Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Judge REJECTS Temporary Restraining Order to Allow Liberty Square Reoccupation

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 4:56 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

from the ruling:

The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a temporary restraining order that would restrict the City's enforcement of law so as to promote public health and safety.

Therefore, petitioners application for a temporary restraining order is denied.

click here for full text of ruling



Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Don't let the lawyers drag you into a dynamic where you are waiting on the courts of this failed system to tell you whether you have the right to protest. If the courts were capable of addressing our interests then we wouldn't have anything to protest about.

Remember, you took the park with people power. You defended it once, using people power. Lawyer power is not going to work. You need to mobilize thousands to retake the park with people power.

[-] 2 points by HPolloi (74) 12 years ago

Exactly. Occupy the park anyway, peacefully, just as before.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

yeah... no... I kind of like the courts. I think they are the 1 branch of our government with any degree of independence (as well as actual knowledge, unlike the charlatans, actors, and clowns in the other to branches.

also the process is still in tact. I assume there will be an appeal, no?!?

Arguments can be made. I am hoping the lawyers go on the attack. The city's claims can be challenged. For example, mayors that are working together to shut down these protest in different cities-- that would be evidence that the claims of safety are bogus, and that there really is a 1st Amendment problem in that.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Easily said from a comfortable chair and a laptop.


[-] 7 points by CrimsonFox (7) 12 years ago

The question at hand is whether or not a tent is an expression of speech, so why not use them as such? Get the word out to write slogans on the tents. If police take down tents with the message on them, how is that not restricting free speech?

[-] 7 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Agree. If corporations are persons and money is speech then it just follows that TENTS are speech too!

[-] 0 points by SelfAppointedLeader (-1) 12 years ago

Non sequitir, madam

Protests = Voice Voice = Free Speech Free Spech is protected.

Tents in a park = Camping in a park Camping in a park = Unlawful Activity Unlawful Activity = Arrest Arrest = Jail

Tents do not have voices. People have voices.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Money does not have a tongue or a voice. But yet it is considered speech. How do you reconcile that ?
I see what you are saying - techinically speaking. I was making kind of a silly theoretical point.

[-] 0 points by SelfAppointedLeader (-1) 12 years ago

Please show me three court judgments that grant money the freedom of speech.

Money is not considered speech. Money is used to trade for goods and services.

Every tent, every blanket, every bit of food used in Zuccotti Park, was purchased with money. Tents, blankets and food are goods.

Every medical examination conducted in Zucotti Park was paid for with money. This is a service. The doctors "donated" their service, and their service has value. They received their education, which was a service, with money.

The supplies the doctors used in Zucotti Park were purchased with money. They are goods.

So, to reiterate, money is used to trade for goods and services, nothing more. The more important the goods or services are, the higher the price paid with money.

Now, people spent money so that the people in Zuccotti Park could eat, live, and receive medical treatment. Nothing in that park was free. Someone paid money for it before it landed in Zuccotti Park.

It is hypocritical to attack those who make money, when money itself allows all in the park to do what they are doing.

Nothing in life is free, with the exception of oxygen; however, even oxygen costs money if you need it in the hospital, because oxygen is bottled (goods), and it is adminstered to you (services).

Your argument falls completely flat.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Can I start with one - off the top of my head. Citizens United. I believe 5 of the Justices used the 1st Amendment in their argument. I know that this was about broadcasting, but it costs money to put a broadcast on the air. So ultimately, money is used for speech.

I was not making an attack on people who make money. If my words somehow implied that, it was absolutely not my intention.

My understanding is the court says Congress may limit campaign contributions -- but not how much candidates spend. That is considered freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

If my understanding is wrong, please tell me. I do want to understand.

[-] 0 points by SelfAppointedLeader (-1) 12 years ago

Your assumption is incorrect. The case you mentioned absolutely had to do with Freedom of Speech. People can broadcast whatever they want without regard to who paid for it. All words that are broadcast are paid for by people who sponsor the message. The Citizens United case overruled an exclusion to one group of people.

Your understanding about Congress limiting campaign contributions, and tying that to freedom of speech, is flawed. Anyone can broadcast whatever they want, regardless of how much money it costs. Again, value, that is to say, is it worth x dollars to buy time to broadcast a message, is in the eye of the beholder. If Citizens United wanted to buy time to air a message, they had the right to do that. The money wasn't the issue. The law blocking the message within a certain time frame, leading up to an election, was the issue. People can say whatever they want without regard to money, and that was the decision made in this case.

It is incorrect to tie campaign contributions, and how much candidates spend, to freedom of speech. The way you phrase it, it sounds like all candidates should have unlimited access to money in order to maintain free speech. That clearly isn't the case, nor is it true, nor was that the decision made in the Citzens United case.

[-] 0 points by SelfAppointedLeader (-1) 12 years ago

I am going to rephrase this for you:

Free speech means that you are able to say whatever you want, and your opinion may be heard.

Free speech does not mean that you have access to things that cost money free of charge.

You can stand in Zucotti Park and voice your opinion 24 hours a day. No one can stop the ability for you to express yourself.

If you want air time on the radio, you can also express yourself that way, but a radio station will charge money for that. You do not have a right to demand free air time to voice your opinion. You must buy the service.

Citizens United bought a service to express their opinion. The overturned law in that case was that people could not express their opinion within 30 days of an election using communication media. Even if communications media provided air time free of charge, the law blocked the freedom of speech for the sponsors of the message.

Money was not the issue. Freedom to communicate the message was the issue that was ruled upon.

[-] 5 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Legal gimmicks aren't going to work. Only tens of thousands of people demonstrating that they reject the attack on the movement will work.

[-] 2 points by CrimsonFox (7) 12 years ago

It isn't going to hurt either. They are using legal gimmicks against the protesters, why should they not do same in their favor?

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Fair enough, but I think the emphasis should be on getting large numbers of people in the streets.

[-] 1 points by CrimsonFox (7) 12 years ago


[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

What's the gimmick? The signs were up from the start: No Tents. You can stay there 24-7 just without camping. Get a snuggy.

[-] 1 points by CrimsonFox (7) 12 years ago

One can put a up sign that says "whites only", but it doesn't mean it will override constitutional rights.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

What? that's a lame retort. that's illegal thank god. camping in city Parks is illegal. if the sign said white only camping, then you'd have something. discrimination against campers is just not high on my list of inner city inequalities. no camping in city Parks.

[-] 1 points by CrimsonFox (7) 12 years ago

The underlying concept is the same: You cannot take away an individual's constitutional rights by putting up a sign. The argument is that the protesters are making a statement (free speech) by occuping the park (camping). That right cannot be taken away because a sign was posted that said otherwise. That is what is at the core of what is being argued in court.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

The argument is over. You can't camp in city Parks. You set a precedent and then people can camp in any city park. Tax paying citizens don't want campers in their parks. Protest away. I like some of your ideas and don't mind protesting. But if you were camping in my city park I'd be pissed. You can't just say we have rights but the rest of you don't. If so, you are just as dictatorial as they.

And the sign was there before you.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

It's good to see just how much you are willing to sacrifice in order to help bring about a world free of corporate tyranny ! My god, imagine that, human beings, camping in a park ! We must never accept such a henious thing,even if it means remaining inhuman cogs in the global corporate grinding machine !

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Are you willing to sacrifice your tent for the cause? I sacrifice montly to Doctors Without Borders. We all have our causes and what we find truly relevent on the planet. Fight for your right to camp. I'll fight for my causes. good night and good luck.

[-] 1 points by theabsurdist (5) 12 years ago

That's an interesting reply.


[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It is not restricting free speech because it is private property. If Brookfield does not allow you to be there, it is trespassing. You can exercise your rights all you want as long as you don't impede on someone else's rights.

[-] 7 points by occupyworld (40) 12 years ago

Occupy the park 24/7 by rotating groups of OWS with no tents, etc.

[-] 6 points by theredsandrevolt (23) from Garwood, NJ 12 years ago

Forget the park march to Washington

[-] 5 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

People are so silly. Do you think the politicians will help us? They PUT us here. They'll SAY whatever they think they have to say (aka "pander") to get OWS support, but they're not going to change a thing. Let's see, as I recall we were going to close Guantanamo, end the wars, address immigration reform, have a post-partisan government, etc, etc. We DID get out of Iraq, but only because the Iraqis booted us out, and we offset those gains in Libya. Now the same guy is collecting millions of dollars from corporations and lawyers ( see http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638 ).

We won't change anything through the political system until we get the money out and break the two-party system (see http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ ). In the meantime, We the People have fantastic power over corporations, who care of nothing but profit, via our buying decisions ( see http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/ for an overview and http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-mall-street-and-change-corporate-america/ for actions we can take RIGHT NOW.

[-] 1 points by Fluke (47) from Örebro, Örebro Län 12 years ago

I like what Chomsky use to say, that there is no two-party system in the US there is only one party - the Business Party. I say the 3 years under Obama´s administration is evidence enough (not to mention Clinton and others!).

Obama made Larry Summers the director of the White House National Economic Council...well there you have it!

Elect Ron Lawl in 2012? Yes! Great for the rest of the world but americans will suffer i am sure.

You got it right Rico. We gotta say NO!...to all of it. We do not need an answer to the question what the alternative is. That is like demanding an answer from a slave to what his/her life will look like out of the shackles. The goal NOW is to get out of the shackles...we can deal with other problems later!

[-] 0 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

The problem is that you're being used to distract from all the tricks, and corruption being perpetrated by big O. So bringing down the U.S. is probably not the answer. In fact you're really doing them a favor. They wanted this "occupying". It's part of the plan. Your Constitution is being shredded, and that's too what they want. Do you know your Constitution. Read it! Taking back America should be the motive. Why not occupy the White House, Nancy Pelosi's house, or Ron Emanuel, or the guy who runs G.E . and never pays taxes. How about Robert Kennedy Jr. who just got more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money for his "business". While the Commander in Chief is vacationing...you;re all the pawns. He'll be elite forever..and he'll keep the rest of us in his slave world communist utopia. Ever examen O's background? His friends, his "records"? Right! You've got the communist in chief, right there in your White House, and he's torn up the Middle East! Can you guess why? Our allies are all being scorned by him,,and he's friends with the terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood, who assasinated Sadat, a friend to Israel and to U.s. Strange things are happening. Stranger than you think. "with peace he will destroy many" Danial 11. It's not who you think, It's bigger and more sinister. Iran and it's new friends, North Korea, China and Russia...for example. And big O pandering to them all...and on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood...ousting Eygpt's President. Who is he anyway? We've got bigger problems than all these distractions you are creating, and helping the "regime"..to do whatever it is they please. Take it all down! That's the plan..Everyone is disposable. Better stand up for your Constitution before it's too late. Fight for freedom ,and don't give the govt. an excuse to put us all in chains.

