Who is right?
By laglen
@laglen (19759)
United States
November 20, 2011 8:51am CST
Occupiers in Washington are now "occupying" an empty building. Saying that it is now under community control. If this is private property then I would say hell no. But it isn't. It is owned by the city.
The protesters inside are being arrested for unlawful entry.
So my question to you is, do the citizens have a right to occupy this building which is owned by the city therefore themselves?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/protesters-occupy-vacant-building-in-washington-dc/
A little side note - which in my opinion takes away from their protest,
"D.C. is a city that's getting more and more expensive to live in, and the programs that help people keep living here are continuing to be cut," she said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/protesters-occupy-vacant-building-in-washington-dc/#ixzz1eG1Eeqdy
Really? more social programs?
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Nov 11
The entitlement crowd is just too stupid to understand the difference between public property and government property. You do have a right to be on public property, you do NOT have a right to be on government property. I've worked at libraries for over 7 years now so I've dealt with this plenty. If you fail to obey the rules on government property, you can be removed. If you refuse to leave, it is trespassing.
I can name any number of examples of government property that the public can NOT enter without following very specific procedures. Just think about military bases, the pentagon, courthouses, etc.
Of course the left wing entitlement crowd thinks they own everything that tax dollars pay for even though the majority of them don't pay a dime in federal taxes anyway.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Nov 11
Oh, I forgot to address that critical statement"
"D.C. is a city that's getting more and more expensive to live in, and the programs that help people keep living here are continuing to be cut,"
This is yet another problem that I blame on big government. If people can't afford to live there, without help from the government, THEY NEED TO LEAVE. If they leave, one of two things will happen.
1. Government saves money by not paying their rent. New renters move in, pay the listed rent bringing revenue to the property owners, and paying taxes to the local government instead of being leaches.
2. Government saves money by not paying their rent. The places they were renting FAIL to find new renters and are forced to lower their rents to bring in more tenants.
The government is the problem here. Get government out of the way, and the free market will work.
1 person likes this
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
21 Nov 11
Hell no, they have no right to 'squat' there! By the way, everything that's happening to us right now in this country, my husband, who's from Great Britain, told me this crap has been going on in his country for quite some time. Over there, occupiers are known as 'squatters'. It got so bad that the cops just gave up trying to round them up, there was so many. By the way, is anybody as outraged as me at what old clinton said a few days ago, that he likened this country to Egypt? I think clintoon is getting dementia or something. He said the occupiers were like the rabble that is demonstrating in Egypt, for the same 'principles'. These people are beyond brain damaged!!1 person likes this
@valentinesdiner (1214)
• United States
21 Nov 11
I understand taht the occupy-ers may move to occupy homes that are up for foreclosure as a way to protest this issue and the power of banks. It is just about to get really interesting, folks.
1 person likes this
