- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
We aren't speaking of general nuisance however, these protesters are keeping the cleanup crews from performing their duty of maintaining the space, as well there is apparantly littering which is a crime and remaining after forbidden, these are minor criminal acts but they are far past being just a general nuisance.
We aren't speaking of general nuisance however, these protesters are keeping the cleanup crews from performing their duty of maintaining the space, as well there is apparantly littering which is a crime and remaining after forbidden, these are minor criminal acts but they are far past being just a general nuisance.
The Clinton justice department interpreted provisions of the CRA and selectively applied it to threats of force.Come on; the CRA did not force banks to lend to anyone.
It isn't my logic, it is the law.
It is very simple to understand. The flea baggers can shout, scream, say, print what ever they want and no one will stop them. They just have to leave the park. The right of free speech does not convey the right to make someone listen to it.
If they keep the park from being properly maintained then it suffers damage, that diminishes the park for everyone else. So yes, it does in fact excuse the "oppression" and "suppression" of these jackasses little tirade. Frankly if you want to call something oppressive, how about a mob taunting people in their own homes as a result of these protests, you okay with that?I do not see how those minor criminal acts excuse on the whole the oppression and suppression of assembly and protest.
Fine, when the judge tells you it's okay that you logically don't have to lose your property because the law wasn't something you agree with then we'll talk, the fact is whether you agree with it or not you are responsible to follow it.I also find that logic to be very dangerous. The law in and of itself is not good enough excuse to infringe upon the rights of others. It should always be brought back to the rights of the individual, not appeal to authority.
If they keep the park from being properly maintained then it suffers damage, that diminishes the park for everyone else. So yes, it does in fact excuse the "oppression" and "suppression" of these jackasses little tirade. Frankly if you want to call something oppressive, how about a mob taunting people in their own homes as a result of these protests, you okay with that?
Understand I am not calling you anything, rather some of the people at these protests who have no clue of what they speak. Most of these people are grossly uninformed thus I call them jackasses. I understand your principles on this but these protesters are actually in favor of more government intervention, what they don't understand is they are using their liberties to take liberties so I have no sympathy for them. The other point is you don't have to pay for their damages, the private company does, and I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate the bill in the name of these protesters "rights".Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
The property damage to the public land can be fixed. I'd rather pay to clean up afterwards than to disassemble assembly and protest rights. Those are far too important to waste on petty arguments like littering.
Understand I am not calling you anything, rather some of the people at these protests who have no clue of what they speak. Most of these people are grossly uninformed thus I call them jackasses. I understand your principles on this but these protesters are actually in favor of more government intervention, what they don't understand is they are using their liberties to take liberties so I have no sympathy for them. The other point is you don't have to pay for their damages, the private company does, and I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate the bill in the name of these protesters "rights".
How is Wall Street not responsible for their own actions?
What part of "private property" needs to be explained?
The Clinton justice department interpreted provisions of the CRA and selectively applied it to threats of force.
Free speech has already been addressed in the 1900's by many legal scholars and it's limits are set. Once you are asked to leave an area by an authority you no longer have free speech in that area, the people trying to maintain the park are the authority and the protesters were asked to leave. Now, I am all for speech I don't agree with, I will just issue my own speech when the counter is warranted, these people overstayed their welcome and that is the real issue, they are a nuisance and thus they must move their free speech to a new venue, it's not that they can't spout off their idiocy elsewhere, they just can't do it at that location. These people are whining about an inconvenience at best.They can be in favor of whatever. Assembly and protest are some of our most important rights, and I'll argue for anyone to be able to use them; particularly on public land, even if I don't agree with their message. It's essential. We cannot allow it to be infringed upon.
Then we'll just have to disagree as I see free speech as things that don't inflict direct harm, the owners are being harmed thus they have a right to end the harm.They may not appreciate the bill, but they yielded the land through contract, as they have the right to do. And once yielded, it was then public space. And public space may be used for assembly and protest. I would say freely. This is a consequence of freedom and I will gladly accept it.
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.Nonsense; you cannot force a bank to lend.
It's a well knwn fact.
The Libbos wanted everyone to own a house.
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.
It is not a limit on free speech and you know it. It is a limit on access to a parcel of PRIVATE property and that is it. If the flea baggers do not understand this maybe they are the ones with the problem.
You are comparing apples to Cadillacs. That point has no bearing on the conversation whatsoever, please address the point.
You can if you threaten them with endless investigations. Even if a bank or mortgage company has done nothing wrong the bills pile up to prove it.
It is very simple to understand. The flea baggers can shout, scream, say, print what ever they want and no one will stop them. They just have to leave the park. The right of free speech does not convey the right to make someone listen to it.
Here: Community Reinvestment Act Notice PdfGreat - then it should be really really easy for you to provide the verifiable evidence of it then.
again - your statement
And now the proof.......
Brokers still have to go through agencies that issue loans under the regulatory auhority, Brokers are client representatives not independent lenders.Over half of all subprime loans originated from non-bank entities who fall outside that regulatory environment. 80% of all adjustable rate, subprime mortgages originated from non-bank mortgage brokers.
Fine, when the judge tells you it's okay that you logically don't have to lose your property because the law wasn't something you agree with then we'll talk, the fact is whether you agree with it or not you are responsible to follow it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?