the interest rate the higher the risk of loosing the investment.
A simple statement should be able to let you know how your investment (s) are doing and if there is a problem or not. And you will beable to move your $ depending on how you see the brokerage house working for you.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2012, 09:49:35 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on May 02, 2012, 09:23:48 AM

No..not because of regulations..in spite of some regulations and absence of other regulations...Having the financial industries, or any corp for that matter, police themselves is sheer folly...like having drug addicts run the drug store.. OWS understands this form of tyranny.
.
Affirmative to the rest of your comments...notice how BHO and financial corps had Elizabeth Warren removed from consumer affairs advisorship,,,because what you said is exactly what she tried to do....they even got the so-called right to smear this decent and honorable woman (their specialty these days is smearing) She's the author of Your Money or Your Life...
.
..TM7

I was a Poly Sci major and took classes that were heavy in con law and now anytinme I look at rules and regulations I do not see things to follow I see ways around them. Intent of the law vs. Letter of the law.
Unfortunatly the people wtritting the laws are not as savy as the people following the laws and what was designed to protect people ends up hurting them because they think there is a safety net when they find out the holes are 4' across and may just barely save you. and not 4" across as the law will have you think.
I agree that we need ot have some oversite. So retirments are not squandered in sales commissions. But the more volumes of regulations that come out of DC only help muddy the water and confuse the investors.
I think if you let the market do what it wants we would get back to a sane stock market. For both long term investing as well as day trading.
Lowering tax rates for capital investing and maybe raising margin amounts or allowing you to invest your 401K or IRA on Margin would help.

DDZ · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2012, 12:05:01 PM »

I see the police are picking on the OWS crowd not because they are breaking all kinds of laws, but because of what they protest about. That doesn't make a lick of sense, and TM, you will never get me to believe that. If the tea party
crowd acted the same, the police would respond the same.

The OWS crowd is all about bigger government. Why have they not mentioned the absurd amount of government spending? Why have they not mentioned the over growth of government, and how government is slowly removing freedoms, and telling us how to live? I'll tell you why, its because they want more government. They want government to grant more of everything. They hate rich people, and think that rich people should support them. I can see their agenda. They need more and bigger government for communism to take over, and get rid of capitalism. Period!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/22/now-theres-no-doubt-about-what-occupy-wall-street-believes/

Gee, I wonder what kind of candidates the OWS crowd is going to vote for? I think we can be assured its not going to be anyone that mentions abiding by the Constitution.

nomosendero · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:36:28 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on May 02, 2012, 05:44:58 AM

Quote from: DDZ on May 01, 2012, 11:18:05 AM
There would be no problem if the OWS crowd protested legally. Tea party gatherings are held all over the country, but you don't hear of the disruption from them, like comes from the OWS crowd. Taking over public parks for weeks, occupying buildings they have no business in, taking over streets and sidewalks so that no one can pass, and destroying public property is not peaceful protesting. Not even close. Actually their message would be better, and louder if they didn't act like a bunch of animals.
Maybe I have been watching the wrong news reports. I'm sure CNN and MSNBC have footage of peaceful OWS crowds.
Has there been police hitting people at tea party rallies or stopping tea party rallies? I could be wrong but I have not heard of any thing like that at a tea party rally. If it didn't happen maybe there is a difference between tea party protesting and OWS protesting.
.
If the Tea Party was deemed a real threat to the Powers That Be and to their agenda, instead of adjuncts, I can guarrantee they would get their collective heads busted in, too; as well as be villified by the media. Guarrantee it .
.
Thing about demonstrations is when The Powers That Be see a real threat or challenge to their supremacy thats when the head busting begins.....to say , "this is what you get when you demonstrate against us or demand we clean up our act". And to that end the riots are often provoked by the PD, and that is a proven fact.
.
.
..TM7

The Tea Party was considered a threat to some & they were indeed villified by the media. Kinda hard to bash in heads thou when the Tea Party did not violate the law and did not even litter, we aren't there yet, maybe in another Obama term.

Conversely (different in every way) the OWS started having these problems AFTER they started crapping on everything in site & destroying property & breaking the law.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2012, 03:20:43 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on May 03, 2012, 02:40:06 AM

No doubt that OWS gets their heads cracked for what they say, believe, and present...no doubt whatsoever....that has been the method of authorites over the centuries....and no doubt professional agitators are sent in to set off these head busting sessions.
.
Tea Party was hardly ever presented in unfavorable light by media in the dialectic; and if it was it was 'light version' which actually added to their ranks by enhanced recruiting..The TP was purged of democratic and many libertarian elements and evolved into a mouthpiece for the Powers That Be crying out for 'smaller governmnet, cutting taxes on wealthy, continued wars, society austerity-end saftey nets, privatizations, reform SS and medicare, etc....and other corporacratic agendi claiming to be 'conservative'. And most TPers just want to be aligned with a group that is said to be 'conservative'...but really isn't and is just a front group for Oligrachy (which is really anti-democratic). TPers are the 'Tory" of our time.
That's why there are many ex-TPers...they figured it out!
.
...TM7

I think the Tea Party people look at reality and see that massive tax increases do nothing for the economy. That all big government does is make bigger government. That the lofty ideas to help the poor, educate, and protect the population only do more of the opposite than intended.
The welfare departments need more and more poor people to keep their depatements going and growing.
The education departments do more to indoctranate than educate and huge amounts of money are spent for a dwindeling product.
The FDA and EPA are being used to promte an adgenda rather then protect the population.
The Czars are an illegal government entity with out congressional oversite.

Spanky · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2012, 03:35:30 AM »

The OWS hoodlums seem to have no real agenda other than to cause trouble. I don't understand why someone would want to defend their "right" to do so.

Spanky

powderman · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2012, 03:35:56 PM »

Quote from: Spanky on May 03, 2012, 03:35:30 AM

The OWS hoodlums seem to have no real agenda other than to cause trouble. I don't understand why someone would want to defend their "right" to do so.

Spanky

Exactly right. If they were serious they'd be at the whitehouse and congress, thats where the real problems lie. I smell the dnc in this garbage stronger every day. POWDERMAN.

nomosendero · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2012, 03:39:32 PM »

Quote from: powderman on May 03, 2012, 03:35:56 PM

Quote from: Spanky on May 03, 2012, 03:35:30 AM
The OWS hoodlums seem to have no real agenda other than to cause trouble. I don't understand why someone would want to defend their "right" to do so.

Spanky

Exactly right. If they were serious they'd be at the whitehouse and congress, thats where the real problems lie. I smell the dnc in this garbage stronger every day. POWDERMAN.

I don't agree with that. Actually, most of them do have one common thread, ANTI-CAPITALISM.