Occupy Morons being sent packing from NY's Zuccotti Park

They would be kicked out of any campground in America

Even Federal Parks have a maximum amount of days you can stay.

I love how they are complaining about the police destroying their property LOL Exactly what have they been doing for the last two months?? Wonder how those business owners feel about the property those scum bags destroyed.

This should have happened on the first day they set up tents.
 
Of course none of you will remember, but I predicted quite a while back that this might happen, and said that it was the only way the gathering in New York would be ended.

I also said it wasn't the end of the movement. It's not.
 
Of course none of you will remember, but I predicted quite a while back that this might happen, and said that it was the only way the gathering in New York would be ended.

I also said it wasn't the end of the movement. It's not.

It'll hopefully be the end of the movements going on in the park

article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366-600x346.jpg
 
No. Illegal Camping is a violation against City Ordinance. There are numerous Health Department Violations to boot.

That may be, so why has the city allowed it to go on for so long?

Because Occupy expressed issues that have the support of huge majorities of the American people. Cracking down on them was politically difficult.

Bloomberg did exactly what I expected. He waited until cold weather reduced the number of protesters, thus preventing a big, ugly confrontation, and then sent in the cops. I'm neither surprised nor particularly concerned.

I've also been saying for a while now that it's time for the movement to switch tactics. I think that occupying public space has accomplished what it can accomplish (which is considerable) and we need to pursue other methods, many of which are in fact in train. The movement is by no means over. There will be more protests as the situation calls for, more general strikes (and longer ones); there will be a gathering of movement-elected representatives in Philadelphia next year to vote on a petition to present to the government; there will be more direct action like the bank boycotts; there will be pressure at the state level to call for a new constitutional convention.

I understand why some of you on the right would consider this a victory, but it's not. It's not even really a setback.
 
No. Illegal Camping is a violation against City Ordinance. There are numerous Health Department Violations to boot.

That may be, so why has the city allowed it to go on for so long?

Because Occupy expressed issues that have the support of huge majorities of the American people. Cracking down on them was politically difficult.

Bloomberg did exactly what I expected. He waited until cold weather reduced the number of protesters, thus preventing a big, ugly confrontation, and then sent in the cops. I'm neither surprised nor particularly concerned.

I've also been saying for a while now that it's time for the movement to switch tactics. I think that occupying public space has accomplished what it can accomplish (which is considerable) and we need to pursue other methods, many of which are in fact in train. The movement is by no means over. There will be more protests as the situation calls for, more general strikes (and longer ones); there will be a gathering of movement-elected representatives in Philadelphia next year to vote on a petition to present to the government; there will be more direct action like the bank boycotts; there will be pressure at the state level to call for a new constitutional convention.

I understand why some of you on the right would consider this a victory, but it's not. It's not even really a setback.

What huge majorities? What issues? What positions? All I see is a bunch of whining.

Also be careful what you wish for about a constitutional convention. Your "utopia" stated in the link in your signature requires everyone to think like you think, and I can assure you, most do not.
 
Of course none of you will remember, but I predicted quite a while back that this might happen, and said that it was the only way the gathering in New York would be ended.

I also said it wasn't the end of the movement. It's not.






well, you're a regular nostradamus, aren't you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What huge majorities? What issues? What positions? All I see is a bunch of whining.

Haven't been paying much attention, I guess. I'm talking about the issues of corporate influence on government through campaign contributions, and the widening income gaps over the past thirty years. Occupy has brought these to public notice and put them on the table.

Also be careful what you wish for about a constitutional convention. Your "utopia" stated in the link in your signature requires everyone to think like you think, and I can assure you, most do not.

Well, if you've read it, I'm pleased.

However, a constitutional convention need not go as far as I've described in "Democracy." A constitutional amendment defining speech as not including money and corporations as not being people would be much less radical, and much more likely to succeed.
 
By this point in the history of the tea party I knew all about it from both sides and in depth, the fact that people still have no idea what OWS is about or what they want are engaged in some of the worst willful ignorance I have observed for a very long time. Educate yourselves people.
 
By this point in the history of the tea party I knew all about it from both sides and in depth, the fact that people still have no idea what OWS is about or what they want are engaged in some of the worst willful ignorance I have observed for a very long time. Educate yourselves people.

yassuh, massa.

i be edjimicating my own se'f.

thankee kinely, suh
 
What huge majorities? What issues? What positions? All I see is a bunch of whining.

Haven't been paying much attention, I guess. I'm talking about the issues of corporate influence on government through campaign contributions, and the widening income gaps over the past thirty years. Occupy has brought these to public notice and put them on the table.

Also be careful what you wish for about a constitutional convention. Your "utopia" stated in the link in your signature requires everyone to think like you think, and I can assure you, most do not.

Well, if you've read it, I'm pleased.

