Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Court orders NYPD to let Occupy Wall Street back into Liberty Plaza with tents   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11880 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:39 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



812 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest

 
2011-11-15 11:51:49 AM  

CapnBlues: kvinesknows: Is there another government you speak of?

Actually, I think there is a different government. See, our elected representatives spend a great deal of their time on the telephone and in meetings, asking for donations. See, elections have become contests of who spends the most on things like advertising, registration drives, and get-out-the-vote activities. These things all cost money, which a candidate can get most effectively by going to large donors rather than small donors. It's just an efficiency thing. why go to 100 donors who give 50 bucks each when you can go to AT&T and get 5000 dollars? So corporate donations go to candidates of both parties. Regardless of who wins the election, they're beholden to those donors who helped them get elected. If an elected official wants to get said corporate donations in re-election years, they have to enact legislation that is favorable to those corporations. This is not a controversial phenomenon. I'm not aware of anyone who seriously denies that this is the way it works in modern elections -- or rather, anyone who is actually connected to reality in a meaningful way.

So yes, there is a government apart from the elected officials, insofar as the responsibility of the elected officials to do their jobs is superceded by their need to get elected and thus their need to enact legislation friendly to their large corporate donors.

One might actually say that the above rant is a sort of distillation of the OWS movement in general, though I admit that my abilities to do so are limited and my above summary is not by any means elegant or ideal.


So again.. OWS knows better then average voter and OWS are the ones who should say who the government is.

Here is solution. Every single OWS protester and supporter run in the next local, state or federal election with the simple motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way" no need for fancy buses or party war rooms or even lawn signs. If its what the people want... then so be it.
 
2011-11-15 11:52:13 AM  

CeroX: My, my, these threads are just full of tiny little fascist scumbags aren't they?

Let's see, the highest law of the land, our constitution protects the rights of those who assemble without violence. These protesters, while lacking focus, still have the right to assemble without violence in any publicly accessible area. No local or state law may directly violate the rights protects under the highest law of the land. Every state in the union had to accept the Constitution and it's laws as the highest law of the land. Therefore, minor laws like "parks close at dark" and "jaywalking" may only be enforced when they do not directly conflict with the protected rights of the people under the highest law of the land. Our government officials are sworn into office under an oath to protect the people, the constitution, and the accept, respect, and obey the highest law of the land.

What the mayor did, what the enforcement officers did, was, without a doubt, a violation of the rights protected by the highest law of the land, the Constitution. This land is considered a Public Place, and by legal definition: A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

Therefore, just because the park is owned by a private company, it was designated as Public space by said company, and zoned as public space by the city. The public space is reserved and protected exclusively by the first amendment as the legal definition is as such: In the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government.

When a large group of people gather for the sole purpose to establish a long term protest, the basic needs of said group include: Shelter, Food, Water, and Medical Care. These are the BASIC needs for a long term gathering for the purpose of protest. To deny the BASIC needs of a peaceful, long term, assembly, is in direct violation of Constitutional rights.


Interesting argument. I wonder if it stands up in court. Has it been litigated in those terms?
 
2011-11-15 11:52:52 AM  

craxyd: To the Occupy movement and all your supporters-

The police departments of your various municipalities are not the Gestapo, KGB=Syrian Regime, Chinese PLA or anything of the sort that I have read them being compared to for their use force when they remove you from wherever you are illegally occupying.

If the respective police departments really were like that, they'd be using live ammunition


If cameras weren't in nearly every electronic device produced in the last ten-fifteen years, they likely would be, and would be claiming that the protesters "became violent".
 
2011-11-15 11:52:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: Does OWS have long term goals that show what would happen in the world if every single one of their demands was met? Wanna lay odds that many people would be very negatively impacted if that happened?

Sure, what negative impacts would you see if corporations were no longer able to control our government? I'm willing to hear if you can come up with one.

Who said the corporation do control the government? Did I miss a memo somewhere that the various constitutions were updated?

Who is the government? The bureaucrats or the politicians? If its the bureaucrats.. the politicians WE elected appoint them and have control over them and if the politicians are not controlling the bureaucrats we should boot them out.

If its the politicians. WE elect them and if WE dont like what they are doing then WE should boot them out.

Is there another government you speak of?

Here's a guy who's never heard of corporate lobbying or K street and has no idea what campaign donations are.

