Egypt, Arab Spring and mass protests again

[Camaro]

QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Nov 26 2011, 02:33 PM) I can't reconcile these two quotes. $13m seems cheap when it comes to freedom of speech and the right to peaceably demonstrate.

I truly thought that Americans were better than this. I have become accustomed to us casually watching as our liberties are eroded while we play X-Box and wait for the next iPhone. But I really didn't think that you would stand for this.

The plight of Crony Capitalism/Fascism/Socialism saps us of our liberties and thus will to defend.

I don't see any inherent differences in my quotes.

Adept was stating that reducing our nuclear arms would somehow alleviate ourselves of our debt problems. I told him that was silly, that I was advocating massive amounts of spending cuts, and that adding that spending cut that he suggested would be a mere drop in the bucket. However never at any point did I disagree with cutting that spending either, just that it would have to be done in a more methodical fashion that actually cut costs rather than just shifting it around.

The $13m reference is a bill paid largely by CITIES. Which have a far smaller budget than the Federal Government. It is an EXPENSE, and since I am for CUTTING spending, I am obviously against unnecessary expenses as well.

The reference was more in irony of the subject. These people protest against corporations, rather than crony-capitalism which is a more fitting cause, and in turn end up having to foot a huge bill for themselves (well they don't, because a lot of them don't work, but us working types do).

[Duckwarrior]

You still have to stand up for their right to say it. I don't know where the $13m figure comes from. Have they figured the cost of laying the pavement they are sleeping on in to that, and charged out the pepper spray the cops have used on them? How have they cost $13m by sleeping in some tents?

Irrespective, the principal that they have the right to assemble and protest in a peaceful manner is the issue. I wasn't being sarcastic, America has a far better perspective on the value protecting free speech than we do in the UK. I purposely didn't say Europe because without EU legislation that our more enlightened neighbours have implemented, I can't imagine where we would be now.

I think we are in agreement, but you can't choose which causes are allowed these liberties and which aren't. I think the OWS people are naive idealists, but they must have the right to have their say, otherwise what is the difference between you and us and China and Iran?

Even if the bill so far is $13m, what is that to defend the principal of free speech when so many millions and billions are wasted on things that are much less important?

*edit: I drew attention to the quotes because "What is 35 billion on top of that" seemed an incongruous statement when you are claiming that $13m is a large amount.

[raumvogel]

If we eliminated corruption from the top down, we'd save TRILLIONS, then we could afford to "waste" 13 mil. on those "Dirty hippies who should get a job". And then they wouldn't be able to yammer about their liberties being stolen.

[Camaro]

Unfortunately the OWS protests have crossed into the grey territory of health concerns... an issue the Tea Party never had.

I realize they have every right to protest, I am just pointing out the irony of the increased burden being placed on the 99% to pay for their protests & foot the medical bill for some of their shenanigans*.

*I assume that it is mostly the results of the crazy's who always pop up whenever a protest is being held regardless of the intent of the protest.

[Jimen]

QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Nov 27 2011, 06:26 AM) You still have to stand up for their right to say it. I don't know where the $13m figure comes from. Have they figured the cost of laying the pavement they are sleeping on in to that, and charged out the pepper spray the cops have used on them? How have they cost $13m by sleeping in some tents?

Police officers are getting @#(!loads of overtime pay for maintaining a 24/7 show of presence, being paid big money for standing around in numbers and occasionally harassing the OWS crowds. Moreover, police departments tend to work with the officers to encourage those kinds of oversize paychecks; PDs like to use up every dollar of taxpayer money they can get away with, and corruption isn't uncommon. I wouldn't be surprised if some NYPD officers managed to rack up double their usual pay last month.

Besides, Occupy is a nationwide movement which has continued for seventy-two days, taking place in hundreds of cities across the country. Add together those city-by-city costs on a day-by-day basis, and you can come up with a pretty big number...but so what? It's a national nonviolent protest movement! Nobody whined about the cost of providing security for the Tea Party!

QUOTE (Camaro)I realize they have every right to protest, I am just pointing out the irony of the increased burden being placed on the 99% to pay for their protests & foot the medical bill for some of their shenanigans*.[/quote]

47% of the 99% are too poor to pay any federal income tax. Some of the 1% pay little or no tax as well, of course, but for different reasons entirely. Unfortunately, of course, local governments tend to favor regressive taxes a lot more than progressive ones, imposing sales taxes as well as mandatory fees in order to make enough surplus that they can offer tax incentives to Wal-Mart and other big businesses. If the cities decide once more to make up for spending by taxing the 99% while continuing to give favorable treatment to the 1%, well, that's what OWS is protesting against in the first place.

[Viscur]

Remember when this topic was about egypt?

[Jimen]

QUOTE (Viscur @ Nov 27 2011, 05:20 PM) Remember when this topic was about egypt?

Remember when mass protests were mostly confined to third-world countries like Egypt and France?

[takingarms1]

At first blush I agree that it makes not a whole lot of sense to forcibly evict the occupy protesters. On the other side of things though, when does one man's protest start impinging on the rights of others? I was reading an article about the eviction notices served on the LA protesters. Apparently They've been sitting in this public park for two months completely undisturbed. Two frigging months. What about everyone else's right to use that park and not have to dodge tents and protesters and such? What about the sanitary issues of having hundreds of people sleeping in a public park for months?

It would be one thing if on the day these protests started, we steamrolled them over with force. But while I am uncomfortable with removing these protesters with the use of force, I question whether it makes sense to allow them to indefinitely camp out, particularly when they themselves have not established a set goal or timeline. After two months of this crap protest, i think it make some sense for the authorities to say, ok, enough is enough, move along people.

[Jimen]

MY RIGHT TO NOT BE MILDLY INCONVENIENCED BY OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO USE A SPACE I MIGHT SOMEDAY ACTUALLY PASS THROUGH. Except not really, because everybody knows that only hipsters and hippies actually visit parks.

[Mastametz]

This whole thing is stupid.
I'm all for making a difference and standing up for principles and this and that but this is just a complete and utter waste of time and money on everyone's part.

the only thing that will really make a difference EVER is when people finally do get fed up enough that we start blasting the heads off of anyone who stands to make money off of our plight
that's where it starts
but we're not nearly there yet