However, a constitutional convention need not go as far as I've described in "Democracy." A constitutional amendment defining speech as not including money and corporations as not being people would be much less radical, and much more likely to succeed.

Concepts such as corporate influnce on government, as well as the widening income gap make terrible poll questions, as most people will answer that they disagree with it, without having to consider what would have to be done to eliminate them.

The only way to eliminate corporate influence on elections is to, as you state, amend the consitution. However, any ban would probably also stop ANY grouping of people from having an influence on elections via contributions, be it compaines, unions, PAC's, lobby groups, non profits like greenpeace, etc. At that point you would either have to raise the individual limit for contributions, therefore defeating your whole get corporations out of government meme, or find another way of funding them.

To eliminate the income gap, you would have to basically take money from one group of people and give it to another. Something like that would require laws that are probably unconsitutional.
 
By this point in the history of the tea party I knew all about it from both sides and in depth, the fact that people still have no idea what OWS is about or what they want are engaged in some of the worst willful ignorance I have observed for a very long time. Educate yourselves people.

Oh palease.

OWS is nothing more than a collection of useful idiots with nothing to do and all day to do it.

Glorify them all you want but I guarantee you 99% of them haven't a clue to where the real problems lie.
 
Concepts such as corporate influnce on government, as well as the widening income gap make terrible poll questions, as most people will answer that they disagree with it, without having to consider what would have to be done to eliminate them.

Many posters here do not agree with Occupy on these issues. Economic conservatives generally don't think either of them is a problem. That a huge majority of the people think they ARE problems is significant.

The only way to eliminate corporate influence on elections is to, as you state, amend the consitution. However, any ban would probably also stop ANY grouping of people from having an influence on elections via contributions, be it compaines, unions, PAC's, lobby groups, non profits like greenpeace, etc. At that point you would either have to raise the individual limit for contributions, therefore defeating your whole get corporations out of government meme, or find another way of funding them.

Yes, it would eliminate all such influence. That is always raised by critics of campaign finance reform as if the advocates weren't aware of that, or had a problem with it. Such is not the case.

There is no need to raise the individual limit for contributions; if the amount of money available to spend on elections is reduced, less money will be spent on elections. Why is that a problem? The amount of money we spend on elections is absurd.

To eliminate the income gap, you would have to basically take money from one group of people and give it to another. Something like that would require laws that are probably unconsitutional.

Not true. It was done in the 1940s-1970s, through high top marginal taxes and support for labor unions. None of that is unconstitutional and it's all tested. Of course, there's no need to literally "eliminate" the income gap. It's a matter of degree only.
 
Concepts such as corporate influnce on government, as well as the widening income gap make terrible poll questions, as most people will answer that they disagree with it, without having to consider what would have to be done to eliminate them.

Many posters here do not agree with Occupy on these issues. Economic conservatives generally don't think either of them is a problem. That a huge majority of the people think they ARE problems is significant.

The only way to eliminate corporate influence on elections is to, as you state, amend the consitution. However, any ban would probably also stop ANY grouping of people from having an influence on elections via contributions, be it compaines, unions, PAC's, lobby groups, non profits like greenpeace, etc. At that point you would either have to raise the individual limit for contributions, therefore defeating your whole get corporations out of government meme, or find another way of funding them.

Yes, it would eliminate all such influence. That is always raised by critics of campaign finance reform as if the advocates weren't aware of that, or had a problem with it. Such is not the case.

There is no need to raise the individual limit for contributions; if the amount of money available to spend on elections is reduced, less money will be spent on elections. Why is that a problem? The amount of money we spend on elections is absurd.

To eliminate the income gap, you would have to basically take money from one group of people and give it to another. Something like that would require laws that are probably unconsitutional.

Not true. It was done in the 1940s-1970s, through high top marginal taxes and support for labor unions. None of that is unconstitutional and it's all tested. Of course, there's no need to literally "eliminate" the income gap. It's a matter of degree only.

You keep saying the words huge majority, and dont really show any specific concepts, nor specific numbers to back that up.

If we reduce the ability of candidates to express themselves via paying for media access, then they must rely on the media to cover them for free. So basically the side the media approves of will get all the positive coverage, and the side it dislikes will either get negative coverage, or no coverage at all. I wonder why someone of your politcal persuasion would LOVE that.

All high marignal rates do is fund the government further, which Helps only goverment workers, our new middle party class of burecratic overlords. I've linked a video showing that even if you taxed every penny over $250k per person earned at 100% you would fund the current federal governemnt for a few months.

Of course, the government could lower taxes on people making less, but again, there isnt enough rich person money to make that possible.

The only true way to close the income gap would be income caps, forced prevailing wage salaries, and confiscation of personal property over a certain amount. People like you long for that, but usually dont have the balls to admit it, because you know how popular it would be.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top