[-] 1 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

Ever hear of Bill Ayers? Check out those Chicago connections. And Libya? Who gave permission for that? and Obama care? who voted for that? ....Do you know how many illegal things have been done by your hero? Israel defends itself. It's not lobing missles like Hamas is. Do you think one small country in the midst of , and surrounded by enemies, isn't in need of protection when they are threatened everyday. But you're not an Israeli so it doesn't matter to you. You don't deal with missles and threats. So who cares!

[-] 1 points by Fluke (47) from Örebro, Örebro Län 12 years ago

Honestly...wtf are you talking about? In no way do "they" want this Occupy-movement. Obama didn´t tear up the middleeast. The UN decided to tear it up in 1947 and then the U.S became one of few nations that support it. Obama didn´t invade Iraq on false premises, it was Bush & Co. How much did Israel have to do with the invasion of Iraq? Well i know my answer...

Pawns? I´d say that everyone who voted for Bush at the 2004 election were pawns...I mean i thought there were no hope for the world after they reelected that bunch of morons because the voters gave enormous power to a bunch of people who had proven that they were lying irresponsible bastards!

Obama is no way near communist...lol. Slavery has little to do with communism. We are slaves in modern industrialized capitalism society...it´s refined slavery. In the true ideology of communism you don´t have the freedom to exploit other people as opposed to capitalism. Part of the propaganda against communism is designed to make it equal to the perverted ideas of Stalin and Pol Pot, but to one who knows history and some philosophy that propaganda has no effect.

Cuba is always being described as a failure...yes it is a poor country, but why is it poor? Because the U.S wants it to be poor. Then they blame the effect of the trade embargo (poverty) on Cuba/Castro...It´s all part of a disgusting propaganda game that the U.S surely learned from Hitlers Nazi-Germany (after that Stalin´s army defeated them them at Stalingrad).

-We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

-We think the price is worth it.

You know who said it was worth it? Was it Hitler? Was it Stalin? No, it was the U.S Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright in 1996.

"the terrorists" what does that mean? The Israeli soldiers abusing palestinians on a daily basis? The young american soldiers who enters the lands and cultures of Iraq or Afghanistan with basically no other knowledge than how to watch porn, play videogames use alcohol and nicotine and...use lethal weapons? (they haven´t started to shave yet ffs!!)

One big threat and worry to me is that the lunatic state Israel will start a nuclear war against Iran. You know Isreal put one of it´s own citizens in solidary prison for 18 years, Mordecai Vanunu. Why? He told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons. Why did he do that? He is a moral human being. He couldn´t stand the idea that Isreal would use nuclear weapons.

The constitution is just a piece of paper that a group of people agrees upon.

One must fins an answer to what a human being is and what needs it has that should be fulfilled. There is an important problem with the use of the word 'freedom'. You can have the freedom to choose whether you should be electrocuted or poisoned to death - neither is good is it? You can be totally free (in a sense) being in solidary within a limited space...what freedom do you want? What do you mean? We take it for granted but it can mean so many things...the freedom to oppress others...

Don´t worry! When real democracy is being practiced, i.e people come together and in unison make decisions, good things will happen. No instance an rule the world. You must give others freedom to be free yourself. The so called democracy we have today is basically the right to vote for a face that looks nice every fourth year. It´s a f*ing joke!

[-] 1 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

Constitution is not paper! Read it! it gives freedom that no other nation has ever had. But it takes a moral people to follow it. You obviously don't know the history of Israel. That land belongs to them since 3 thousand years ago. The Palestinians? why don't they flourish their land, with the help of their "brothers" millions of Arabs? the land was barron..and uncared for a mighty long time, before Israel was created. God is on their side, by the way. They miraculously won wars when their dear neighbors invaded twice!. And who's lobing missles, even when the Palestinians were given back land? Who's doing the warring? Israel will be there..no one will change that because it's God's Will....Read your Bible,,and also see that the prophecies are being fulfilled very quickly. The battle is between good and evil...period!!! But if you don't recognize good from evil , your lost! FReedom is gauranteed in the Constitution of the U.S...but it's been thrown out. Do you know anything about Obama? you better look him up and find out. Communism is a mild term for what he is. But you're too blind to see.

[-] 1 points by Fluke (47) from Örebro, Örebro Län 12 years ago

A communist would never have given power to Larry Summers. Obama made Larry Summers the director of the White House National Economic Council. That´s all evidence you need against your hilarious claim that Obama is a communist.

I am an atheist, therefore i regard the Bible as a collection of rather naive (by todays measure) myths, and so i regard all the other "holy books". Good and Evil? That is magical primitive thinking...Get real!

Nothing miraculous about Israels success in it´s wars. It´s cold hard brute force with weapons supplied primarily by the US. (and tactics by very skilled military strategists like Moche Dayan and Ariel Sharon for example)

Religious fanatics like you is another problem to deal with for our generation. It´s interesting - the idea you suggest (and not only you), that there is a prime people (the jews) choosen by an alleged god, a god that has given them exclusive rights to torture and murder - is an idea that may well lead up to the society Hitler and the nazis created. Far from what any sane person wants.

[-] 1 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

I guess that's the real problem. Atheist! What a joke. Who's keeping your heart beating? and the rest of your "functions"? YOU..I suppose!..So, being that you have no regard for the God of the Universe, that's running the whole show, and you can't discern that there's an intelligence...beyond YOUR own....there's no sense talking to you. There's a way out of your emptiness...it's called God, and He provided a WAY...But, you'd rather go your own way..."exclusive rights"...to What???Your ignorance is only outdone by your blind stupidity. Sorry!...You close the door on the "alleged god"...and you are the LOSER...end of story!

[-] 1 points by Fluke (47) from Örebro, Örebro Län 12 years ago

There´s intelligence beyond my own but not is this discussion, end of story!


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

put the discourse on middle volume and watch the fear drift away.

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 12 years ago

the two party system can only be broken with an Open Source Direct Democracy where there are no parties or representatives to lie to us once in 4-5 years (i.e. steal our vote), but everyone votes directly for what they want (with 'mob rule' mitigated though), under full legal names or it will get hi-jacked. http://occupywallst.org/forum/cause-and-effect-osw-announces-closing-of-subway-b/ br, Michael

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Open source direct Democracy won't work in my opinion. From my experience here, I believe our citizens are too poorly informed and far too easily moved by passion, suspicion, etc. See part 2 of my 3 part response to an NYU journalism major at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/#comment-297348 . This problem with Democracy was identified by Plato several hundred years BC; the average citizen is so busy managing their own lives that they have little time to develop the expertise required to form informed opinions about complex matters of State. The world'd Democracy's have all been representative as a result.

Another problem with electronic voting in general is vulnerability to hacking. It seems every week we hear a report that SOMEONE (usually attributed to China) has hacked into our most secure systems at the Pentagon. I'm not ready to go electronic until all THOSE intrusions are stopped. THEN we can talk about electronic voting.

[-] 2 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

The U.S. govt. is sooo corupt,,that nothing is safe anymore. They've sold out...Nancy, Emanuel, George, Bill Ayers ( a real piece of work) how about Rev. Wright? All good friends? What in the world have Americans done to deserve this group of imposters? Lost our way, big time! All your political correctness.and no courage to tell the truth, face the truth..and fight for what's right. Because no one knows what's right anymore...:"an inconvenient truth"Pillaging of billions of taxpayers dollars...loans..to the "cronies"...vactaions in the millions of dollars from the White House...Why doesn't anyone see the criminals that have taken over? But they said they'd take us out from inside...and they've done it!..and we're too stupid to even see what's going on..That's what "they" counted on!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

What did we do to deserve this ? We voted for them.

We ALSO get the companies we vote for with our dollars, and the choices we have made in this domain are no better than those we have made in the political domain.

I combined the shopping guidelines we formed in a forum post here and hosted them at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where the would be more accessible and sharable via social media. Take a look and, if you agree, spread the http://bit.ly/DoYourBit link as far and wide as possible using e-mail, tritter, facebook, etc. We need a LOT of people on board if we are to have an impact!

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 12 years ago

I agree with you completely, that's why I propose an Open Source Direct Democracy, based on the rule of law and while mitigating 'mob rule' (i.e. armchair coaches) - or, simply an ADVANCEMENT of the current system.

Is is THE answer? Absolutely not, but the NEXT STEP in ADVANCEMENT. Will is solve ALL our problems? Absolutely not, but will solve many more, much more efficiently than the current 'failed' system (i.e. Congress, super committee, Super Duper Committee, etc.) Will there be corruption, theft and lobbyist influence? Yes, but significantly less and it will be discovered much quicker due to it's 100% transparent nature.

It will simply raise government to the next higher, necessary level of transparency and reduce (not eliminate) special interests, vested individuals, etc. by FLATTENING the hierarchy of current system (i.e. eliminating the 'bottleneck', or 535 senators and reps) but not going to the other EXTREME, i.e. 100% flattening it, or, like the inefficient (and DISCRIMINATORY) General Assemblies that OWS is currently proposing/running.

RICO DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE my, admittedly, lengthy responses as:

1) he has his vested interests in the system as it is ("I am a 5%'er"), most likely an inherited business.

2) Pushing his cause - an American sourced business (so good, but still pushing his cause for personal profit)

3) He knows very little about technology and future directions it is migrating, but does have a good grasp of laws and the past.

4) Is easily influenced by the press/news media (or playing naive) regarding fear of technology (i.e. fear of the unknown), once again, lack of knowledge.

br, Michael

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 12 years ago

part - 1 Rico, It's obvious you have good knowledge of history and for that I respect your response greatly. And, given the parameters you outline, I even agree with you 100%.

However, it is very important to LEARN from history (of course, not REPEAT it), work out the weaknesses, take the BEST PARTS and build on those strengths.

HALF the full title I used is 'OPEN SOURCE (direct democracy)', which even Plato couldn't have imagined because computers were not around then. While I'm far from an IT specialist I am an entrepreneur so am forced to learn a little about everything (see my profile - http://occupywallst.org/users/michaelfinko/ or the website I have listed there or LinkedIn). I really started to discover Open Source only a few years back, and now am a 100% believer. More so, I have switched over to Ubuntu for ALL daily work for 2 years now.

I would love to contribute to the development of Ubuntu in some manner but don't (obviously not programming as I don't have those skills, there are many other ways). Yes, I am lazy, don't have the time, it's complex - all the aspects you point out about citizen contributions. Some day, though, I will. Even if it's just one small correction somewhere, maybe two. If I contribute ONLY those two correction in my ENTIRE LIFETIME I will have helped out to make ADVANCE it (not the 'change' buzzword).

