• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Occupy reality

Yesterday I meant to comment on The Journal Gazette's Sunday editorial about Occupy Fort Wayne, but time slipped away from me. The piece is a rather hamfisted exercise in belaboring the obvious:

Under the U.S. Constitution

Comments

Christopher Swing
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:43pm

"It is that they are treated differently, allowed to take a pass on the rules and regulations the rest of us have to follow."

Yes, you're as wrong as they are. They're not being treated differently, since they haven't tried to do the same thing.

"And it was underscored nicely by the conservatives who rented Headwaters Park and pointedly paid the fee for using it, forcing the non-fee-paying Occupiers to move to Freimann Square."

Which actually proves that point. They decided to do something different (mostly out of petty spite) so they can't really complain that they were treated differently, can they?

When they do the same thing with a different result, then they (and you) can make this complaint.

Tim Zank
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:47pm

Swinglet, one group obeys the law, the other breaks the law.

The group that breaks the law gets a pass.

What part of that is unclear?

gadfly
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:49pm

Mr Swing:

Prior to the OFW, all users of Headwater's main pavilion paid to rent the facility and provided necessary insurance to protect property and participants.

So tell me one more time which organization(s) did something different. Here is a hint. OFW paid nothing to use a park building built by taxpayers for the enjoyment of all taxpayers.

Tim Zank
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:57pm

gad, the leeches don't think they have to pay for anything, they think everybody owes them.

Bob G.
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:18pm

Leo:
I think the phrase we're searching for is:
DOUBLE-STANDARD...!
(as in, we have way too many going on in America these days)

And BTW, "Peace Through Appeasement" doesn't work worth a damn.

Right to Assemble? Yes.
Right to Occupy? No.
The Nazis knew the difference...and the people of Poland and France found that out.
Ditto for the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.
Ask them.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:20pm

Yes, Gadfly. Citizens used a public park to exercise their First Amendment rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, which isn't trumped by local ordinance.

Until the other group chooses to do the same thing and is treated differently, they can't claim to have been treated differently.

The people before who went along with the rental scheme weren't doing so to stage a protest, were they? Not the same thing.

Sounds more like whiny little jerks complaining after the fact because they weren't smart enough to understand their own rights.

Rob
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:44pm

Real capitalism would not have landed us in this mess.
I believe that what we currently have is not real capitalism,
but a mixture of debt, cronyism, and corruption.
I also believe the occupyfort wayne movement was being dragged
down by a Camping problem. Headwaters park is hidden.
and now at Freimann square they seem to mark time there now ?
I support OFW and AVERAGE JOE ! you need to step up and help show most SUPPORTERS are not all homeless and hijacked by far left social ideas, as a matter of fact a lot of the supporters are all well employed working people. Those who are homeless, are homeless because of the system.

Tim Zank
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:30pm

Nice try Swingset, talk about obtuse excuses.

Every group has always had to follow the rules, laws, and requirements of holding a rally in that location (permits, fees, insurance, curfews etc). Along come the "OWS'ers" and declre themelves exempt?

Nope. You're not exempt. You want to ride the train? Buy a ticket like everyone else. This doesn't have a freaking thing to do with 1st amendment "rights".

Here's a simple analogy that should hit home with even you. 30 people decide they like your front yard as a location for their protest (doesn't matter the cause) and set up camp for two months. You ok with that?

Christopher Swing
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:43pm

Now Tim, you've been told about not talking to people on the internet in a manner you wouldn't to their face.

What people are forgetting to ask here is if the local government has a compelling interest in even demanding the liability insurance in the first place. As for the fee, that's perfectly reasonable if you want guaranteed exclusive use of the public property for the proscribed time. You'll note that the OFW folks cooperated when someone paid that fee for temporary exclusive access. Hardly breaking the law there.

"Here

Tim Zank
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:44pm

Here's where your logic (or lack therof) falls apart again. Public property belongs to a group of people, the public. That group of people have the say so in how that property is used (the public) i.e. permits, time frames, regulations, rules, etc. The public pays the police to enforce those rules they have chosen.

