So...it is private property. Cool.

At 11/18/11 06:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So...it is private property. Cool.

Exept it has to act as a public place and stay open to the public, don't pretend you don't understand.

Not if the health and safety condtions are unsatisfactory. oops.

At 11/18/11 08:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not if the health and safety condtions are unsatisfactory. oops.

Which they weren't. Oops!

At 11/18/11 08:57 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/18/11 08:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not if the health and safety condtions are unsatisfactory. oops.

Which they weren't. Oops!

They were fucktard. It's actually been closed to the public so that it can be cleaned up and reopened. Oh, and Zucatti is paying for it.

At 11/18/11 09:33 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/18/11 08:57 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/18/11 08:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not if the health and safety condtions are unsatisfactory. oops.

Which they weren't. Oops!

They were fucktard. It's actually been closed to the public so that it can be cleaned up and reopened. Oh, and Zucatti is paying for it.

That doesn't indicate that health and safety conditions were unsatisfactory. Anyone can declare their private property closed to the public for whatever reason. Calm down guy.

Random thought for you.

Who is paying these protestor's bills while they're protesting?

They all have tents and/or sleeping bags, good clothes, they're not starving, and quite a few of them have cellphones and laptops with internet connections that they can get online and post with. But, they're protesting (among other things) the lack of jobs in this country.

*scratches head*

These people seem to be doing pretty well for people complaining about the lack of jobs in this country, don't you think?

Best I can tell it's partly self-funded and partly charitably funded. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some astroturfing going on as well, but so far I've not seen any hard evidence of it. Still, even if there was, it wouldn't be anything the Tea Party hadn't taken advantage of, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

I'll say it again, what happened to the hippies? Make peace, not war!

See this, for truth!

And lets be bipartisan at least...

more truth for you.

Don't believe propaganda. Occupy wall street is not the answer. I'm not saying the billionaires have the answer either; the truth lies in ourselves, and our commitment to our country. And our commitment to ourselves, not to rely on others to do it for us. Seize your opportunities as they arise, if your wish to help the American debt, make a donation :P don't camp out in a park, or lobby to a overpaid and corrupt government program.

At 11/18/11 05:24 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/18/11 09:33 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/18/11 08:57 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/18/11 08:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not if the health and safety condtions are unsatisfactory. oops.

Which they weren't. Oops!

They were fucktard. It's actually been closed to the public so that it can be cleaned up and reopened. Oh, and Zucatti is paying for it.

That doesn't indicate that health and safety conditions were unsatisfactory. Anyone can declare their private property closed to the public for whatever reason. Calm down guy.

Yes, I would love for someone to show me pictures of how OWSwas unclean because I searched and couldn't find any pictures of the so called safety concern filth.

Now of course the fact I couldnt find a picture doesnt mean it wasn't there, but I heard about it so much I would expect a crapton of evidence if it was dirty enough to warrant being evicted for safety hazard.

Also you would assume such a matter to be trumped by the first fucking ammendment on the fucking constitution.

At 11/20/11 12:33 AM, EoD696 wrote: And lets be bipartisan at least...

more truth for you.

Don't believe propaganda. Occupy wall street is not the answer. I'm not saying the billionaires have the answer either; the truth lies in ourselves, and our commitment to our country. And our commitment to ourselves, not to rely on others to do it for us. Seize your opportunities as they arise, if your wish to help the American debt, make a donation :P don't camp out in a park, or lobby to a overpaid and corrupt government program.

I already knew some milionnaire wanted taxes raised on them. One of them went on tv at some point saying this but the name evades me.

And this is not what OWS is protesting, it's not protesting millionaires and capitalism like some news would like you to believe. It's protesting some billionnaires rigging the game in their favor at the detriment of the population by buying politicians. Not all milionnaires are like that but a bunch of them are super greedy and they buy the whole congress.

Also you cannot deny the impact OWS had on this country, they shifted the whole dialogue to 99% and 1% instead of left vs right.

They have brought the issue to light to almost everyone and they were peacefully using their first ammendment right before they got thrown out and beaten up for no reason.

And yes there were some really volatile and violent elements at these protests. They were called "the police".

Whether it's public or private property is not the issue. It's the fact that it is against the law for them to sleep out there. The homeless get thrown out of parks for sleeping in them all the time, why should these people be treated any different?