Look, if you're not going to be aware about basic concepts of our government then I'm not going to argue with you. Go read up on how lobbyists write legislation for OUR government and then maybe you'll be worth talking to.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

oh dear lord you are funny. Do the corporations pay each person to vote for someone? (well okay maybe some do...but thats another matter). Oh noes... people and corporations donate to electoral campaigns and obviously the more money spent on a campaign the more likely that person gets elected right?

So what you are really saying I guess is that the OWS people should just get to appoint whoever they want into whatever position because "OBVIOUSLY" the common man and woman who vote are too stupid to make the "RIGHT" choice at the voters box? So... OWS is against Democracy?

Oh dear lord, do I have to explain how money works to you? Do you even know how much money gets donated by corporations every year compared to how much gets donated by private individuals? Do you understand how much influence that has on a politician? It doesn't matter WHO gets elected, EVERYONE in Congress gets tons of cash from corporations.

And your entire last paragraph is a strawman that I won't even address.

I'm talking about getting money out of politics, not appointing congressmen rather than voting. I'm sorry that through your arrogance you refuse to see what I am actually arguing rather than what you wish I was arguing.


I get that you think all politicians are crooked. What I dont get is why you think OWS should get to decide who the next crooked politician is.
 
2011-11-15 11:53:09 AM  

thelordofcheese: CapnBlues: I'm just glad that people who are not like me are getting hurt.

Yeah, this thread is full of ignorant close-minded misanthropes who have unattainable daydream fantasies of becoming the 1% so they can bully other people and force them into a tortured existence because the simple truth is they are sociopaths.


Nah. It's just dehumanization, not sociopathy. Once they find the people they want to oppose, they come up with ways of making them less-human, so that those people's pain isn't something they themselves have to deal with in an empathetic sense. It's tribalism, really.
 
2011-11-15 11:53:16 AM  

thelordofcheese: LineNoise: [gothamist.com image 640x470]

Also, here is your movement. Clearly the entire world is united with these massive numbers of protesters.

It's hilarious that so many are scared of so few. Must be a reason. A valid one.


I'm not scared of them. I am fed up with them ruining the area around my office for 2 months for completely misguided goals.
 
2011-11-15 11:54:13 AM  

tomcatadam: skullkrusher: he's been an Indie for the past 4.

Most of the time that means "Republican that doesn't want to be identified with the scandals of the GOP" or Nader.


Bloomie was a Democrat his whole life, wanted to run for Mayor after Rudy hit the term limit, knew he couldn't get the Dem nomination so switched parties. Being a reasonable guy (and having staked his claim to the throne by that point), he decided not to associate himself with the craziness that the GOP had become any longer and went indie in 2007.
 
2011-11-15 11:55:06 AM  

Lux Lambert: I just read a friend of a friend's comments on Facebook saying that "The OWS protesters need to occupy a farking mass grave"... Doesn't that kinda count as threat speech?


Yep. And depending on the page privacy options it might be public. Even without being public it's a crime, but it could additionally be the additional crime of incitement.

Report it to the cops and notify the DA.
 
2011-11-15 11:56:26 AM  

kvinesknows: So again.. OWS knows better then average voter and OWS are the ones who should say who the government is.

Here is solution. Every single OWS protester and supporter run in the next local, state or federal election with the simple motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way" no need for fancy buses or party war rooms or even lawn signs. If its what the people want... then so be it.


I'm pretty sure if it had been up to "what the people want", there'd be no United States and we'd all be drinking tea while hobnobbing about what the Royals are up to. Ditto, France would likely be on Louis XXX (which would also be an awesome porn title).

Extraordinary times and all that.
 
2011-11-15 11:56:33 AM  

kvinesknows: I get that you think all politicians are crooked. What I dont get is why you think OWS should get to decide who the next crooked politician is.


Uh. I don't think that. I think we should have public financed elections where each candidate gets the same amount of money from a public pool. Lobbying would be illegal. You appear to think the only way that politicians are influenced is through election voting. Please, PLEASE read up on lobbying and K street.
 
2011-11-15 11:57:11 AM  

kvinesknows: Here is solution. Every single OWS protester and supporter run in the next local, state or federal election with the simple motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way" no need for fancy buses or party war rooms or even lawn signs. If its what the people want... then so be it.


Once again:
Nomatter what message you try to get out, when ALL major forms of communication are owned by the corporate interest working against you, your message cannot ring true.