That's the beauty and only one of the many benefits of Open Source. Harnessing the collective wisdom of 200-300mn people (realistically, age 10 - 100). From just that one contribution in a lifetime, or up to realistic 10mn or 20mn people, it all counts. Time wise, that's from one idea from one person in a lifetime or someone who will work on it everyday 10 hours a day, and EVERYWHERE IN BETWEEN. Someone can work a few months, get burned out, take time off and others will keep the work going, come back refreshed, energized, new ideas. They can contribute on in just one area, or several areas, maybe they are a specialist, maybe not (maybe that's good as specialists sometimes get stuck in their paradigm and making it difficult for them to think outside of the box). So many positive benefits to be unlocked.

Any Open Source project will never be perfect, but, it has the SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE that it is always ADVANCING without being brought backwords, i.e. secrecy in government which allows theft, bribery, personal agendas, etc., negative aspects that cancel out positive contributions, very, very rarely present in O.S. because it's done in a 100% transparent manner (I've outlined a lot of this here - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/about2/why-open-source/)

Even if the current system worked 'ideally' (i.e. no bribery, personal agendas, etc.) do you honestly believe that 535 senators and representatives can possibly be more knowledgeable about issues, increasing in number and complexity, affecting 310mn citizens than the citizens themselves? Add in the complexity of many issue being interconnected. Sure they get 'briefed' versions of all issues, but even if they were all the highest I.Q. people in the world, physically they couldn't even begin to tackle all issues as well as, say, 50 - 75mn people can. Just do the math - 24hrs/day for 535 people vs. 75mn people.

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 12 years ago

PART 2 (sorry for the length) -

The world is going through a transformation and we are slowly getting used to 'openness' - Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Skype, etc. We are slowly brining down barriers which on one side feels like invasion of privacy, but, also is bringing the world much closer together. If we can make it though the next 10 - 20 years without blowing ourselves to annihilation (nuclear weapons), transparency may save the human race (needs to continue to spread to the final places around the globe - Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, some Middle East countries, etc. and develop more in the rest).

To address the second part of your comment, TRUST, once again, in the parameters you mention, I agree 100%. You have to assume from the beginning (i.e. a parameter) that ANY system WILL get hacked into (it's called 'TNO' or Trust No One). Any time you have a single point of failure (i.e. one person who has the secret code, or small group of people with the 'secret information', or 535 senators/reps, etc.) that is the single point of failure. How do you solve this? Eliminate those points of failure and the secrets.

Every government abuses 'in the interest of national security'. But, by absolutely minimizing State secrets (by adding in the element of accountability - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/issues/temporary-secrecy-in-law-enforcement/) and setting as a goal 100% TRANSPARENCY (realistically will be 90% - 99%), you will have the strongest country in the world by having NOTHING to ATTACK!!! Magic. Instead, WHEN an attack on the electronic system happens, you simply re-install the previous version (you know, like when you screw something up on your computer and you simply reinstall all the parameters from the day before you screwed it up)

Now, a huge, HUGE parameter for any electronic voting can ONLY be: voting under FULL LEGAL NAMES (all registered under a .gov site running OS software), or, just like current senators and reps are required to do, as citizens will be these new reps.

But I will also address another side of trust beyond just the electronic voting parameter you mention - TRUST in other citizens who repeatedly prove openly on the internet they have a solid grasp of an issue(s) and present logical, unbiased, pros and cons. This can work in several ways. One, I can simply vote the way they argue the case, and in effect, they become 'experts' in the field for others (maybe even some type of compensation for this), or, those 'briefs' that current senators/reps get. Another way is, I can transfer my vote to that person for as long as I like. I keep checking in, they keep voting as they say (i.e. voting history and history of comments). If I see this changing (lobbyist got to them, greed, laziness, etc.), I can take back my voting right at ANY time (so much better than term limits as they have to continually prove themselves). If this is all done with Open Source, then any programmer (or registered programmers, easy, simple verification process by the .gov site to insure a U.S. citizen) can write an app to verify the voting results (can be hundreds of them, maybe they have to go to certain centers to use only certain computers for their writing their programs on?). There's a lot of ways for this to play out, not for me to decide, too much information to fill in before beginning decisions can be made.

This allows those that want to participate to contribute as much as they like while those that don't can have confidence that the system is not being hi-jacked for personal agendas (and when it is, not if but when, it will be exposed VERY quickly - for public judgment by other citizens and disciplinary action, based on the current rule of law, not emotional, lynch mob rule). More importantly, those that don't want to devote their lives to politics can be assured others are keeping their guard up the necessary 24/7/360 that a democracy requires (democracies are much easier to win then maintain).

Finally, back to Ubuntu and TRUST. I completely TRUST the team at Canonical for guiding the Ubuntu project (as well as Mozilla and the Firefox project, and their coming 100% Open Source smartphone platform). Because really, I would like to spend as little of my time on politics, focusing on entrepreneurship and enjoying life! :-)


[-] 1 points by theredsandrevolt (23) from Garwood, NJ 12 years ago

If we shut down the government and the government starts to suffer, I'm sure that they'll listen.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Haven't you heard? These guys don't suffer.

See the 60 minutes segment at http://youtu.be/x95uC_wzUX4

See similar content from Harvard Law prof Lawrence Lessig : http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/law-professor-lawrence-lessig/

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 12 years ago

LOL if you think the NYPD is tough, wait till you try D.C.

Come on guys. Stop being foolish. Go home, organize, select a representative and run them for office.

[-] 1 points by theredsandrevolt (23) from Garwood, NJ 12 years ago

The Green Party couldn't break the 8 or 9% that it takes to be a third party, there's no way that OWS will be able to have an elected official. Instead DC would be easier to take and to hold. Strength in numbers and it has worked in the past, why can't it work again?

[-] -1 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 12 years ago

Unless the Dems want to pick them up. Protesting without a solution irritates people. Shutting down their way of life will anger them. Want people to hate you, camp out all over the place banging those drums.

People are creeped out by the People's mic garbage and the movement has a record.

Organize a real movement by going home. Drop the silly hand signals and cult-like communication method.Who ever told you that was effective or cool was wrong. Lose the masked revolutionary wanna be's and the 19 year olds. Find a common cause and a platform. Appoint a representative and become active on capital hill.

[-] 4 points by Peacedriver (23) 12 years ago

I agree Move Occupy to DC... use donations to bus people there and buy supplies!

[-] 1 points by theredsandrevolt (23) from Garwood, NJ 12 years ago

Exactly, there movements around the nation are too small by themselves. OWS needs to unite in one space.

[-] 3 points by Mae (2) 12 years ago

Shift work: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7, repeat.

[-] 3 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

Stagger shifts, share information.

[-] 4 points by hiddenwheel (83) from Newton, MA 12 years ago

Good idea! The more diverse the better. Zuccotti park should continue to be a place people can go to protest, organize and share ideas. There are plenty of people who might be more inclined to go if they feel like they are the representatives of the movement at a particular time.

[-] 3 points by occupyworld (40) 12 years ago


[-] 5 points by pwig (3) 12 years ago

PLEASE someone read - it is NOT just about Freedom of Speech - it is about FREEDOM to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE - the government CANNOT limit that right to a specific time - such as between dawn and dusk - they cannot LIMIT the time-span for this peaceable assembly - and the judge and evil, evil mayor are doing so - they are EVIL.

[-] 2 points by aquabuddah (30) from Holland, MI 12 years ago

Historically, limiting protests under municipal rules has been upheld by SCOTUS. However, OWS is palpably different. The authority for OWS is derived from the PEOPLE. Those in power are untrustworthy, or there would BE NO PROTEST. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS... We are using them, and to hell with ANY lesser authority that tries to interfere.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It is private property though. It is like trying to assemble in someone's front lawn. OWS is very fortunate that Brookfield allowed them to stay for this long.

[-] 4 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

It was public property that was given to land developers on the condition that they make it available to the public 24/7. So it is public space, but the corporation has the liability of maintaining it. In other words, they got billions worth of real estate in exchange for maintaining a public space for the people. And now that people want to use it they say no and claim they get to decide who uses it, when, and how because it is their private property.

[-] 2 points by melbel61 (113) 12 years ago

but not to sleep in the park...that's the difference. Again if you want to go there and utilize it as a staging area for a protest, that's fine, but to 'occupy' property is a different story.

[-] 2 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

This is entirely false. The place was considered dirty and unsafe. It's a park, not OWS's park. The rest of the public has just as much a right to use it as you do.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Oh, I'm not familiar with the language of the contract.

[-] 2 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

They're called Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). It's its own subject in land law.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

NOT at all. Me and my extended family want to have out Thanksgiving in that park and have every right to do so within your description of freedom to assemble.

Get the hell out - it is our turn to party.

[-] 2 points by BNB (89) 12 years ago

and I guess I am fortunate that all the owners of all the land even allow me to work 40 hours a week and pay them rent in order to have a place to lay down at night. The whole fucking thing is a con. Here I am 46, working a job, and I have 2 weeks to find another room in some apartment somewhere that costs $500-$600-$700 a month. I have been doing everything these folks say you are supposed to do, and at my age I still don't know where I will be living in two weeks. It's a con.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I don't know what to tell you man. It works fine for a lot of people.

What part of the country are you from? $500-$700 per month seems like it could get you something decent in a lot of places.

[-] 1 points by BNB (89) 12 years ago

I am in NYC. Rooms in other people's apartments go for about $600+ a month (in brooklyn and queens--manhattan is double that). That's all. I am not whining. I just question this whole private property thing and how as a result of it many of us are slaves.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I agree that it must feel like that living in a city as big as NYC. Come up to New England. In a lot of large towns/small cities you can get a nice 2 bedroom apartment for $600.

[-] 2 points by BNB (89) 12 years ago

Thanks for the invite. Unfortunately I would also lose my $13.30 an hour job and I have very limited skills and education. (Not that a college degree is helping the kids much these days.) Take care and thanks for the gentle replies.


[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

$500-700 a month? Where do you live, Nebraska? I'm paying over $1,700 a month for a one-bedroom apartment that still has asbestos. Consider yourself lucky.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

They can and did limit where you camp out though. Do it like the unions do, go there in shifts and keep the presence 24/7, hold the GA meetings there. You can assemble, but you can't live there.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Yes. According to the Supreme Court, they actually can.

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice."


[-] 1 points by fvolitan (1) 12 years ago

what about other peoples rights ? that's why we have laws sometimes not perfect ..but we have them .SOOO everyone is protected

[-] 1 points by ChinaMGL (10) 12 years ago

I agree.

[-] 0 points by melbel61 (113) 12 years ago

The problem is the sleeping in the streets....if OWS wants to peacefully assemble and protest, I'm behind you 100%, as I was behind the Tea Party movement. However OWS decided to take it to another level. Creating a small community in a public/private property. There are people who live and work in that part of the city who also have rights. Maybe the rights to go to the park on their lunch hour and sit and relax; or people who live within the vicinity have the right to walk their dog, etc. Rights work both ways. you want the right to protest, fine, but do not trample the rights of others to peacefully enjoy their neighborhood.

[-] -1 points by wsjiii (2) 12 years ago

The OWS's have every right to protest, but you just can't move your possessions into a park and live there in between rallies. That's not freedom of assembly, it's vagrancy.