At 11/20/11 06:08 PM, Psil0 wrote: Whether it's public or private property is not the issue. It's the fact that it is against the law for them to sleep out there. The homeless get thrown out of parks for sleeping in them all the time, why should these people be treated any different?

They are using their first emmendment right to protest, not to mention their number, they are not just squatting the place unlike what some people would want you to believe.

At 11/20/11 07:27 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/20/11 06:08 PM, Psil0 wrote: Whether it's public or private property is not the issue. It's the fact that it is against the law for them to sleep out there. The homeless get thrown out of parks for sleeping in them all the time, why should these people be treated any different?

They are using their first emmendment right to protest, not to mention their number, they are not just squatting the place unlike what some people would want you to believe.

Oh, I looked up this first amendment bullshit you keep throwing about.

Sure it's legal to protest, you do NOT have the Constitution to back you up when you are occupying public property. It's illegal.

At 11/20/11 07:37 PM, akmeteor wrote:
Sure it's legal to protest, you do NOT have the Constitution to back you up when you are occupying public property. It's illegal.

might I ask where it is legal to protest then?

At 11/20/11 07:27 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/20/11 06:08 PM, Psil0 wrote: Whether it's public or private property is not the issue. It's the fact that it is against the law for them to sleep out there. The homeless get thrown out of parks for sleeping in them all the time, why should these people be treated any different?

They are using their first emmendment right to protest, not to mention their number, they are not just squatting the place unlike what some people would want you to believe.

Hmm... didn't know camping out in cities and public parks was part of the first amendment too? I must greatly be confused.

At 11/20/11 08:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 11/20/11 07:37 PM, akmeteor wrote:
Sure it's legal to protest, you do NOT have the Constitution to back you up when you are occupying public property. It's illegal.

might I ask where it is legal to protest then?

You ask the city. If they give you permission it is ok. If not, you move your merry self away.

At 11/20/11 09:17 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/20/11 08:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 11/20/11 07:37 PM, akmeteor wrote:
Sure it's legal to protest, you do NOT have the Constitution to back you up when you are occupying public property. It's illegal.

might I ask where it is legal to protest then?

You ask the city. If they give you permission it is ok. If not, you move your merry self away.

So any city can overthrow the first ammendment? Is it worth anything then? Why does it even exist if any small city can declare the first ammendment void without any reason?

At 11/20/11 10:47 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

So any city can overthrow the first ammendment? Is it worth anything then? Why does it even exist if any small city can declare the first ammendment void without any reason?

First Amendment does not allow you rights to property you do not own or maintain. If that's the case I'm going to go to New York and ya know, just sleep on City Hall's steps. It's also to maintain order, it's easier to prepare things a couple weeks ahead of time, and it gives them a time they have to GTFO.

At 11/20/11 11:23 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/20/11 10:47 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

So any city can overthrow the first ammendment? Is it worth anything then? Why does it even exist if any small city can declare the first ammendment void without any reason?

First Amendment does not allow you rights to property you do not own or maintain.

I agree with that. However this does not affect my previous point at all despite you seemingly thinking it does somehow.

We are not talking about one person randomly sleeping somewhere, we are talking about a large group of people who are there to protest, and who have demands etc.

At 11/20/11 11:48 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

I agree with that. However this does not affect my previous point at all despite you seemingly thinking it does somehow.

We are not talking about one person randomly sleeping somewhere, we are talking about a large group of people who are there to protest, and who have demands etc.

You are ignoring the fact that you have to follow procedures. There's a way you have to do this. Walking up onto a street corner and going "Well, let's protest." Isn't legal. When you set it up they give you a date and times you are allowed do it. Mostly after the morning commute and before night commute.

WE HAVE THESE RULES TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION DAMMIT!

At 11/20/11 11:59 PM, Korriken wrote:

protesting in a public place is legal... as long as you don't do something stupid like block off a public street or other public facility. Using public grounds is legal, preventing others from using it is not.

What are you talking about specifically?

pitching a tend in the middle of the park, is also not legal. I'm not entirely sure if the term "squatting" comes into play on that one, but I think it does. Maybe Vagrancy? either way its not legal.