Nomatter who you try to elect, if they are human, they can be bought or corralled or influenced in some way, to be twisted into something resembling nothing more than a husk for the corporates. Be it bribery or threats or something even more nefarious.


Then there's the general problem of the Slothfullness of the Majority.
 
2011-11-15 11:57:14 AM  
Watching these feeds is ridiculous. The protesters are instigating everything.
 
2011-11-15 11:57:55 AM  

kvinesknows: So again.. OWS knows better then average voter and OWS are the ones who should say who the government is.

Here is solution. Every single OWS protester and supporter run in the next local, state or federal election with the simple motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way" no need for fancy buses or party war rooms or even lawn signs. If its what the people want... then so be it.


Whoah, what? How is what I wrote in any way related to what you wrote?

Am I being trolled? I hope not, because I spent some considerable time and effort explaining the role of big money in politics, in the hopes that you might learn a little from it. If it turns out you're just some immature anarchist wanna-be trying to get a rise out of friendly strangers on the internet, well ... that'd just be a little disappointing.
 
2011-11-15 11:58:00 AM  

jonnyh: Matt Taibbi says it best: (new window)

This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat - and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.



Law enforcement enforces laws. Just because idiots like Matt Taibbi and you think that laws were broken on wall street doesn't mean they were. Where laws are broken by individuals, those individuals are prosecuted -either on Wall street or in Zucotti park.

This whole pervasive myth that 'Wall Street stole" is the underlying cause of all this anger, and the problem is that it is a myth. A myth put forth by liars like Taibbi and swallowed whole like morons like you, who have absolutely no understanding of finance, economics, business, or banking.

If you want more progressive taxation, that's fine. If you want single-payer healthcare, that's fine too. I'd agree with you, to an extent. However when you delve off into tinfoil hat land where you delude yourself into believing that the mean old bankers are knowlingly fleecing the 99%, with the underlying support of law enforcement and congress, in some grand conspiracy, you lose any support you would otherwise get from reasonable people.
 
2011-11-15 11:58:05 AM  
And when the idiots start freezing to death this winter, hippies are going to cry that nobody tried to do anything to protect them.
 
2011-11-15 11:58:20 AM  
So is it time for Hooverville 2.0 yet?

Occupy Central Park.
 
2011-11-15 11:59:03 AM  

Chimperror2: thelordofcheese: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

And did you read the entire thing? I didn't need to read the wiki to know its history, but let's check:
holy shiat, even before it states that it's privately owned - in the first sentence - the page states that it's publicly accessible. Yes, it states that it is publically accessible even before it says it is privately owned. And in the very next sentence it mentions it was done so as part of a negotiation with the farking city as a requirement for building.

So is every business. "These doors shall remain open during business hours." It's practically boiler plate. It doesn't mean they don't or can't have rules about loitering and that violating those rules is grounds for trespassing arrest. Try putting up a tent in the McDonalds parking lot and see how long your employer puts up with that shiat.

God damn, are you farking stupid. Holy farking shiat, what an idiot.


Um, no. Then you use a McD's as an example? You obviously don't understand the terms of the city agreement for building variance.

God damn, are you farking stupid. Holy farking shiat, what an idiot.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:05 PM  

thelordofcheese: Chimperror2: indarwinsshadow: Damn that democratic system. Just when you think you can shove it aside and act like a brown shirt club swinging fascist along comes a bunch of people who understand the basics rights of a constitution who actually protect the rights and property of the people who empower the system. Now, I ask you. How crazy is that?

Isn't that park private property? You mean letting a mob take over private property by force without consent of the owner is respecting the constitution somehow?

You just described eminent domain.


So remember, if you have a mob, you can take over anyone else's private property because of eminent domain. I am thinking of getting a group of tea-partiers together and occupying Micheal Moore's mansion and use his yard as a toilette. I mean, if we get enough people to be considered a mob, then eminent domain says we can do it right?
 
2011-11-15 12:00:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: I get that you think all politicians are crooked. What I dont get is why you think OWS should get to decide who the next crooked politician is.

Uh. I don't think that. I think we should have public financed elections where each candidate gets the same amount of money from a public pool. Lobbying would be illegal. You appear to think the only way that politicians are influenced is through election voting. Please, PLEASE read up on lobbying and K street.