[-] -2 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Peaceably Assemble where. Not in my house, not in my yard, not in my business, and not in my park (if I am the sole owner, have a vested interest or otherwise wish to exercise my rights to be there too.

[-] -2 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Except that whole private property thing. I, as private property owner, have the right to decide who can and cannot practice free speech on my property. You want first amendment rights, practice them where the first amendment applies!

[-] 4 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

Private property pledged for public use in return for building permits. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with manner restrictions, just making sure we're clear on the state of the park.

[-] -1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

No, I understand why it is as it is. But nevertheless, if a private party is responsible for maintaining the park and they are the legal owner of record, I'm pretty sure first amendment rights do not apply.

[-] 4 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

That's exactly what's being debated along with the legitimacy of the newer restrictions on park use put in place as a direct response to OWS. Personally, I can see both sides. I'm willing to lean in favor of OWS, however, because of what it represents and the change/discussion it seeks to facilitate. I don't think it'd be the end of the world if they had to move to another location but Zuccotti Park has become an important location for the movement.

[-] 3 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Access for First Amendment activities is required in most cases where private entities make their property available for public use. If your rule were followed then all the First Amendment speech on the internet could be blocked or banned because the infrastructure is privately owned.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

A store makes its facility available for public use, but in no way do you have free speech rights on a business's property. Property rights are ultimately sacred and we should be extraordinarily careful if we are going to infringe on them even a little.

I don't know of a case where free speech has ever been taken to court against an Internet Provider. Individual websites can, and do, limit speech however.

[-] 2 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Look up the Net Neutrality debate. It's all about whether the owners of the internet infrastructure get to decide what you look at on the internet.

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

A store and a park are different things. There is nothing sacred about private property. 150 years ago people could be owned as property and there were lots of people arguing the sanctity of property then too. If you're familiar with history you'd see that the "sanctity of property" rights has been the slogan of reactionaries fighting against every major advance for the people, whether it was ending slavery, ending child labor, or ending race and gender discrimination.

Property is a social contract. It only exists as long as the rest of us accept the legitimacy of your ownership claim. When we don't accept your ownership claim it ceases to exist.

[-] 2 points by rebel9 (1) from San Jose, CA 12 years ago

"Property is a social contract. It only exists as long as the rest of us accept the legitimacy of your ownership claim. When we don't accept your ownership claim it ceases to exist."

Like the ownership claims of the native americans.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

And you should do everything possible to strengthen those claims. When the right to private property and the disposal of it as the owner wills ceases to exist, THEN you will have anarchy.

And a park really is no different. It's land, it's owned by someone. That someone allows the public in general to use it, but there are rules that must be followed.

[-] 3 points by agrace (2) 12 years ago

The First Amendment applies to private property that has been opened for public use. See the Supreme Court Case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). The more a private owner opens their property to public use, the more Constitutional rights apply to visitors on the property. Privately Owned Public Spaces may be privately owned, but the properties are designated for public use under the laws of New York State. Therefore, constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly apply in Zucotti Park. The New York Supreme Court's Ruling on the TRO acknowledges as much.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

And I guess I should start looking into getting the Supreme Court to change that.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Then I guess it is their right, although I certainly don't agree with it. Personally I think if a private entity's name is on the deed, first amendment does not apply. Especially at some place like a shopping center.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

And this is exactly the problem with America;to many of us fail to understand that ''natural'' or ''human'' rights,if we are to be a free people,must be held in greater esteem than ''so called ''property rights;which in reality,are not rights,but conditional privalidges.It is not possible to be free when the freedoms you enjoy, are contingent upon the privaledges you must first earn.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

First, let's reference George Carlin on how "rights" work. Basically, you have rights until someone bigger and stronger comes along to take them away.

There are no rights in the "natural" world.

[-] 5 points by OccuPaco (21) 12 years ago

If the courts and their rulings had any credibility regarding our rights, the Occupy Movement wouldn't be necessary.

Resist. Do Not Comply.

"The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those systems." - Lierre Keith

[-] 4 points by steven2002 (363) 12 years ago

You are right, take the park by force if necessary. They have no right to do this to us. We are the 99%, we will not be denied. It's time to show the 1% we mean business.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

You can do that but you will just go to jail and it will cost you or your loved one a lot of money. Also, in the future it may hurt when you are looking for a job. Got to think about this stuff. In the long run. Money problems will sink you for a job. The background check will find it.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

the park is a meme of your discontent. no?

[-] 1 points by melbel61 (113) 12 years ago

how are you showing the 1% you mean business by sleeping in a park? i'm sorry I agree with each person's right to protest, and I understand the anger and frustration of those who feel that the 1% has somehow screwed them, but I don't see the correlation of sleeping in a park to somehow getting the 1%?

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Bingo !

Move into winter quarters. Marshal your forces competently.

Also, avoid the hepatitis bugs, pneumonia, staph, strep pyogenes, etc.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

Excuse me;but what is so awfull about people camping in a park ?

The OWS protestors are making a statement by the occupation of the park;that statement is that; human rights, supercede the privaleges of wealth,ie, ''property rights.''

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

This is agent provocateur bullshit.

Reality sits closer to this:


Lovely sound track.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 12 years ago

Another advocate for violence. Is it any wonder they want you out?

[-] 5 points by rruca1 (3) 12 years ago

I'm not surprised, I'm sure Bloombergs people were breathing down the judge's neck to answer as they wanted. YOU CAN NOT EVICT AN IDEA. THE DAMAGE IS DONE CORPORATE AMERICA, the knowledge is spreading and IT WILL NOT END UNTIL WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY AND WORLD BACK. time to put these tyrant bitches to bed!

[-] -2 points by OWSCityHall (12) 12 years ago

It won't even be remembered in a few weeks

[-] 4 points by dapperry (4) from Columbus, OH 12 years ago

24 Hour Presence Should Be continued. OWS needs to reach out to find places to stay for people to sleep, and then have shifts. I live in Ohio and really want to see you succeed. Get creative guys and keep up the good work!

[-] 4 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

It's just the beginning. a small obstacle. stay strong. let's keep occupying. Occupy macy's. see article that will in spire you. http://www.richardcassaro.com/macys-mind-control-strategies-symbols

Stop buying x-mas gifts now. stop giving the 1% your money every way you can. it's hard because you're brainwashed consumers, but start now to support the movement by not participating in the mind controlled x mas madness. just share your time. you don't have to buy anything! feel the spririt of the 99% It's amazing. we work as ONE.

[-] 3 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

the faster the old system breaks down, the sooner we can build a healthy people oriented inclusive, social economic system. what we have today doesn't work anymore and small adjustments are just temporary fixes. china is watching and knows it's power. did anyone think about that? we need to occupy china and stop outsourcing everything to china. there is almost nothing more "made in USA"

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

We do not need to occupy China;we need to let China be China,even as we curtail military protection for the ''American'' corporations which have set up shop in China and other nations around the world. Personaly,I am convinced that privately owned,for profit buisnesses/corporations, are a poor way of tending to human need.What exactly gives any one person,the right to profit from the needs of another person ?

[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

What makes you think the old system is going to disappear? It could easily limp along for the next 200 years almost unchanged. Not that it will, but it could.

[-] -1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Stop buying stuff and the economy will really take a dive, putting more and more of the "99%" out of work.

Nice plan. NOT!

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

Ever heard of such a thing as a ''GIFT ECONOMY'' ? The 99 percent can learn to pool their money,talents, skills,property et,and devise new economies based upon need,cooporation,and common ownership.This can not happen overnight of course,but we should not fall victim to tunnel vision either.Money, my friend,does NOT make the world go around ! Ever seen a dollar sighn in the night sky ?

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Ah, our economy is collapsing anyways ... let's get it over so we can start over. I can't wait to hear the whining of the brainwashed 99% that are mocking OWS now when it happens.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Actually, it isn't all collapsing. There are pockets of healthy growth. Agriculture is doing great, for example, and there's a small oil boom going on in North Dakota.

People need to get out of this "let it burn" mentality and start being productive, either by actually producing something or fixing perceived wrongs.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

OWS is all about fixing, very real wrongs. For the homeless,disabled,chronicaly unemployed and the sick people, with no way to pay for medical care, the system has indeed already collapsed.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

I hope you are right really, but it is not what I understand for America as well as a few other countries! Agriculture is doing great in America? Then why is a lot of our food coming from overseas? Why is there a problem with soil depletion and food shortages? See the website: theeconomiccollapseblog.com

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

It's a little long to go into here, but the US is the second biggest exporter of food (after the EU) and is also the second biggest importer of food (again, after the EU).

In terms of dollars we currently import about $10 billion more per year than we export. However, you need to understand that a lot of what we import is "consumer-ready" foods made from raw materials we already exported. There's also a lot of "luxury" foods like fruits and vegetables that are not available in the US, or are wanted by consumers out-of-season.

In short, we've got a ton of food at our disposal. We aren't going hungry. We're just doing a lot of trading with our neighbors to satisfy our spoiled pallets.

It used to be getting an Orange for Christmas was a real treat due to the rarity of such a thing at that time of year. Now you easily get oranges year-round due to global trade.

In short, don't think we're going hungry because we import food. We're importing luxuries.


[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Thank you very much for spending your time to provide this information. I am now more educated! Are you familiar with the website address I gave you and if so what do you think about it? Only when you have time ... (-:

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

I just scanned the front page. It sounds a lot like what I've been hearing for at least 40 years. I'm not saying world-wide collapse can't happen, but people have been saying the sky is falling for a long time. Someday they might be right, but in the meantime I'll take it with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, preparing for disasters can be fun. I get into simple "survivalism" once in a while and love apocalyptic movies. I stand by the Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared". Hopefully, though, I'll never have to deal with such a reality.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

it has to collapse totally! the way it is there is nothing to fix. it's too dysfunctional.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

If it "collapses totally", lots of people will be hurt. Many will die.

Take a stroll through history if you don't believe me.

The system isn't that dysfunctional. America is one of the most prosperous nations in the world and feeds billions through its agriculture. Do you really want that to break down and let people starve?

If you want change, the answer is simple. Vote and put your like-minded candidates in office. The US system was built to allow for peaceful and orderly revolution.

[-] 3 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

vote for people that the 1% suggest? the choices proposed by them come from the the same place and mind. that's not democracy. it's unhealthy to keep up an economy that depends on us buying crap at macy's. the system needs to be rebuild from deep within bridging death and starvation but fixing what we have by voting is not going to solve the problems.

[-] 0 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

The people on the ballot aren't necessarily there because the "1%" suggested them. That's nonsense.

However, if you choose to believe that is the case, write in a candidate of your choosing. Coordinate with others to write in the same alternate candidate. It will work if you try and actually have the support of the majority of voters.

