But something like 60% of the voting-age "99%" don't bother to cast a vote. Because it's easier to bitch than it is to be informed, and involved with the political process.
Because there's no one worth voting for. In the last presidential election there was at least a plausible chance of electing someone worthwhile, and voter turnout was correspondingly high.
Of course, what we got is more of the same. But the point stands, give people someone worth voting for and they'll show up.
Yes, it was hurting the Democrat's image. Specifically by telling the truth and making people aware that Democrats support and protect the 1% every bit as much as the Republicans do.
This isn't civil disobedience. This is a constitutionally protected peaceable assembly. The ones breaking the law here are the city governments and police.
It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.
It doesn't say anything about NOT turning a public park into an encampment. Camping in a public park is a peaceable assembly, therefore Congress can make no law prohibiting it. End of story.
Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.
No, no you don't really. If you did, you'd realize that the inconvenience caused by OWS is negligible compared to the evil done by those on Wall Street. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
OWS protesters are citizens too. You're advocating that they be denied use of the park. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
OWS protesters don't scare people. What scares people is what OWS protesters are doing to cities.
What Occupy protesters have done to our cities is insignificant compared to what those on Wall Street have done to our country.
However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.
Because they understand that in capitalism money makes money faster than honest labor. Capitalism will always end up pooling resources in the hands of the few. This will always give them undue influence in the political process. You can't have a government for the people when you have an economy for the few.
We tried democratic capitalism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian socialism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian capitalism, it didn't work. Isn't it about time we tried democratic socialism?
Yes, and like all fanboys, they have the emotional maturity of a toddler. Which just happens to be the problem with the first two seasons of Torchwood. When Captain Jack Harkness is your most believable character, you know you have a problem.
Funny. I have feelings and thoughts too, and it's clear to me that this shouldn't be a crime. Perhaps that we have feelings and thoughts on the issue is besides the point, and what actually matters is the content and validity of those thoughts and feelings.
Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime
Yes, but we were talking "should", not "is" or "could be".
The rest of your post... yes, TOS is not a contract, it's even less binding than a contract. So breach of TOS should be less severe than breach of contract, which is not a crime.
The rest of it is a bunch of hand waving about letting the courts hash it out. Putting aside the fact that legislating from the bench is undemocratic, I still don't see any actual argument here for actually considering TOS breach a crime. If this is so clear to you, why do you have trouble articulating it?
If you can convince voters to spend $10 on getting a president who works for the people, then you can outspend both parties.
Great idea. First it will take some money in order to reach every voter. I'd say about $10/voter should do it.
The real money that's fixing the system isn't the campaign contributions that fund political ads. It's the corporate news networks framing the debate. How much does it cost to get the MSM to call the rich "fat cats" and not "job creators" anymore?
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime
Why is that clear?
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.
That sounds like a tort to me.
The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.
Not every contract violation is a crime, nor should it be.
That doesn't really make it any better. The DOJ knows this interpretation is invalid, and will still prosecute you under it, costing you god knows how much in your own defense.
Which bar association do we have to complain to to get these attorneys properly rebuked?
This is true. I would have lost respect for Doctor Who with that episode, if I thought they were trying to do something respectful. They deliberately throw in trite shit like that to make it more kid friendly. Ignore those episodes and focus on the good ones.
They also went through all the required planning and permitting
The first amendment is our permit. Any law that violates the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and this is a peaceable assembly is unconstitutional. The police are the ones breaking the law here.
They attended rallies and town hall meetings.... and then went home.
Yes, exactly. The Tea Partiers didn't demand real change. They just threw their fit and went back to voting Republican. That's the only kind of protest you can have in modern America.
They (as a group) didnt threaten anyone, nor did the openly call for the overthrow of any system or government.
Does "We came unarmed, this time" ring a bell? They coopted the name of the most famous act of civil disobedience in our history, that lead directly to the revolution.
I also don't see any exemptions in the first amendment allowing government to silence people who call for the overthrow of the government. Considering the history of the first amendment, that would seem to be the entire point actually.
Conversely, Ocuppy Wall Street has hosted speeches calling for violence and revolution
And the government has responded to constitutionally protected speech with actual violence.
They have actually called for dragging people into the streets and bringing back the guillotine. When confronted, Occupy leaders have failed to denounce these items, implicitely condoning them.
I explicitly condone this rhetoric. If the justice system cannot try these criminals, it falls on the people to demand justice. Don't blame the people for the failings of the justice system.