Please please dont assume that all politicians are pushovers who bow to the wishes of every lobbyist. some of us actually have a soul.
 
Puo
2011-11-15 12:00:22 PM  

bhcompy: CeroX:
This is the choice of those people. They are not sovereign. They cannot determine the rules of the place they have claimed as their own. They are free to go to any facility that is available that serves the needs you are talking about. They are not free to claim land as their own and determine what should and shouldn't be done on that land.


This. That's like going to your local playground and decided its a nice location for a new temporary living space. I doubt anyone in the town (government or citizen alike) will be ok with this.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:29 PM  

Stratohead: Link (new window)


the injunction prohibits the respondents from enforcing rules enacted AFTER the occupation began... which was Sept 17... so the private owners can't prohibit tents,tarps, sleeping bags...etc nor can NYPD et al, while the injunction is in effect. I'm not a lawyer... but I can parse basic English.
Currently NYPD are blocking protestors from re-entering the park in direct contempt of a Court ordered Injunction that forbids them from doing so. whether or not OWS is your thing or not... when a major metro department like NYPD can flout a court order... that's a vary dangerous slippery slope.


That's interesting. Thanks for posting it.

It's pretty thin though. The police or the park owners could say that they are not enforcing any new rules, but rather that the park is temporarily closed to all of the public for cleaning/maintenance. The real question becomes what will the cops do tonight when the protestors set up in a new location.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:49 PM  

kvinesknows: cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: I get that you think all politicians are crooked. What I dont get is why you think OWS should get to decide who the next crooked politician is.

Uh. I don't think that. I think we should have public financed elections where each candidate gets the same amount of money from a public pool. Lobbying would be illegal. You appear to think the only way that politicians are influenced is through election voting. Please, PLEASE read up on lobbying and K street.

Please please dont assume that all politicians are pushovers who bow to the wishes of every lobbyist. some of us actually have a soul.


If you were a politician you'd understand the role of money in politics.
 
2011-11-15 12:01:03 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: And when the idiots start freezing to death this winter, hippies are going to cry that nobody tried to do anything to protect them.


If they are still there by then, I predict a (rather smartly planned) PR campaign by various orgs around there to give out hot chocolate and similar cheap PR tricks that makes them look charitable and good-natured and that they're helpfully tolerating a misguided segment of The Youth.

Or they'll just dump buckets of water on them.
 
2011-11-15 12:01:11 PM  

Dr. Whoof: CPennypacker: How many times are you idiots going ot make the same (wrong) argument?

How much cash do the Koch's have to keep paying shills to go on this and other websites to try to downplay the movement? Because I guarantee you some (not all, but some) of the posters are paid to push the anti-OWS narrative.

After all, hiring bloggers is cheap.


Really? How much is Soros paying you? You should hold out for a better deal.

/just kidding, only an absolute idiot would think that anyone would pay for propaganda posts on Fark. LOL!
 
2011-11-15 12:01:20 PM  

Lux Lambert: CapnBlues: Lux Lambert: I just read a friend of a friend's comments on Facebook saying that "The OWS protesters need to occupy a farking mass grave"... Doesn't that kinda count as threat speech?

It's not clear. For example, there's the question of whether publicly wishing death on someone is the same as advocating for their murder and/or saying you will make them dead.

Now, if you're friends with someone on facebook who says that, I'd say you should probably not associate with that person.

It was a friend of mine's friend commenting on my friend's wall post... I didn't know them personally and intend to stay that way, with that kind of mindset.


Inform them of this. Call them names, too, because they deserve it.
 
2011-11-15 12:01:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jonnyh: Matt Taibbi says it best: (new window)

This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat - and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.


Law enforcement enforces laws. Just because idiots like Matt Taibbi and you think that laws were broken on wall street doesn't mean they were. Where laws are broken by individuals, those individuals are prosecuted -either on Wall street or in Zucotti park.

This whole pervasive myth that 'Wall Street stole" is the underlying cause of all this anger, and the problem is that it is a myth. A myth put forth by liars like Taibbi and swallowed whole like morons like you, who have absolutely no understanding of finance, economics, business, or banking.

If you want more progressive taxation, that's fine. If you want single-payer healthcare, that's fine too. I'd agree with you, to an extent. However when you delve off into tinfoil hat land where you delude yourself into believing that the mean old bankers are knowlingly fleecing the 99%, with the underlying support of law enforcement and congress, in some grand conspiracy, you lose any support you would otherwise get from reasonable people.