[-] 2 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

I can't think of any candidate with big enough balls. they all bow down to money and power in the end.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Well, then find one. Groom one. Support one.

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Pay attention. Between the cash needed to run a campaign and the good will of the media (owned by the 1%) needed to prevail the "legitimate" candidates are always the tools of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Pay attention? Sorry. I'm already well educated and observant. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you have to speak down to me.

A write-in candidate can win if he has grass-roots support. It's that simple. If the occupy crowd has the buy-in they claim they have, a write-in would be a shoe-in.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

and who will pay for this candidate's campaign?

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

His or her supporters.

Contrary to "popular" belief, money doesn't buy elections. I've never seen a coin slot in a voting booth.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

the media brainwashes people into favoring candidates. it also features stories to destroy others. only the ones in power today, who have the money to advertise through the media can achieve this. Don't underestimate the indoctrination and mind control power of the media. the 99% can use the internet but mainstream TV still has the strongest influence delivered right to your home.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

I'm not brainwashed. I know many people that aren't brainwashed.

What I'm hearing you say is that people are too stupid to make up their own minds. I don't buy that. If that were true, we might as well pack up the whole concept of democracy.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your political views doesn't mean they are brainwashed. They just have different life experiences and priorities. We are not all the same.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

you're hearing wrong. people are not stupid, but constant messages coming from the media eventually enter minds of even very smart people. that's why companies pay lots of money to advertising companies. They are not just advertising to stupid people! You may want to reflect on your disbelief that media has power. why do you think eac h election tons of money is poured into campaigns and advertising...? I'm not expressing any p[articular political views here either. you may be projecting. and thank God we are not all the same:)

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

I really don't care how much money anyone spends advertising. It may annoy the heck out of me sometimes, but it does make for more informed voters, creates jobs, and generally gives people something to do.

But does the media control me? No. It can only present messages to me. I retain the power to make my own decisions in the voting booth.

The media only has power over you to the extent that you give it.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Mostly the media. There's nothing wrong with that. Just weigh the arguments presented. Discuss them with those around you. Do more research if you must. Maybe even question the candidate directly.

Then make your own choice in the voting booth.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

and where do you get the information on the candidates that you base your decisions on?

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

That's absolutely true. The 99% are not in any position to pick and support a candidate that did not emerge through the media owned and controlled by the 1%. What may happen now that the 1% present candidates who are really wolves presented in sheep's clothes. They will tell you what you want to hear but be aware of their agendas. Do your research, read between the lines.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

The problem with your argument is that you assume there is a mythical "1%" in control of everything. That simply isn't true.

I'd agree that most of the power is in the hands of a few, but I'd say it's closer to 10%. There are many ambitious wanna-be-billionaires out there, and they may actually be the ones you need to worry about.

If you really think the power is held by an elite few, then go occupy Bohemian Grove.

I've done my research, thank you very much.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

The 1% is a metaphor for a minority of the society who holds power mostly due to money and a history of positions of power being passed on. I think everyone understands that we are not talking about exact statistics here. Neither are we paranoid about extreme conspiracy theories.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

I have to disagree. The message being perceived by outsiders is a true 1% vs. a 99%. If you say it's a metaphor, you're really dancing around the issue that it is really a lie and a misrepresentation.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

not at all a misinterpretations. I would not generalize that people are taking the 1% versus the 99 literal. It may be 6% or even 10%. that is not the point. This is about finding general consensus and an economic and social system that works for everyone and not just for 1 to 10% of the greedier population that holds the power at this time.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Actually, there is general consensus for the current system. Not everyone is completely happy with it, of course, but it does muddle along. Advocating destruction of the current system is a cure worse than the disease.

The people who actually hold power are the ones that can vote. It's just that simple.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

We have arrived at a place where there is no simple solution. Destruction is extreme and never a solution. Maybe you can call it start over but no one in power ever volunteers to give it up or to share it, simply voting will also not solve the current ongoing world crisis. This is a crossroads and an interesting time of change.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

as futuristic as it may sound, we need a council of wise and mature people and not political parties fighting dirty and doing/saying anything for votes to win. our society and leaders need to grow up and power needs to be returned to people versus one party and head of party acting on behalf of the masses, because today the system is oriented toward making the rich richer and not really concerned with the well being of all.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

And where do you find AND VET these wise and mature people? How do you convince them to serve? What if they don't want to? How do you inform people about them? How do you "elect" the ones you want? How do you keep these wise and mature people from becoming corrupted once they are in power? How do you get rid of them if they do become corrupt?

You see, we have what we have today because The People allowed this to happen. The PEOPLE voted and then went back to their lives expecting those they had trusted to do things the way they wanted them done. The People are lazy and self interested and only involved when their own lives are affected.

You will NEVER, ever, be able to created a perfectly fair, perfectly balanced system that benefits ALL-as long as you have imperfect people building, using, living in that system.

[-] 1 points by Zorra (7) 12 years ago

Good questions and I agree with that. It starts with you, i.e. with every single one of us, reflecting on how we live and respond to others and situations, our motives and motivation, we have to mature mentally, emotionally and spiritually. It takes time, effort, dedication and willpower to face and correct each of our own shortcomings. That's why I said it's sounds futuristic, but there is hope that humanity will get there one day...

[-] 2 points by sharadsun (1) from Erie, PA 12 years ago

I fully agree that America has been prosperous and that it's been riding on the shoulders of giants since the late '40s, but those giants have been stepping on us, and there's 99 of us and only one of them. It's been prosperous because there's ALWAYS been a class of people not getting enough. In the '40s, wealth distribution was relatively flat (compared to now), but the East European foreigners were still oppressed in the cities. Then the Black Rights struggle came to light, then the liberals in Vietnam, then finally the lower and middle classes (us) as wealth distribution spiked at an all-time discrepancy. There's always someone taking the hit... this system could work if wealth distribution was flatter, but our leaders won't let that happen. Someone's always corrupt, and corruption will force wealth distribution to the upper end every time. THAT is the real problem with this system.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

The problem is you're trying to fight human nature. No matter what you do to try distribute assets equally, there will be some who have a natural ability to acquire assets, as well as those who have a natural ability to loose assets.

Some may see this as a problem. I see it as a reality that is unlikely to change.

Remember, it isn't necessarily corruption that puts someone in the "1%". Usually it is hard work and determination. Dumb luck or providence may play a role, too. American history shows us many self-made millionaires. They're still being made. You just haven't met them yet.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

And I guess there will always be intellegent, but hopelessly brainwashed people like you,who have been convinced that human injustice is something that we must accept simply because some people behave injustly !?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Self made or with the help of the people? I do not mind it if people want to be rich, but when they start stepping on my little simple life I get upset. Can't they just let us live a simple life?

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

Extravagant wealth can not be created by some,without the destruction of others simple lives.That is a fact !

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

What people helped Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak while they were toiling away in their garage? Who was helping Bill Gate code Microsoft BASIC? Who was helping Warren Buffet selling magazines and chewing gum?

It's your right to choose to live a simple life, but different people want different things. There's nothing wrong with that.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

All these people you mention had the idea, but they needed people and lots of them to go forward. Okay, I am done.

[-] 1 points by xyzzy (13) 12 years ago

Yep. They needed people. In doing so they created jobs. People want jobs, right?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Yes, people want jobs ... Maybe people need to become more self sustainable... Geesh, I do not know ...

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

People DO need to become more self sustainable. But many people do not WANT to.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

What you aren't recognizing is that the people mentioned above PROVIDED something to the population that the population WANTED/NEEDED so BOTH sides benefited. These men became "rich" and the society they provided products for lived a better life because of their efforts.

You make it sound (or want to make it sound) like they "went forward" by stealing money from "all the little people". Crushing the "simple lives" of others, when in fact they provided MILLIONS of jobs for others, developed ideas and products that improved all of our lives, and gave us opportunities and access to things we never would have had before. We give them our money in exchange for those things.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

What the hell are you talking about ?! Do you even know what you are talking about !?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

No, I did not mean to make it sound like that. I was only saying that it takes all or help to be successful and there should be some kind of fairness. Good night ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23771) 12 years ago

I agree with karenpoore. Being that Apple has more money than the U.S. Treasury I'd say that Americans overpaid for their Apple products. One of the problems with our economy is that most Americans do not have full information about the products they purchase and the process under which those products are produced. For a real free market transaction in a pure capitalist system both parties should have reasonable knowledge about the fairness of the transaction.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Most Americans couldn't care less about the process under which their products are produced. They demanded more product and Apple supplied them. And Americans happily paid for those products. People who think it's unfair, don't have to pay for them.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

Before computers were invented,no one ''demanded'' a computer.Fact of the matter is,the so called free market,very often makes demands of us,regardless of what we demand or desire.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23771) 12 years ago

Amen to your last sentence.

[-] 1 points by jamesofthecommons (0) 12 years ago

America does not feed ''billions'' of people ! Millions of people are going hungry around the world thanks to monoagriculture practices,or the growing of ''cash crops'' instead of diversified food crops which actualy provide nutrition to the human body !

[-] 4 points by bc42 (8) from Hillsdale, NY 12 years ago

Push Back! ......... it's time now! The courts cannot be expected to defend the rights of the 99% .......... 1% judges and a 1% system of influence creates and wishes to maintain a 1% system of domination. The Constitution is dead ..... long live the Constitution.

[-] 3 points by jsteiner5 (1) 12 years ago

Here's a very simple solution to making a serious impact on Wall St and the Media industry. If we can get millions of OWS supporters to cancel their Cable TV, Direct TV on Telco pay TV subscriptions it will have a devastating effect on Wall St and media like News Corp, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, ESPN, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, etc...., which are all publicly traded companies that spit out garbage through their TV channels. All Cable channels rely on the money from the Cable fees, which comes from cable companies (Carriage Fees), which ultimately comes from us, the stupid people who continue to keep them in business by paying to watch TV every month, while they treat us like garbage.

I cancelled my cable 9 months ago and happy that I know they are not surviving off of my dime. If YOU are not willing to cancel your cable TV subscription then you are a part of the crime that's being commmitted on the 99 percent of the people.

Can we get 1 million people to cancel their Cable TV / Pay TV subscriptions each month? If we can do that then Wall St will take notice, media will take notice and change can and will happen.

It's that simple...cancel your Pay TV subscriptions TODAY and pass the word on. Let's stop being stupid. TV is still FREE!!!

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

Dish Network has Free Speech TV and Link. Charter didn't seem to have them. People could go with more basic packages and still get their news, just not from Fox and CNN. In rural areas there is no free TV left. But I support people buying locally when they can and living simpler. Sometimes that means buying used when possible, supporting small business. Unemployed people can donate time at food pantries and thrift store too. That kind of branching out to help others would be good for the movement.

[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

Canceling your cable service is something everyone can get behind, regardless of political affiliation.