Or maybe you could try turning on the TV, and observe that there is no interruption to the news coverage, and that particular sentence was supplied without any source or citation because it's complete and utter bullshit.
Sure, turn on the TV. See any news helicopters?
You might also be interested in looking up the definition of the word temporary . It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.
It might help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you understood that authorities lie all the time.
You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.
Great, let's move it to public property then. How about... the sidewalk in front of the NYSE? I think we'd all be happier with that, right?
We don't any political power, that's why we're in this mess. The American people voted for hope and change by a landslide, they got Reagan IV. The political process simply doesn't work anymore.
As for your other slur, when there's 6:1 contention for every open job, there's a bigger problem than can be solved by just going out and looking for work. If all these people did nothing but look for work, 85% of them would still be unemployed, and no one would notice because they wouldn't be on the news. How would that be better?
Inequality isn't going away just because you're tired of the protesters. If you want the protesters to go away, work with them to end inequality. If all you want is for them to shut up and go away, well that's what the 1% want too.
If you actually have some suggestions on how to better address inequality, everyone would love to hear them.
Of course the Tea Party didn't have any problems. They were protesting to make corporate power stronger.
Out of curiosity, what rights of others would I trample on by carrying a sign on public property? How do you argue that that right trumps my first amendment rights?
Is that really the tack you want to take? It's not that the American people are ignorant, it's that they are actually complicit in the war crimes of their leaders?
By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property.
Yes, a piece of paper with squiggles on it is property. If you bought the paper and made the squiggles it is your property. If you sell the paper to me, and I make another identical piece of paper with squiggles on it, it is my property. If you claim that you retain some right over those particular squiggles, you are limiting my fundamental property rights.
But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations?
Obviously you should have the right to your own creation. But once you sell that creation to someone, and they use it as the basis for one of their creations then they have the right to that creation.
Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy
It seems to me the prerequisites for a functioning democracy are the free exchange of ideas and the right to vote. How does property have anything to do with it?
Slashdot Mirror
But something like 60% of the voting-age "99%" don't bother to cast a vote. Because it's easier to bitch than it is to be informed, and involved with the political process.
Because there's no one worth voting for. In the last presidential election there was at least a plausible chance of electing someone worthwhile, and voter turnout was correspondingly high.
Of course, what we got is more of the same. But the point stands, give people someone worth voting for and they'll show up.
Yes, it was hurting the Democrat's image. Specifically by telling the truth and making people aware that Democrats support and protect the 1% every bit as much as the Republicans do.
This isn't civil disobedience. This is a constitutionally protected peaceable assembly. The ones breaking the law here are the city governments and police.
It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.
It doesn't say anything about NOT turning a public park into an encampment. Camping in a public park is a peaceable assembly, therefore Congress can make no law prohibiting it. End of story.
Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.
No, no you don't really. If you did, you'd realize that the inconvenience caused by OWS is negligible compared to the evil done by those on Wall Street. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
OWS protesters are citizens too. You're advocating that they be denied use of the park. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
OWS protesters don't scare people. What scares people is what OWS protesters are doing to cities.
What Occupy protesters have done to our cities is insignificant compared to what those on Wall Street have done to our country.
However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.
Because they understand that in capitalism money makes money faster than honest labor. Capitalism will always end up pooling resources in the hands of the few. This will always give them undue influence in the political process. You can't have a government for the people when you have an economy for the few.
We tried democratic capitalism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian socialism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian capitalism, it didn't work. Isn't it about time we tried democratic socialism?
Yes, and like all fanboys, they have the emotional maturity of a toddler. Which just happens to be the problem with the first two seasons of Torchwood. When Captain Jack Harkness is your most believable character, you know you have a problem.
It's clear because I have feelings and thoughts.
Funny. I have feelings and thoughts too, and it's clear to me that this shouldn't be a crime. Perhaps that we have feelings and thoughts on the issue is besides the point, and what actually matters is the content and validity of those thoughts and feelings.
Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime
Yes, but we were talking "should", not "is" or "could be".
The rest of your post... yes, TOS is not a contract, it's even less binding than a contract. So breach of TOS should be less severe than breach of contract, which is not a crime.
The rest of it is a bunch of hand waving about letting the courts hash it out. Putting aside the fact that legislating from the bench is undemocratic, I still don't see any actual argument here for actually considering TOS breach a crime. If this is so clear to you, why do you have trouble articulating it?
