On 10/27/11 4:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?


Quan, Under Attack, Changes Course on Occupy Oakland
Mayor reopens plaza to protesters, promises dialogue and "minimum police
presence" if demonstrations stay peaceful



By Shoshana Walter on October 27, 2011 - 12:08 a.m. PDT


Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, under attack from inside and outside her
administration, announced late Wednesday that Occupy Oakland can return
to the plaza in front of City Hall, an abrupt reversal that followed a
night of street violence Tuesday and widespread criticism over her
handling of the crisis.

As more than 1,000 people descended on Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Wednesday
night, Quan called for "a minimum police presence" and said nonviolent
protesters would be allowed to re-occupy the area near City Hall. One
day earlier, with Quan's authorization, 400 police officers had
dismantled the tent city.

Quan has been facing a growing firestorm over what some describe as a
tentative, out-of-touch approach to the crisis. Earlier, Quan admitted
that she had not known that police were planning to evict the protesters
early Tuesday morning, saying only that she had signed off on the plan.

Dan Siegel, the mayor's longtime friend and legal adviser, said he was
considering resigning over the raid. He added that city officials were
divided over how to handle Occupy Oakland.

“I think a big mistake was made yesterday. A big mistake,” Siegel said
during an appearance on the plaza. “I have made that clear to the mayor.”

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

On 10/27/2011 4:46 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

Not what they might do, what they were doing. Marching on Police....

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Obama should just give them a bunch of money. Problem solved.

On 10/27/11 4:48 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/27/2011 4:46 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

Not what they might do, what they were doing. Marching on Police....

Is that anything like behaving so badly at a police station that the
police push you down the stairs, or being stopped by the police and
relieved of $600 because they think you look like a drug dealer?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:12:25 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:46:37 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

The article I read says they were attempting to reenter the park that
they had been kicked out of.

Of course that was on the right wing MSNBC so who knows.

Would you feel as supportive if this was a group trying to put up
Christmas decorations in the park? How about if it was the tea party?
I am sure you would be lecturing us on the limits of free speech and
the rule of law.

I don't think illegally putting up Christmas decorations warrants tear
gas cannisters to the head.

The teabaggers are welcome to march and I'm actually fine if they
decided their cause was so important that they were willing to sleep
outdoors and cause a ruckus. I disagree with their agenda but that's
not a reason to promote violence on behalf of the police.

You're right, I have problems with free speech when it's Nazi's doing
the talking but I didn't write the laws.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:12:25 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:46:37 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...


Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

The article I read says they were attempting to reenter the park that
they had been kicked out of.

Of course that was on the right wing MSNBC so who knows.

Would you feel as supportive if this was a group trying to put up
Christmas decorations in the park? How about if it was the tea party?
I am sure you would be lecturing us on the limits of free speech and
the rule of law.
The city had erected a chain-link fence around the plaza in the
morning, and workers were mowing the grass and sweeping up remnants of
the encampment that was dismantled the day before. After the
encampment was cleared Tuesday, protesters began marching toward City
Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the
disbanded camp.

They went overboard. There was no threat to property, lives, etc.

You just don't like the message, aparently.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:32:37 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:50:09 -0700, jps wrote:


The city had erected a chain-link fence around the plaza in the
morning, and workers were mowing the grass and sweeping up remnants of
the encampment that was dismantled the day before. After the
encampment was cleared Tuesday, protesters began marching toward City
Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the
disbanded camp.

They went overboard. There was no threat to property, lives, etc.

You just don't like the message, aparently.

I haven't heard the message. This is just a rabble lashing out in the
dark at boogie men they can't even define. Why don't they go down and
protest in front of their doctor's office. He is a 1 percenter who is
driving up the cost of medical care, as are the 1 percenter lawyers.
Why not protest Apple, Microsoft and Google who made billions selling
them their gadgets while shipping all the jobs offshore?
If they are ****ed about their $100,000 college loan, why not protest
in front of the college that took all that money and still sent them
out into the world without any job skills?
I doubt anyone at the Oakland City Hall did anything to cause all of
their problems yet they are the ones who are having to tolerate the
protesters.

You just want to bitch instead of finding out what they're protesting.

They want to get the money out of politics and its effect on how the
country is run.

That simple enough for you?

On Oct 27, 10:15*pm, jps wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:32:37 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:50:09 -0700, jps wrote:

The city had erected a chain-link fence around the plaza in the
morning, and workers were mowing the grass and sweeping up remnants of
the encampment that was dismantled the day before. After the
encampment was cleared Tuesday, protesters began marching toward City
Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the
disbanded camp.

They went overboard. *There was no threat to property, lives, etc.

You just don't like the message, aparently.

I haven't heard the message. This is just a rabble lashing out in the
dark at boogie men they can't even define. Why don't they go down and
protest in front of their doctor's office. He is a 1 percenter who is
driving up the cost of medical care, as are the 1 percenter lawyers.
Why not protest Apple, Microsoft and Google who made billions selling
them their gadgets while shipping all the jobs offshore?
If they are ****ed about their $100,000 college loan, why not protest
in front of the college that took all that money and still sent them
out into the world without any job skills?
I doubt anyone at the Oakland City Hall did anything to cause all of
their problems yet they are the ones who are having to tolerate the
protesters.

You just want to bitch instead of finding out what they're protesting.

They want to get the money out of politics and its effect on how the
country is run.

That simple enough for you?

You just want to bitch and moan and play the bleeding heart.

That simple enough for you?

On Oct 27, 6:50*pm, jps wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:22:19 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:12:25 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:46:37 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:25:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:04:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:14:23 -0700, jps wrote:

Paranoid city officials tightening people's ability to peacefully
assemble on public property...

Since when has "camping" been "speech"?

These people are being told to leave the park at night when they are
supposed to be closed.
Are we going to set the precedent that anyone can sleep in city parks
if they claim to have something to say?
People, go home and come back tomorrow when the park opens again.
Nobody is going to be there at 3AM to hear your protest but the cops
and maybe a few vagrants.

They were marching in the street, heading towards the park. *Your
argument has nothing to do with the right to peacfully assemble.

Was the park they were heading for supposed to be closed?

Come on, Greg. *That's really a flimsy argument.

They were protesting, walking on public streets. *You cannot arrest
them, beat them up or fire a tear gas cannisters at their heads for
what they might do.

The article I read says they were attempting to reenter the park that
they had been kicked out of.

Of course that was on the right wing MSNBC so who knows.

Would you feel as supportive if this was a group trying to put up
Christmas decorations in the park? How about if it was the tea party?
I am sure you would be lecturing us on the limits of free speech and
the rule of law.
The city had erected a chain-link fence around the plaza in the
morning, and workers were mowing the grass and sweeping up remnants of
the encampment that was dismantled the day before. After the
encampment was cleared Tuesday, protesters began marching toward City
Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the
disbanded camp.

They went overboard. *There was no threat to property, lives, etc.

You just don't like the message, aparently.

You just don't like it because the majority of Americans feel *the
message* is worthless.