[-] 3 points by AngryAntiBanker (7) 12 years ago

Like many of you here, I'm extremely pissed with damn banks and investment houses. I'm pretty sure most of these banks, and the people running it, don't care about the whole movement, at least I haven't seen any changes or any of those pricks complaining. The only way they would care is if they would somehow lose money because of it.

There is one way to make them lose money - Legally. Advertising costs through pay-per-click in Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.

For example, if you go to Google and type "Chase", then the first result is an advertisement. Every time a person (even the same person) clicks on that ad, Chase gets charged a fee. I don't know what the fee is for the word "Chase" but it's no less than around $1. I advertise my business through those search engines and some times I pay up to $10 every time someone clicks one of my ads.

Just have 10,000 people world wide (which is not that many people if you think about it) look in Google and Yahoo for any word or sentence that says "Chase" or any Bank out there. If each person looks for at least 3 words a day, then the Bank will lose money to those advertising agencies about $1,000,000 a month!

All those people spend the whole day occupying public spaces and nothing solid being achieved. Hell, have them all spend the entire day, everyday, clicking on internet advertising for these banks, and the banks could loose hundreds of Millions of dollars each month!!! That would make them pay attention. 10,000 people clicking at a rate of 20 ads per hour, for 10 hours, comes out to at least $60 million a month.

[-] 3 points by aRcaNum (3) 12 years ago

We need, sleeping bags and BOXES AND BOXES OF HAND WARMERS!!! They can't prevent that.

[-] 3 points by occupyworld (40) 12 years ago

They could've done this in a more fair way. They could've had a ruling by a judge that they could occupy but no tents before the raid and eviction. People could have secured their personal property then instead of being seized and destroyed. Occuiers would've known in advance they would be allowed back in.

[-] 3 points by changetakesTIME (4) 12 years ago

The world will come to admire our resiliency! This will make us much stronger!

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

OWS is a metaphor, it does not have to be taken literally. There are many possible strategies for advancing the cause.

Of primary importance and consideration is the health and safety of our forces. To that end I suggest focusing on direct actions that make use of our strengths.

For example: Those with experience at OWS can travel to other localities and occupations to share their experiences and create a larger and more connected network.

[-] 3 points by aquabuddah (30) from Holland, MI 12 years ago

The system is broken. This broken system played by wholly obscene rules, yet expects the resulting outrage to follow the usual rules Re protests. This is NOT the usual protest. A 9 to 5 protest is not sufficient redress for the nature of the grievances of the 99 Percent. #OccupyEVERYTHING

[-] 3 points by ChinaMGL (10) 12 years ago

Occupy Wall Street needs to continue! Don't let the this defeat break the movement, it needs to keep growing!!

[-] 3 points by ThomasPaine333 (32) 12 years ago

The public, and if you believe you represent the 99% (or maybe 98%)- the people can't be your enemy, think it was time for the removal to happen. Allot of people want change, but it has to be concrete action, not tent occupation. Please take the momentum and FOCUS on results within the system you have now. I know my representative and she's good at what she does and she does listen. But it's time to 'demand' more from those who represent us - really. Don't stop.

[-] 2 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Imagine what would have happened had Thomas Paine said the same thing to Gen. Washington at the Valley Forge Camp.

[-] 2 points by ThomasPaine333 (32) 12 years ago

He wouldn't have - nor would I have. This is a 'war' of ideas, not of physical force by the people. I read allot of these comments and there's so much 'hatred' and 'disdain' not only for the system but 'the public' also. "The people are 'sheep' the people are stupid...etc. etc.' You guys had my support for a long time, but I have to say, I'm having my doubts. I'm not the only one feeling this way - I've talked to the 99% and they're getting to the point where 'enough is enough' - small business owners around some occupy areas have suffered. Most people do want property and to feel like a productive part of society, including running a business. People want law and order also -but none of this is relevant. . Get money out of politics and then you can talk about what you want from a true democracy.

[-] 2 points by fvolitan (1) 12 years ago

we live in the USA Try to be proud There is a reason why everyone wants to come hear Think on what makes this country Great ! Nothing is perfect

[-] 2 points by TimeHasC0me (66) 12 years ago

The only way you, OWS, all will make a difference is if you affect the day to day operation or flow of life, commerce, and or government. As i once witnessed in France, their government wanted to raise fines, tolls, taxes, etc. on all commercial truck drivers and trucking companies. What happened next was amazing. All French trucking companies and drivers criss crossed their trucks across all major highways in their country, completely blocking and disabling the transportation of all goods throughout the country. This lasted for about a week or less, until the government backed down and reversed its decision. It worked because it takes a protest of this scale to affect change. Occupying a park, although symbolic, will never ever ever do anything to change how disgustingly our government and the rich control all our lives, and continue to make the rich richer. You need to regroup, and i mean regroup all OWS protesters from across the country to a few very large simultaneous protests because small groups here and there won't really make a statement and can be easily intimidated and disbanded by authorities. You need a board of smart leaders that can effectively communicate a set of real smart ideas and demands and better organize the movement. You need to continue to use social media as a way to communicate as they did in the middle east to oust their dictators. But most of all you need to make one massive statement by protesting and affecting the day to day operation or flow of life, commerce, and or government. It will be the only way that you will get the govt and the rich to stop.......turn around......and stare in awe at the EPIC scale of the movement before them, and realize that the time has come, and that We The People have officially drawn the line in the sand, and are no longer willing to play their game any longer. IT IS THE ONLY WAY. Thank you.

[-] 2 points by DownWithCorruption (0) from Sullivan's Island, SC 12 years ago

This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and proof of Government corruption. They are so desperate, they're willing to come up with any excuse to force these people out. Cleaning the park? Are you kidding me?

[-] 2 points by alr10 (1) from New York, NY 12 years ago

What's the name and address of the judge who made this ruling? I want to write him or her a letter.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Go ahead. And ten of us will write him a letter telling him we support his decision.

[-] 0 points by dotsend66 (43) 12 years ago

aipac(american israel public affair commette)

[-] 2 points by burrito (-1) 12 years ago

the bill of rights is clear, regardless of what this punk-ass judge has to say. his ruling is unlawful and should be disregarded.

[-] 2 points by dirtyoldhippy (9) 12 years ago

until the nypd/kkk midnight invasion, there was no safer village in america than zuccotti park. all were free to "use the space safely" and there is no record of even one person becoming ill from being there, nypd-inflicted violence the only known unchecked health hazard during occupy's stay.

[-] 0 points by gobbsmacked (1) 12 years ago

the nypd is not the kkk. when you say so you disrespect those who fight the kkk and those helped by the nypd

[-] 2 points by jackl (4) from Queensbury, NY 12 years ago

Decision doesn't stop re-occupation...just no tents and generators. Note that there must be some "park" area for the local non-protesting complainers to eat their bag lunches, play chess and feed the pigeons so they can't complain that their park is being "taken away" from them as a pretext to clear protestors...see last paragraphs of today's ruling....

[-] 2 points by demandjustice (0) 12 years ago

WE ARE THE 99% Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers. 
The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.
They’re not fond of rules. 
And they have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Because they change things. They invent.  They imagine.  They heal.
They explore.  They create.  They inspire.
They push the human race forward. Maybe they have to be crazy. How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art? 
Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written?........
 Or see injustice and demand change? While some see them as the crazy ones,we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think
they can change the world, are the ones who do.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

So true!

[-] 2 points by unionlawyer (0) 12 years ago

The judge based his decision, at least in part, that the City does not permit structures in the parks. This is false. At this very minute, a Christmas market is being constructed in Union Square, where food is sold, generators used, electric lines are run and used, and garbage collects. It is erected every year. Also, the City permits a Jewish organization to erect a Sukkot hut every September for the duration of the holiday. I believe the hut is occupied continuously.

[-] 1 points by Peacedriver (23) 12 years ago

also ruled public health and safety... NYC is filled with rats and bed bugs.... The homeless sleep in cardboard boxes all over the city at night I could go on and on.... what BS!

[-] 0 points by MBJ (96) 12 years ago

Just guessing, but I would imagine that the sponsors of those events have applied for and received permits, paid insurance and cleaning/maintenance fees, and otherwise worked within the system.

[-] 0 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

People don't live in the market and a religious structure is not the same thing

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

You're wrong. They've privatized and commercialized our entire lives. Everything is for sale in their system, including you.

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

Yes, I am for sell. I sell my self out to companies in exchange for a wage. And still, I don;t see what that has to do will the obvious difference between a tesnt city, a market place, and a religious structure.

[-] 0 points by workhardplayhard (33) 12 years ago

if you don't like it, feel free to move to a country without private ownership rights, such as Venezuela


[-] 2 points by SunshineinUnion (0) 12 years ago

So, basically, the judge says that free speech is subject to the rules of owners of space, be it a city or a private firm. We, the people, or even a subset of us, have to squeeze in the right to speech and assembly around the mandates of public order. It comes down to what is "reasonable." That is the key term in his ruling.

"enforcement ofthe law and the owner's rules appears reasonable to permitthe owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent itfrom being liable by the City or others for violations of law, or in tort It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus. "

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

Yes! Your right to free speech does not trum other people's property rights.


[-] 1 points by meandhershal1 (6) 12 years ago

Law and order? Remember? Camping in the park? I don't think so? Disrupting people's lives, so you can camp out...not work...tear down things you don't even understand. Trash your society , and demonstrate against who? Your president is at the center of ALL the problems. But you keep supporting him. He's the "winner"...maybe another vacation in order soon? on OUR money!!! If you want to fix something, make sure people know the truth about the "regime"..and try to vote someone else in. Although it's all a "fix"..sorry to say. Herman Cain might have made some sense,,but I think they are all bought and sold,..one way or another...In today's world, try to find someone with integrity.. So what can be done? i suggest praying,

[-] 1 points by Uzbazbeil (34) 12 years ago

Isn't it interesting that 9.7 million Americans died of pharmaceutical drug's side effects alone between 1990 and 2000 and the gov looks the other way when the cures for all diseases exist!?!?! And the government authorizes industrial waste in our drinking water (fluoride) and despite proof that the poison is responsible for so much suffering it still keeps pumping it in the drinking water. Isn't it interesting that this ruling mocks us American's and insults our intelligence and lies to us that they 'care' about our safety in this ruling when my government is committing genocide just because it makes the 1% billions? My government is a terrorist organization with special interests.

[-] 1 points by otherwisee (51) 12 years ago

You are infringing on other people's rights and safety by living there.

[-] 1 points by rocknewtown (18) from New York, NY 12 years ago

OWS is obviously a group of disgruntled hicksters from middle-america who dreamed of making it rich in ceramics, puppetry, fine arts, or whatever – only to see their dreams vanquished by the current recession. And now they’re simply facing the tough reality that they've made horrible idiotic decisions in life, so they want the govt to bail them out by paying back their student loans for them since they're unemployable. Imagine going to school for something that would help you contribute to society! But no - can't be a doctor, or a scientist, an engineer, a lawyer. No, those aren't cool jobs that allow you to comment on Gawker on the internet all day and play around on facebook uploading vintage-looking photos from the party in Bushwick last weekend.