If you can convince voters to spend $10 on getting a president who works for the people, then you can outspend both parties.
Great idea. First it will take some money in order to reach every voter. I'd say about $10/voter should do it.
The real money that's fixing the system isn't the campaign contributions that fund political ads. It's the corporate news networks framing the debate. How much does it cost to get the MSM to call the rich "fat cats" and not "job creators" anymore?
There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege
Ron Paul isn't any of those. He's just against federal funding for any of those.
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime
Why is that clear?
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.
That sounds like a tort to me.
The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.
Not every contract violation is a crime, nor should it be.
That doesn't really make it any better. The DOJ knows this interpretation is invalid, and will still prosecute you under it, costing you god knows how much in your own defense.
Which bar association do we have to complain to to get these attorneys properly rebuked?
This is true. I would have lost respect for Doctor Who with that episode, if I thought they were trying to do something respectful. They deliberately throw in trite shit like that to make it more kid friendly. Ignore those episodes and focus on the good ones.
Miracle Day was still better than the first two seasons of Torchwood. WTF was that?!?
They also went through all the required planning and permitting
The first amendment is our permit. Any law that violates the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and this is a peaceable assembly is unconstitutional. The police are the ones breaking the law here.
They attended rallies and town hall meetings.... and then went home.
Yes, exactly. The Tea Partiers didn't demand real change. They just threw their fit and went back to voting Republican. That's the only kind of protest you can have in modern America.
They (as a group) didnt threaten anyone, nor did the openly call for the overthrow of any system or government.
Does "We came unarmed, this time" ring a bell? They coopted the name of the most famous act of civil disobedience in our history, that lead directly to the revolution.
I also don't see any exemptions in the first amendment allowing government to silence people who call for the overthrow of the government. Considering the history of the first amendment, that would seem to be the entire point actually.
Conversely, Ocuppy Wall Street has hosted speeches calling for violence and revolution
And the government has responded to constitutionally protected speech with actual violence.
They have actually called for dragging people into the streets and bringing back the guillotine. When confronted, Occupy leaders have failed to denounce these items, implicitely condoning them.
I explicitly condone this rhetoric. If the justice system cannot try these criminals, it falls on the people to demand justice. Don't blame the people for the failings of the justice system.
Or maybe you could try turning on the TV, and observe that there is no interruption to the news coverage, and that particular sentence was supplied without any source or citation because it's complete and utter bullshit.
Sure, turn on the TV. See any news helicopters?
You might also be interested in looking up the definition of the word temporary . It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.
It might help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you understood that authorities lie all the time.
You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.
Great, let's move it to public property then. How about... the sidewalk in front of the NYSE? I think we'd all be happier with that, right?
If the People retained their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble on public property, they wouldn't have to do it on private property.
We don't any political power, that's why we're in this mess. The American people voted for hope and change by a landslide, they got Reagan IV. The political process simply doesn't work anymore.
As for your other slur, when there's 6:1 contention for every open job, there's a bigger problem than can be solved by just going out and looking for work. If all these people did nothing but look for work, 85% of them would still be unemployed, and no one would notice because they wouldn't be on the news. How would that be better?
Inequality isn't going away just because you're tired of the protesters. If you want the protesters to go away, work with them to end inequality. If all you want is for them to shut up and go away, well that's what the 1% want too.
If you actually have some suggestions on how to better address inequality, everyone would love to hear them.
Of course the Tea Party didn't have any problems. They were protesting to make corporate power stronger.
Out of curiosity, what rights of others would I trample on by carrying a sign on public property? How do you argue that that right trumps my first amendment rights?
Is that really the tack you want to take? It's not that the American people are ignorant, it's that they are actually complicit in the war crimes of their leaders?
Suicides don't happen out of the blue. It might be a surprise for everyone but the subject, but it's not "out of the blue".
By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property.
Yes, a piece of paper with squiggles on it is property. If you bought the paper and made the squiggles it is your property. If you sell the paper to me, and I make another identical piece of paper with squiggles on it, it is my property. If you claim that you retain some right over those particular squiggles, you are limiting my fundamental property rights.
But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations?
Obviously you should have the right to your own creation. But once you sell that creation to someone, and they use it as the basis for one of their creations then they have the right to that creation.
Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy
It seems to me the prerequisites for a functioning democracy are the free exchange of ideas and the right to vote. How does property have anything to do with it?
Please Google, finish and polish what you start before releasing them!
That would be the swedish thing they could do.
Sounds like racketeering to me.