Hi. I have an understanding of Finance and I agree with the protests. A systematic failure in the financial industry at every level (bank, ratings agency, brokerage firms), steeped in corruption, that crashed the economy. They were bailed out with taxpayer money, paid their bailouts back, and think that gets them off the hook for decimating the economy.

I disagree
 
2011-11-15 12:02:00 PM  
My real sympathies go out to the poor people who run businesses fronting the park. One lady called a radio show to report, her restaurant was down 80% from previously, and 500 smelly tramps a day were trooping in to use her potty, making a mess in the rest room and not buying anything.

Politics be screwed, there is no excuse for being dirty.
 
2011-11-15 12:02:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: LineNoise: You can't prevent them from doing that after they started camping. It's called ex post facto and it's illegal


According to your logic, Congress can't pass anti-pollution laws after a company has started dumping toxic waste.
 
2011-11-15 12:02:17 PM  

Wenchmaster: When a large group of people gather for the sole purpose to establish a long term protest, the basic needs of said group include: Shelter, Food, Water, and Medical Care. These are the BASIC needs for a long term gathering for the purpose of protest. To deny the BASIC needs of a peaceful, long term, assembly, is in direct violation of Constitutional rights.

Interesting argument. I wonder if it stands up in court. Has it been litigated in those terms?


I'm sorry, but the right to freely assemble does not obligate the government to underwrite a camp of squatters. The government should not be able to shut them down without some really good non-political reasons to do so, but they aren't entitled to any sort of government support.
 
2011-11-15 12:02:48 PM  
A simple solution to the whole "publicly accessible private property" issue would be to put a wrought-iron fence around the place, with gates that open and close on a regular schedule. It's not the prettiest solution, but if people aren't going to respect private property, it may be what needs to be done.
 
2011-11-15 12:03:19 PM  

CapnBlues: kvinesknows: So again.. OWS knows better then average voter and OWS are the ones who should say who the government is.

Here is solution. Every single OWS protester and supporter run in the next local, state or federal election with the simple motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way" no need for fancy buses or party war rooms or even lawn signs. If its what the people want... then so be it.

Whoah, what? How is what I wrote in any way related to what you wrote?

Am I being trolled? I hope not, because I spent some considerable time and effort explaining the role of big money in politics, in the hopes that you might learn a little from it. If it turns out you're just some immature anarchist wanna-be trying to get a rise out of friendly strangers on the internet, well ... that'd just be a little disappointing.


nope.. again you are saying all politicians can simply not be trusted because of money.. okay I get that... then do away with all politicians and institute a dictatorship right? Because thats the only way you are going to get honest politicians by your logic.
 
2011-11-15 12:03:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: craxyd: To the Occupy movement and all your supporters-

The police departments of your various municipalities are not the Gestapo, KGB=Syrian Regime, Chinese PLA or anything of the sort that I have read them being compared to for their use force when they remove you from wherever you are illegally occupying.

If the respective police departments really were like that, they'd be using live ammunition

[i42.tinypic.com image 620x350]



What some may want to do is irrelevant. It's what they actually do that's admissible.
I may want to see if my Ford Escape will go over 110 MPH. I'm never going to do it because it's illegal it's also not very safe to drive down I-77 at that kind of speed.
As for the picture you posted, was that head injury caused by ammunition fired directly at him by a cop with the intent to use deadly force in defense of himself or another or was he simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
2011-11-15 12:03:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: I get that you think all politicians are crooked. What I dont get is why you think OWS should get to decide who the next crooked politician is.

Uh. I don't think that. I think we should have public financed elections where each candidate gets the same amount of money from a public pool. Lobbying would be illegal. You appear to think the only way that politicians are influenced is through election voting. Please, PLEASE read up on lobbying and K street.

Please please dont assume that all politicians are pushovers who bow to the wishes of every lobbyist. some of us actually have a soul.

If you were a politician you'd understand the role of money in politics.


HA HA.. if you were honest you would admit there are some honest politicians out there.
 
2011-11-15 12:05:26 PM  

kvinesknows: nope.. again you are saying all politicians can simply not be trusted because of money.. okay I get that... then do away with all politicians and institute a dictatorship right? Because thats the only way you are going to get honest politicians by your logic.