Own up to your mistakes. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to take on debt for useless degrees and no one held guns to your parent’s heads and forced them to buy mcmansions in suburban CIncinnati that are now worthless. Obviously a lot of you are the offspring of parents who were unable to pay their mortgages, made poor financial decisions, etc. It makes perfect sense - the apples don't fall far from the tree out there in ol' Ohio, right?

Face it, you are not the 99%! You are maybe now part of the 8% or so who comprise a great part of the unemployable permanent underclass in our society. So please leave NYC. We’re glad you were able to experience our city for a short time. We hope you had fun. Now please - go back where you came from. You're not entitled to camp out in a privately owned place where real NYers live their lives and pay taxes.

10s of thousands protesting? Really? Wow! Out of a country of 310 Million? Lets be extremely generous and say you have 50,00 protesters nationwide. Out of 350M what % is that? You are 0.00016% of our population! Will you please get a clue and walk right on over to the Port Authority – hit he road and stop looking for handouts from NYC? Thanks!

Almost forgot - try that shit in the subway tomorrow - holding doors open or whatever you think will be fun and disruptive to people (the real 99%, not your pitiful backwoods 0.00016%) and you'll see how actual NYers with jobs respond to you bored out of town hicksters with nothing better to do. Try that shit in Morrisiana with the bros in the Bronx or in Gravesend with the guidos and lets see how it works for you. Oh yeah, I forgot - you've never heard of those places since you're all hicksters from middle-america who’ve only ridden the L train from Lower Manhattan to Bushwick since you came here 2 mos ago.

And by the way - full disclosure - I agree with most of what you protest for. YOu've just managed to do it in a backwards way typical of the people who you've employed to take part in your little campout and set normal people like us back even more. Thanks again.

[-] 1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 12 years ago

Word. Funny though, I'll bet when they accidentally go too far, and impact those of us who really do work, they will beg nypd to protect them from us.

[-] 1 points by DM10014 (-8) 12 years ago

YES! Go home and take all of your crap with you!

[-] 1 points by AngryAntiBanker (7) 12 years ago

People, this is not the 60s and 70s, and our adversary is not "The Man". There true way to occupy wall street is to occupy the daily operations of wall street. Make the banks lose money. http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-them-lose-money-and-they-will-listen/

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 12 years ago

FORGET Liberty Square!!!!!!!

What year is everyone living in?!?!?! 1978?!?!?! Keep your eye on the DOUGHNUT not the HOLE!!! It's 2012 folks, you know, iThis & iThat, Android, Widipedia, Tweeter, Skype, etc. What REALLY matters is the INTERNET SQUARE!!!

Establish an Open Source Direct Democracy at WARP SPEED! Do not lose the critical mass you have gained, instead, add to it!!!!!! Don't delay.


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

the acts of voting, spending and protesting should be honored all the same. If there are no limits on one, the rest do not over compensate.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

If money is speech and corporations are people, then a tent is speech also....Just keeping in line with the fucking insanity..

[-] 5 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I think you are making fun of me : )
Tell us what you really think!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

No, you probably said something like that before and I unintentionally procured it. How you doing April?

What I really think? This world is run by Satanic/Occult sociopaths, that would love it if we would all just go away and since they have the money, time and a plan...Why not just get the job done....See you at the FEMA camp.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

To be honest, I've been a little shaky. And your not so subtle assessment of the situation is not helping!

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Sorry, I feel the same way..

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

LOL! Somehow - your response made me laugh. Maybe just the ridiculousness of it! Two negatives = a positve! Do you feel any better now??

I was in this conversation yesterday, and it made me very sad.
If you are interested in this topic, read through. Reply to me there if you find anything that interests you and let me know what you think. Maybe your interests lie elsewhere - thats ok too. I'm just being curious. And I don't want to go to a FEMA camp - sigh!


And thank you for making me smile : )

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Look, I'm seriously deranged at this point and have developed a severe case of paranoia and ADD after 2008...Lots of thinks interest me and generally at the same time, I have 1000 windows up on my computer..I'm going to freakin' explode! Big Sis..is coming to take me away..

Oh I'll read the link!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

I read the article.. Direct Democracy = Anarchy..BS meter pegs to the right. I have no problem with the pictures..Some of it looks like it would work well on one of Ayn Rand's (crazy, literally inefficient, bitch) books..

"but instead try to invite them into our arms." ...Not happening..OWS must overtake the old order...Then we'll play nicey nice.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

lol. nick, please - take a breath! Before going back to the 1000 windows you have open. There - don't you feel better now.
Carry on!

[-] 1 points by artistpres (0) 12 years ago

re: Tents, generators etc in parks (see photo evidence at links)

Mayor Bloomberg claims that tents are not allowed in NYC parks. Ask him to explain the giant tents being set up right now in Union Sq Park and in Central Park at Columbus Circle for the corporate run Holiday vending Markets. These tents are set up for more than a month straight, 24 hours a day. They completely displace pedestrians, residents and park visitors for a fee of millions of dollars.

Mayor Bloomberg says generators are not allowed in NYC parks, yet the Holiday Markets operate huge generators as do most of the Greenmarket vending stands in Union Sq Park. There is even a weekly Greenmarket set up right outside the Mayor’s office with huge tents and generators.

Mayor Bloomberg says protestors cannot sleep in parks, yet he allows more than 100 homeless people to sleep in Union Sq Park every night. Instead of pretending that the Mayor is a defender of free speech, perhaps the media can ask him to explain these totally inconsistent policies.

Columbus Circle Holiday Market http://www.scribd.com/doc/60267105/Columbus-Circle-Holiday-Market-2010

Union Sq Park Holiday Market http://www.scribd.com/doc/42641529/Holiday-Market-2010-USP

Union Sq Park Greenmarket tents 5/22/2010 Greenmarket and artists in USP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRVsv_E1Iqc

Greenmarket generators, tents etc *Union Sq Greenmarket violates all park rules for public safety http://www.scribd.com/doc/33300320/Union-Square-Park-Green-Market-6-19-2010-by-RL

Giant diesel generator, Union Sq Park Holiday Market http://www.scribd.com/doc/60266459/Deisel-Generator-USP-Holiday-Market

Homeless sleep in Union Sq Park http://www.examiner.com/destinations-in-new-york/parks-department-plan-will-bring-chaos-to-union-square-say-street-artists

Mayor Bloomberg is an enemy of free speech, of artists’ rights and of public space. Robert Lederman, President of ARTIST artistpres@gmail.com

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Statement From Mayor Bloomberg on Clearing Zuccotti Park The following statement was released by Mayor Michael Bloomberg after police and sanitation workers cleared Zuccotti Park early Tuesday morning:

EXCERPT: “The park had become covered in tents and tarps, making it next to impossible to safely navigate for the public, and for first responders who are responsible for guaranteeing public safety. The dangers posed were evident last week when an EMT was injured as protestors attempted to prevent him and several police officers from helping a mentally ill man who was menacing others. As an increasing number of large tents and other structures have been erected, these dangers have increased. It has become increasingly difficult even to monitor activity in the park to protect the protestors and the public, and the proliferation of tents and other obstructions has created an increasing fire hazard that had to be addressed.”

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The rape was the "killer." Bloomie had to act.

Also, medical support was becoming impossible. "Leaderless" is no model for doing competent public health.

[-] 1 points by apagano (0) 12 years ago

Staying within the law.....( ??) we could occupy without camping.Sort of like what is done on ships for a wheel watch..Relieving each other on 4 hour rotation shifts..24 hours a day... a core of 200-400 at liberty park.I would take a little organization , but no problem right?

[-] 1 points by watpp (0) 12 years ago

I want to see how long the 1% can suppress the people. I don't think the 1% can last for 3 months. It will be very interesting to see.

[-] 1 points by Lamash (2) 12 years ago

United States government in the past and present has been criticizing governments of other countries obstructing demonstrations by the people as undemocratic. It has provided monetary and military supports to protect demonstrators against these governments. Recent examples of U.S. support of uprising by the people are; against governments of Egypt, Libya and Syria. On the contrary, U.S. government has been trying to crush demonstrations by the people in United States against unfair government policies and practices, to protect its' interest groups. United States claims to be the leader of democratic world. But, it practices double standard to protect the interests of the groups and entities it benefits from. This is called nothing but a democracy of interests, of the government, by the government, and for the government only.

[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

What good are standards if you can't have a good double-standard?

[-] 1 points by asher2789 (1) 12 years ago

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_v._C.C.N.V. (summary of supreme court case clark v. ccnv) and then read justice marshalls dissenting opinion - his opinion is incredibly relevant to this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=30121711727218786&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[-] 1 points by danielhb (2) 12 years ago

Consejo para los inexpertos compañeros manifestantes de EEUU ante la carga de la represión montada: lleven bolsas de bolitas (canicas) y arrójenlas al paso de los caballos, sobre el asfalto son un elemento altamente desestabilizador de caballo y jinete.

Daniel, desde La Argentina

Tip for the inexperienced U.S. fellow manifestants to the charge of mounted repression, carrying bags of balls (marbles) and throw them to the passage of horses. On the asphalt are highly destabilizing element of horse and rider.

Sorry for my bad English. Daniel, from La Argentina

[-] 1 points by jaxockies (1) 12 years ago

If Citizens United tells us that money = free speech, then why is not the act of "occupy" as in Tunisia, Egypt, New York City and other Occupy sites, not also free speech, and thereby protected activity (actually occupying by staying there)?

[-] 1 points by screwtheman2 (14) 12 years ago

YES!!!!! Get the tents out.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 12 years ago

The park is public, so it's ok to say no one can own it. But to say, the ones who use the park can't never be accountable for their actions is WRONG. The park belongs to someone and that someone is the city comunity. You use a park, you have the duty to keep it clean and safe so others can enjoy the park the same way you were able to. If you don't abide by these rules the comunity can't let you use the park.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 12 years ago

The text of the ruling doesn't appear when I click the link. Anyone else having trouble?

[-] 1 points by JonoLith (467) 12 years ago

Wow it's gotten that blatant eh?

[-] 1 points by LunaSattelite (0) 12 years ago

It is sad that the 1% made new rules to disallow camping in an attempt to push you back to a "free speech zone" out of their way... But: if you're getting to them that much, that means that it's WORKING!

I agree with the other suggestions that even if you now have to re stage the encampment elsewhere, DON'T give up Liberty Square! You can still Occupy 24/7 in shifts without breaking any laws. And should, to show them you aren't going anywhere.