Yes but sometimes you makes exeptions due to the circumstances. A big movement protesting the banks and corruption that has become the norm in the us. I would let them have some tents.

and where are they getting funding? I'm sure there are plenty of anti corporate/anti capitalist groups shoveling around money to keep it going. or maybe even some unions tossing around money to keep these people well supplied with the latest corporate made gadgets like iphones, ipads, and factory made tents and tarps.

How does this matter where they get their funding? ALso it's speculation on your part AND you tossed the dumb iphone argument showing you most likely do not understand the issue.

I personally think it's a huge astroturf movement. It's easy to get a bunch of dimwitted weak willed people whipped into a frenzy.

Okay, you would be 100% wrong about it then. But sure, you can think it if you want. But for the record they are middle class people and students that are sick of big banks and big companies buying politicians and rigging the system in their favor while owning most of the wealth and using their money to gamble on bets.

Also Leaked memo from banks spending 850,000$ to smear occupy wall street.

Article

Video

At 11/20/11 11:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:
WE HAVE THESE RULES TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION DAMMIT!

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

At 11/23/11 03:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

No freedoms are being lost here. In fact, I'd say freedom is being gained here. They still have the right to protest. The 99.999% now have the freedom to use and peaceably assemble in their public spaces again.

At 11/22/11 12:25 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Also Leaked memo from banks spending 850,000$ to smear occupy wall street.

This wasn't the banks actually spending money, it was about a lobbying firm soliciting a contract from the ABA. This is really no worse than the existence of lobbying firms in the first place.

At 11/20/11 12:22 AM, EoD696 wrote: I'll say it again, what happened to the hippies? Make peace, not war!

See this, for truth!

To borrow from the late great Bill Hicks, the guy in the luxury car @ :48- 1:10 had the clear and present advantage in the situation. What was that advantage? The accelerator pedal. One push and he was THROUGH the crowd at that point, sorta like this guy from Occupy Oakland, who I hope they find and give the key to the city.

I can't wait for winter. I hope it's a good hard freeze this year.

At 11/22/11 06:19 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/22/11 12:23 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

What are you talking about specifically?

that was pretty specific. you want more specific? ok. Chaining yourself to the door of City Hall is illegal. standing in front of a polling place with a aggressive attitude to try deter certain groups of people from entering is illegal. setting up a barricade of people or inanimate object(s) between the public and a public facility is illegal.

Yet buying a politician by funding his campaign or giving him a job when he gets out of office in exchange of benefits is totally legal.

no, it's still illegal. if a major quake destroyed most of the city, then a temporary tent city to house survivors is appropriate. however, a bunch of air heads who think they're entitled protesting without a clue as to what to do for a solution? not so much.

Saying OWS doesn't have a clue proves you have not been following the issue closely, ask most protesters and they will tell you straight away why they are here. Sure reasons may slightly vary from person to person but what is consistent is how pissed they are at the system being rigged by some of the rich and powerful and in their detriment.

Also, the "dumb" iphone argument isn't so dumb, given they are using them. Also, this. Given that 9000 ppl downloaded the app, I'd say a fair number of them have iphones. and Iphones aren't exactly $10 at your local store either.

THe argument is still dumb and irrelevant, you didn,t understand why I was saying it was dumb. You imply it somehow makes them hypocrites to have iphones or use items provided by big companies, it does not, they are not against big corporations or making monet or getting rich, but against big corporations abusing the system and rigging it in their favor. They do this by buying politicians to get tax cuts while social programs get cut so they can make even mooore money.

If you say so. Looks to me like a bunch of dimwitted college students who took up the easy majors with a total lack of demand so they could party their way through college and still get a degree are pissed that the gravy train is no longer coming to town and that they have to now go find jobs, and no one wants to hire a guy whose degree is in Latin or Art History... because there's no jobs in those fields.

Okay, like I said, yes you would be wrong, there are so many protesters and they are from all age groups (even tough yes there is a bigger amount of younger people) They can't all be studying latin and art history, and they're not.

At 11/23/11 02:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/20/11 12:22 AM, EoD696 wrote:

I can't wait for winter. I hope it's a good hard freeze this year.

Just when I thought the Politics forum was going soft on me, Proteas is there to restore hope.