dmp
Senior Member
tpahl said:In fact, most the ones that got violent and deserved arrest in the Seattle WTO riots were not democrats.
Right - they were merely "Liberals"
Do you REALLY think these guys are REPUBLICANS???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
tpahl said:In fact, most the ones that got violent and deserved arrest in the Seattle WTO riots were not democrats.
-=d=- said:Why not just answer the question?
You are in favour of the 'rights' of one group to trump the 'rights' of another. That's the wrong answer my friend.
-=d=- said:Right - they were merely "Liberals"
Do you REALLY think these guys are REPUBLICANS???
gop_jeff said:I favor the right to assemble peacefully. I also favor the right - and responsibility - of the police to prepare for the chance that some of the assemblers will not be peaceful.
Kathianne said:I begin the 'delusional' because you persist in presenting yourself as.
In this case, you are acting as if one person is wanting to make a statement in Central Park. A statement that is all talk and no 'incitement.' Problem is, there are another X number that want to do the later, which you are ignoring.
Can't let 'one' and not the 'rest.' Any 5 year old knows that. Which is the reason the court ruled as it did. d'oh!
That park is not 'manageable', which is necessary.
tpahl said:No am I am not. I am presenting an arguement. you insist however on declaring it delusional everytime i disagree with you. As a moderator I expect better from you.
I have not ignored that there are people out that that want to incite problems. I have simply been chosing to discuss the other people that are NOT doing such things and have no such plans to do so. They rights should not be restricted. What others plan to do is not of importance.
So you, the city of NY and I agree. They are going to have the right to protest. The point of difference comes in choice of venue; the city, the courts and many people who are for dissent, but not anarchy, agree that they should have the right to assemble and speak. They do not have the right to put the city in danger, nor the delegates.You can let EVERYONE peacefully assemble. In fact the government has a responsibility to protect that right. and it also has a reponsibility to stop anyone who is inciting violence. What does this mean in terms of the NYC GOP protests coming up? It means everyone should be able to go protest where they chose, assemble with whomever they chose, and say whatever they chose, so long as they do so peacefully and do not harm others or others property.
Wrong. It's 2004, not 1776. Too many people, too many types of weapons.There is no need for permits since it is a right, and there is CERTAINLY no need for denial of permits based on what people fear others might do.
Apples and oranges and you're still delusional.Then explain all the huge gatherings that have taken place almost daily in the summer for the past few decades in the park?
Kathianne said:As a spinmeister for a party, I expect better from you. So we get what we get.
Unfortunately, those that do not want to incite cannot necessarily be identified seperatly from those that do. Thus, in the interest of the 'whole' the protestors must be kept in an area that is 'manageable.'
So you, the city of NY and I agree. They are going to have the right to protest. The point of difference comes in choice of venue; the city, the courts and many people who are for dissent, but not anarchy, agree that they should have the right to assemble and speak. They do not have the right to put the city in danger, nor the delegates. [/quotes]
No, we do not agree. I think people have a right to assemble in public parks. The city does not.
Apples and oranges and you're still delusional.Wrong. It's 2004, not 1776. Too many people, too many types of weapons. [/qoute]
A right is a right regardless of the current year.
DKSuddeth said:Its going to happen, not because of violence per se, but because there is no permit the police will either cite them, or arrest them when they refuse to leave. then the court go-round begins and we'll be talking about the constitution alot.
theim said:Large wedding parties never attract hoardes of occasionaly violent people. Political gatherings frequently do.
Im interested in hearing your opinion on Democrats keeping protesters in fenced-off areas during the DNC.
Merlin1047 said:Not arguing with your statement as I know it to be true. But I wonder how government has managed to accrue to itself the power to "license" a right specifically stated in the in the amendments to the Constitution. Has government requirement to license public gatherings been tested by the Supreme Court? TPAHL's article makes a valid point with the statement ". . . it's not a right if you have to ask somebody's permission".
Government has somehow managed to tap dance its way around several amendments, most notably the first, second and fourth. To me, this represents a rather alarming trend. Both parties are at fault for this erosion of our rights.
I hope that after the election, some new, truly conservative political parties start actively pursuing voter interest instead of hibernating for another three years and coming out only at election time.
ScreamingEagle said:tphal, this may help make things CLEAR for you:
You forgot one word in your title "the right to assemble".
It is the right to PEACEFUL assembly.
Since you liberals have been VERY NAUGHTY in the past, you are GROUNDED from going to Central Park.
And that's all there is to it! Period! No whining!
Sane society's foot is put down until you liberals learn to behave better!
This would be a reasonable explanation for requiring that their be notification beforehand. However the city is asking for more than notification and money. They are asking that the people ask permission. The difference being that in once case notification is given and the government must accept it. In the case of NYC, they are denying the group from protesting.DKSuddeth said:I have no knowledge of any specific case that sanctions this but I seem to remember various arguments by cities/states that used security and extra police on hand requiring pre-knowledge of said event and the permit goes to providing funds to pay for the extra security forces. If i'm not mistaken, this has been won in the past by local and state governments.
tpahl said:Right, but NYC has denied them the permit to peacefully assemble. if they assemble and it some people are not peaceful, then by all means, arrest them. My whole arguement is that by requiring them to have a permit and then denying them a permit, they are denying their right to peacefully assemble. You are claiming that they can deny it based on the idea that others MIGHT come and be less than peaceful?
I am not a liberal. As I keep telling Kathianne, It is not nice to call people names. I would rather be called delusional than liberal. (unless you put the word classical before it).
Travis
Kathianne said:Wrong. Because of the 'given threats of violence' not to mention past history of political violence at conventions, (see Chicago 1968), the police not only have a right, but a duty to prevent this level of violence. That would not include prevention of demonstrations, but would include where and how such protests may be carried out. At the same time, that may entail a curbing of 'peaceful' people from venues thus closed. They should be given the same as the groups that have been 'corraled.'
tpahl said:So you are saying that we can protest but only how the government says, in numbers the government accepts, in locations acceptable to the government, and at a time the government feels like it.
How .
If I were still living in NYC, (thank god I am not) I would be going to central park to protest the ideas you just outlines above. Just as I protested the free speech zones they set up in seattle during the WTO riots.
tpahl said:Right, but NYC has denied them the permit to peacefully assemble. if they assemble and it some people are not peaceful, then by all means, arrest them. My whole arguement is that by requiring them to have a permit and then denying them a permit, they are denying their right to peacefully assemble. You are claiming that they can deny it based on the idea that others MIGHT come and be less than peaceful?
I am not a liberal. As I keep telling Kathianne, It is not nice to call people names. I would rather be called delusional than liberal. (unless you put the word classical before it).
Travis
Kathianne said:Not talking about HOW-other than lawful; numbers-not a factor other than in areas that can accomodate and still be 'managed.' Time doesn't seem to be a factor.
NYC has not asked for protestors to refrain from coming, just to follow the rules laid down for everyone's protection, most importantly, the greatest number of people who don't give a flying fuc*.