You guys didn't abide by the rules, you should have been summarily evicted but the administration let you slide. That is unfair. Period.

Groups of people can't simply "take over" and "occupy" other peoples property. Period.

You want to protest? Fine. Get a permit and march and chant all you want, if you want to whip out your sleeping bag and fire up the sterno cans then go to a campground, not a public city park where it is against the law.

You are not above the law. Period.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:04pm

Public property is for the use of the public, Tim. The government can restrict the use of of a public park to a reasonable extent, but you don't even seem to get the limits of that. You sound like a whiny little kid crying about how unfair it is that you're not getting your way and those people you don't like aren't getting into trouble! :D

It's hilarious to watch you backpedal like that, though. You've totally abandoned your example that used private property in the first place. XD

It doesn't matter anyway. You see that the protests go on and you're powerless to stop it. You should count yourself lucky, though. At least Henry is smart enough not to pull a Bloomberg and make things worse for people like you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoG9PmdGaT8

You want to restrict the First Amendment expression of people you don't agree with? Maybe you should go out and protest yourself, Tim, instead of making yourself look stupid on the internet. ;D

Tim Zank
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:42pm

Swinkles, this is why people like you never win. You and your "group" are not smart enough to understand normal regular civilized people. We all have families, lives to lead, bills to pay, jobs to go to, and rules to follow.

We don't have the time to gather in parks and pretend there is some great battle to be fought in the hopes it will validate an empty life, we already have lives. All you accomplish is the short lived sense of camaraderie that accompanies being in a "group", much like a "clique" in high school.

Most folks grow out of it, maybe you will too someday.

Oh, and you might want to brush up on the 1st amendment because you are obviously clueless as to what it is.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:29pm

[Really, Tim? You have to be reminded again about being a gutless little boy on the internet? You'd never be brave enough to address people like that face to face. You shouldn't do it here. It only reflects on you.]

If this is all so short-lived, Tim, why is it still going on? You don't know, do you?

Ah Tim, but you still haven't shown how there's any compelling government interest for the laws you keep yapping about. (Hint: revenue generation is not a compelling interest for T/P/M restrictions.) You do know about serving a compelling government interest, minimum restrictions, relative protection of speech on a continuum from from say political to commercial, and T/P/M restrictions, right?

Those concepts probably aren't covered in an online dictionary definition of the First Amendment, so I can understand if you're unaware of them... Clueless, even. :D

But like we need Bloomberg, we need useful idiots like you, Tim Zank. The more you make an ass of yourself the more you help OWS. And we thank you for that. :)

Andrew J
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:41pm

"public property belongs to a group of people, the public." so tim, doesnt that public land belong to the protesters as well, since they also are the public?

Tim Zank
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:33am

Ohhhhh, twinkles down Swinger again...

"Those concepts probably aren

Christopher Swing
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:51am

Wow, Tim Zank. You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, do you? Or are you still sore about the whole online dictionary thing? :D

Harl Delos
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:28am

I was standing by myself on the sidewalk, waiting for my wife to come out of the store. A cop walks up to me and orders me to disperse.

Maybe I need to go on a diet?

Christopher Swing
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:49am

(No, seriously Tim, explain to us how "concepts" is "the operative word" in that sentence. You don't even know what that means, do you? This should be nothing but COMEDY.) :D

Tim Zank
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 7:36pm

"Andrew J Says:

November 16th, 2011 at 10:41 pm

Tim Zank
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 9:37pm

This will win people over.

Christopher Swing
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 2:17am

Oh Tim. You keep missing the point that the rules have to be constitutional, and adhere to the First Amendment in the first place.

For some reason, you can't seem to comprehend that. :D

So you basically don't understand that the concepts that I listed are parts of the First Amendment?

Basically you just proved that you're an idiot that doesn't even understand that you proved you know less about the First Amendment than the person you accused of not understanding it.

And you went out of your way to do so!

No Tim, concepts aren't the law. Those were all concepts that are part of it!

But by all means, do keep talking. It's entertaining watching Tim Zank, RE/Max Realtor, make a constitutional ass of himself. XD

Quantcast