Why can't we get rid of the money? If there's no money in politics, wouldn't that achieve our goal as well? If there are two sides to the equation (money and politicians) why can we only get rid of one (politicians) to solve it?
 
2011-11-15 12:05:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: /just kidding, only an absolute idiot would think that anyone would pay for propaganda posts on Fark. LOL!


It's been proven before. Both parties certainly do it but it's well known that there are organizations that are paid entirely to browse forums and discredit democrats and libby lib libbers.
 
2011-11-15 12:06:01 PM  

kvinesknows: HA HA.. if you were honest you would admit there are some honest politicians out there.


There are some people that wouldn't commit murder. Therefore, murder shouldn't be illegal.
 
2011-11-15 12:06:13 PM  
so lets see....Congress gets caught making millions off insider trading and the OWS people get beat up at 2am by the cops in an illegal raid on the protest movement. And our Usual Suspects here on fark think there's nothing wrong with any of this?
 
2011-11-15 12:06:25 PM  
Debeo Summa Credo
Law enforcement enforces laws. Just because idiots like Matt Taibbi and you think that laws were broken on wall street doesn't mean they were. Where laws are broken by individuals, those individuals are prosecuted -either on Wall street or in Zucotti park.

You have to be a truly ignorant moron to believe that laws are enforced against the wealthy the same as they are against everyone else.

/on a different topic... these assholes effectively wrote the overly permissive laws by buying politicians
//and still broke some of them
 
2011-11-15 12:06:47 PM  

MeinRS6: Stratohead: Link (new window)


the injunction prohibits the respondents from enforcing rules enacted AFTER the occupation began... which was Sept 17... so the private owners can't prohibit tents,tarps, sleeping bags...etc nor can NYPD et al, while the injunction is in effect. I'm not a lawyer... but I can parse basic English.
Currently NYPD are blocking protestors from re-entering the park in direct contempt of a Court ordered Injunction that forbids them from doing so. whether or not OWS is your thing or not... when a major metro department like NYPD can flout a court order... that's a vary dangerous slippery slope.

That's interesting. Thanks for posting it.

It's pretty thin though. The police or the park owners could say that they are not enforcing any new rules, but rather that the park is temporarily closed to all of the public for cleaning/maintenance. The real question becomes what will the cops do tonight when the protestors set up in a new location.


or...what they will do as protestors are setting up in new locations as I type this...

NY Times Live Updates (new window)

"For much of the morning, hundreds of protesters had been at Juan Pablo Duarte Square, a city park at Canal Street and Avenue of the Americas about a mile north of Zuccotti Park.

Just to the west of the square was a fenced-off, padlocked lot owned by Trinity Church, a giant landowner downtown that has been supportive of the protesters at times.

The protesters had their eye on the church's lot. In mid-morning, a delegation of protesters said they were trying to obtain permission from church officials to occupy the lot.

It was not clear how that negotiation went, but at 11 a.m., two protesters dressed in black, wearing black bandannas over the lower part of their faces, used bolt cutters to snip through the chain-link fence and the crowd began streaming in.

Even as they did, police vans sped down Varick Street toward Zuccotti Park, where another group of several hundred protesters was trying to retake the park. "


Between a storied tradition of brutal crackdowns, and the current "Ticket Fixing" busts against NYPD... and all this... I can't see this shiat NOT getting out of hand by weeks end... unless the protestors stand down...which isn't likely.

/and here I was sooo looking forward to Occupy Macys Thankgiving Day Parade.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:01 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: veale728: Bloomberg said the city planned to let the anti-greed movement return to Zuccotti as soon as it was cleaned, but without the trappings of the tent city.

"Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others," he said in a statement.

Bullshiat. The classic "we're doing it for their protection" excuse.

OK, breathe.

There is no camp ground or other housing concept in the US that would allow the living standards that OWS has adopted. Even refugee camps in Africa have safer and more sanitary facilities.

Meet each day in the morning somewhere and protest all you want, then go home. Come back the next day and do it again.....repeat.

This isn't Burning Man


You mean the temporary week-long city of 50,000 that's created in the desert, 100 miles from anything resembling civilization and yet and so sucessfully practices a "leave no trace" ethic that 30 days after the event the BLM uses sat photos and physical search teams to grid off the area where the event was and then certifies that the LNT part of the contract for renting the space has been fufilled even down to the level of stray cigarette butts?


yeah it would totally suck if the OWS people treated Zucotti park the same way
 
2011-11-15 12:07:54 PM  

MeinRS6:
It's pretty thin though. The police or the park owners could say that they are not enforcing any new rules, but rather that the park is temporarily closed to all of the public for cleaning/maintenance. The real question becomes what will the cops do tonight when the protestors set up in a new location.


They have already BROKEN into land owned by a church down here that has shown support for them. However the church hasn't agreed to let them into that land yet, and the cops are getting ready to run them in.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: nope.. again you are saying all politicians can simply not be trusted because of money.. okay I get that... then do away with all politicians and institute a dictatorship right? Because thats the only way you are going to get honest politicians by your logic.

Why can't we get rid of the money? If there's no money in politics, wouldn't that achieve our goal as well? If there are two sides to the equation (money and politicians) why can we only get rid of one (politicians) to solve it?


How can you get rid of money? Removing donations alone does nothing as people can still be bribed.
 
2011-11-15 12:08:11 PM  

ph0rk: Fark_Guy_Rob: Do you believe me and my buddies should be able to peaceably assemble in your living room, without your consent?

Do you believe that someone's living room is the same as a city-mandated public access park?


To be fair, that would be a pretty awesome living room if you got a TV that was big enough. It's something you would truly need.
 
2011-11-15 12:08:50 PM  

kvinesknows: How can you get rid of money? Removing donations alone does nothing as people can still be bribed.


Because bribery is illegal. Lobbying isn't. Get rid of the legal money and that'll go a long way to solving the problem.
 
2011-11-15 12:09:17 PM  

clyph: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Peaceable assembly? Check.
Petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances? Check.

Glad to see at least one judge in NYC still respects the First Amendment.

Second Amendment, not so much, but one fight at a time.


The judge also respects Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the New York State Constitution, specifically the parts I've bolded:

§9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; except as hereinafter provided, no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state and the sale of lottery tickets in connection therewith as may be authorized and prescribed by the legislature, the net proceeds of which shall be applied exclusively to or in aid or support of education in this state as the legislature may prescribe, and except pari-mutual betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature and from which the state shall derive a reasonable revenue for the support of government, shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section.

I posted this for the inevitable "but the first amendment applies to Congress, not the states" despite judicial precedent stating otherwise.
 
2011-11-15 12:10:33 PM  

olddinosaur: My real sympathies go out to the poor people who run businesses fronting the park. One lady called a radio show to report, her restaurant was down 80% from previously, and 500 smelly tramps a day were trooping in to use her potty, making a mess in the rest room and not buying anything.

Politics be screwed, there is no excuse for being dirty.


The majority of business loss seems to have been chalked up to the police barricades and restrictions more than anything else.

Most independent reports show that the OWS protesters have been far cleaner than even the Tea Party.

In New York, I mean. The OWS protests in some other cities have been demonstrably ugly.
 
2011-11-15 12:11:46 PM  

Weaver95: so lets see....Congress gets caught making millions off insider trading and the OWS people get beat up at 2am by the cops in an illegal raid on the protest movement. And our Usual Suspects here on fark think there's nothing wrong with any of this?


Nothing wrong with protecting private property, nope.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:02 PM  
So, how many farkers have or are taking part in one of these protests going on across the country? Somebody has to be backing up their words with actions, right? Anybody?

*crickets*
 
2011-11-15 12:12:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: How can you get rid of money? Removing donations alone does nothing as people can still be bribed.

Because bribery is illegal. Lobbying isn't. Get rid of the legal money and that'll go a long way to solving the problem.


Thats a huge assumption that is simply relying on that fact that the only reason the honest and unbribable politicians are not running now is because they are unbribable. If they are bribable "legally" and in politics now, they will still be dirty scum sucking arseholes and find a way to do stuff illegally and against the wishes of "the People"

But this still all gets back to.... if "THE PEOPLE" are continually re-electing the dirty scum sucking arseholes, it means the people are stupid and should not be allowed to vote.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: kvinesknows: How can you get rid of money? Removing donations alone does nothing as people can still be bribed.

Because bribery is illegal. Lobbying isn't. Get rid of the legal money and that'll go a long way to solving the problem.


get rid of soft money. it really is that simple. no more soft money, make it all hard money. no exceptions for anyone. its all registered, its all tracked. no more soft money.
 
Displayed 50 of 812 comments


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report