Wish I lived closer and could help more in person, but I'm doing what I can in Portland. With you in Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 12 years ago

If the establishment won't allow you to camp there, then occupy it 24/7. Occupy it in shifts, coming and going, but always people there 24/7. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, no where does it say, that it can only be in the daytime. These corrupt judges are in the pockets of special-interests and those in power. Let's not let them run over the rights of the citizens of this country. Crackdown's like these, and other places around the country, only make the movement stronger and bigger. The outrage that comes from these antics only adds more fuel to the fire, they cannot stop a rolling snowball coming down the mountain, it only gets bigger and bigger! Do not let these crackdowns and intimidation by the authorities deter those who protest the greed and corruption in politics, Wall Street, the Banks and Corporations! This only confers what we already knew, that the system is broke and corrupt. We will march by the millions in 2012 elections and oust all those who helped and continue to help the elitists. Watch out Mayor Bloomberg you are walking on thin ice and so are the other elitists under your power. We implore that the City Council step in and tell the Mayor to back off or they themselves will be targets in the 2012 elections!

[-] 1 points by gsholette (1) 12 years ago

wintering without tents: diy thermal wear designed by Queens College art students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ2vDaV36QY&feature=feedu

[-] 1 points by MPolo (18) 12 years ago

I have supported this movement since the start, proudly. I strongly suggest a change in tactics. The media is already set to declare the protests as violent and chaotic. Play the litigation game but safely move to another location. It doesn't really seem productive to endanger protesters through the winter...Read Sun Tsu...It should not be this hard to draft up a list of 10 demands to accomplish our goals. We don't want to tear down society. we just want to turn the ship in a different direction, and that is going to take time..,How many are in this for the long haul? My suggestion would be to keep a small group near Wall Street through the winter and send everyone else home to regroup...Would it not be more productive to hold protests at Walmart through the holiday season? There is a Walmart in every town across the nation...Take this time to plan and organize for the coming Spring...Right now I have concerns about health, safety, and organization. What is to keep a violent criminal straight out of prison from setting up a tent next to a group of college girls? I hope that the basic logistics have been worked out to keep as safe as possible. Our local version of OWS is just having a party..I will continue to travel to other cities though where I hope to share some ideas with the good people here,

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Occupy the mayor's parking spot.

Occupy the City Council.

Occupy the doorway of a thousand banks at once for a different hour each day.

Occupy the telephone lines of Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by Burbur (2) from Stockholm, Stockholms Län 12 years ago

Well, only in America is public space privately owned. The justification of breaking up the peaceful protest on behalf of public safety is laughable. Never have the park and it surroundings been so well look after and safe than during the protests. Furthermore, public safety ultimately rests on justice and the political inclusion of the 99. Who doesn't think that the crime rate of not only New York but the US in whole would be substantially lower if the well being of the 99 were a priority? No, as far as safety concerns, what has been threatened is the veil of capital and political dominion.

[-] 1 points by burrito (-1) 12 years ago

hang this judge for treason!

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Be dynamic.

Be creative.

The place is not the protest.

The people are.

Flash actions.

Crash their establishments.

Institutions must stand still

You don't.

[-] 1 points by EliNYC (4) 12 years ago

Is there still a GA at Libery Square Park tonight at 7:00? Should it be moved to Washington Square Park instead if Liberty is still on lockdown?

[-] 1 points by occupyworld (40) 12 years ago

OccupyDC has a very good occupation, you have to actually fill out a form to occupy. Take it to where the real corruption is, Washington DC.

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

The corruption is between wall street and d.c. You can't attack one without attacking the other. Enough of this false dichotomy, and these people disingenuously offering advice to a movement they don't support!

[-] 3 points by occupyworld (40) 12 years ago

Agreed, corruption is result of DC and WS, both need to be occupied. Rotate groups of occupation of Zuccotti Park 24/7. Gives people time to sleep, eat, etc.

[-] 1 points by noon15 (33) from Huntington, NY 12 years ago

It's fair. Believe it or not, the park does not belong to OWS. But this is a good thing, because maybe now the fight will go to Washington where it belongs.

[-] 4 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Tahrir Square didn't belong to the Egyptian protesters either, but the same people attacking OWS called that a democratic upsurge and supported it. Hundreds of protesters in Israel camped at Rothschild Boulevard for months and months this year. How is it that Israel is more lenient with people exercising their free speech, and assembly rights than the United States?

[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

Comparing OWS to the Egyptian rebellion is not even a close comparison. Those brave people were literally dying in the streets. The worst that could happen with OWS is someone catches a cold.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

They were overthrowing a government. People were killed. Is that your plan? The other difference was the numbers who participated. You don't have those numbers.


[-] -3 points by noon15 (33) from Huntington, NY 12 years ago

Free speech and assembly are not the same as erecting a permanent camp, as this decision states.

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

The decision is wrong.

[-] 0 points by noon15 (33) from Huntington, NY 12 years ago

Of course it's wrong, because you don't like it, and because you're just so very special.




[-] 0 points by FiddleDeedee (23) 12 years ago

Private property rights upheld. Makes sense to me.

[-] 0 points by the65percent (13) 12 years ago

WHY AREN'T WE TAKING THIS TO FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MACK??? They received the biggest federal bailout of the financial crisis!And nearly $100 million of those tax dollars went to lucrative pay packages for top executives.

The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, while the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million. And each company has set pay targets of as much as $17 million for its top managers for 2011.

That's a total of $95.4 million, which will essentially be coming from us, the taxpayers. Fannie CEO Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Charles Halderman are on track for 2011 are about $6 million a piece.

They are going to be asking this administration for up to another 100 billion in bailouts to keep them on top. WHERE IS OUR OUTRAGE!!! OCCUPY FREDDIE AND FANNIE!!!!

[-] 1 points by Peacedriver (23) 12 years ago

The corporate media reports: Freddie & Fanny's new executives are not the ones who led the companies to ruin but are cleaning up the mess. BS!! It seems, top executives are cleaning up their firms mess so they can continue to give out $100 million dollar bonuses but are NOT cleaning up the catastrophe they left the American people! What do you do with these houses with, in which, most were taken illegally by FRAUD? No one has protected these homes from storm damage, vandals,rats, mice, etc. These foreclosed homes are completely run down. In most industrial collapsed cities, vandals have completely stripped these houses...no copper wiring, bathtubs, tolits sinks etc. Most of these houses will need bulldozed! FDR tried to pass a Bill to protect homeowners, but the Republicans blocked it! This is the 1920's & 30's all over again!!


[-] 0 points by mamboman (-1) 12 years ago

Liberty park is private property. The owners do not have to allow access to anyone. Going there against their wishes can be considered criminal trespass. This is a real crime unrelated to free speech issues.

[-] 1 points by SunshineinUnion (0) 12 years ago

When it was given to the owners, it was clearly stipulated that the public had right to access 24/7/365. Not all private property is the same. All private property exists because of the larger legal and social framework defining appropriate uses. If you abandon your house and let it go derelict, a city can occupy it. In the settling of the west, squatting defined ownership.

You need to understand property rights as negotiated. Not something eternal.

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

How did you get so misinformed? The park is required by law to be open to the public 24/7. It is a public space that is maintained by a private entity. They don't have the right to kick people out whenever they want.

[-] 0 points by gregloug (0) 12 years ago

Its time to get LOUD!! They think tents were a nuisance, BEAT THE DRUMS 24/7. Do not be ingored. And for God's sake, come up with three spokespersons, one for each shift, and three clear, concise, well communicated demands that everyone agrees with. Define a victory, and create tactics to get that victory, so more people will follow. If its the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal first, then focus like a laser on that. Everyone on message. You have to work the system to change the system. FOCUS.


[-] 0 points by APQ (-1) 12 years ago

Let's occupy the jails, let us ALL get arrested! Whom do they think they're arresting after all?!

[-] 0 points by magicbowlbob (-1) from Orem, UT 12 years ago

I want to get the occupy movement to focus on fair taxes. I do not care what or how you pay or don't pay taxes but if you are not paying 1% of your net worth you are not paying your share. I say the movement should be focusing on 1% for the 1%.

[-] 0 points by EliNYC (4) 12 years ago

Why not call for simultaneous occupations of Washington square park, union square park, bryant square park, Zuccotti park, battery park, and central park TONIGHT at 8:30 pm! They cannot be everywhere, right?

[-] 0 points by OWSCityHall (12) 12 years ago

Let's all go to City Hall and protest Mayor Bloomberg

[-] 0 points by JosephCouture (45) 12 years ago

Authorities around the country thought very carefully before moving in to remove the Occupy protesters by force. They made their decision to act based in large part on their sense that they have a great deal of public support for such actions.

In Canada it wasn't hard to see how they could come to this conclusion. Not only was there little opposition to evicting the protesters, the public has cheered them on. It has become clear that the worst enemy of the people can sometimes be the people themselves. Read about it here:

www.josephcouture.com "Get Rosa!"

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Well said. I think that the N17 could potentially be disastrous for OWS. The 1% does not ride subways. The subway occupation will be seen and felt strictly by the 99% on their way to work or school. I feel OWS is walking on thin ice here. If they manage to piss off a large enough majority of the public, NY will have no problem evicting them for good.

[-] 0 points by OccuPaco (21) 12 years ago

Diversify the tactics - peaceful brief occupations:

Where the 1% lives - Stores, Shops, Restaurants etc.


[-] 3 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

The park is essential. The movement needs a space where we can all communicate collectively. If you lose the space for democratic deliberation, then you lose the movement.

People need to take the space back. Don't split up into little actions. It will disperse the movement, and it only has political weight to the extent that it can demonstrate publicly and in full view of the world that thousands of people oppose the 1%. You need a crowd for that, and you need a space to gather for a crowd.

[-] 1 points by gobbsmacked (1) 12 years ago

I disagree. Use the park to congregate at set times but Occupy can and should be anywhere. We create specific events in different places around the nation. Tying it to the park keeps it from growing.

[-] 0 points by equality7 (8) 12 years ago

There are TWO judges? One granted the other denied it?

[-] 3 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

Yes. Judge Lucy Billings was the one who initially signed on the restraining order. For reasons unknown to me, it was decided that she would not be the presiding judge for the hearing. Instead it was Michael D Stallman who was chosen. If anyone could explain why the switch was made I would be very appreciative. Currently it reeks of foul play.

[-] 2 points by WavyLady (4) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

It was reported that a different judge was chosen at random for the hearing. I don't know for sure but it may be standard procedure to make sure one judge does not have partiality or over-influence, a checks and balances kind of thing?

[-] 2 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

I was thinking the same thing and it would make sense. I have to admit that I'm disappointed by the immediate ruling though I'm sure the lawyers for Occupy are going to appeal it. Stallman seems to check out so far so I don't bear him any ill will for his decision.

[-] 1 points by progmarx (66) 12 years ago

Judge Lucy Billings is a Leftist activist Judge formally with the ACLU.

[-] 1 points by equality7 (8) 12 years ago

What about the other Judge, what is his background/affiliations?

[-] 2 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

Here's his page on the court website. http://www.nycourts.gov/vote/2006/bios/MICHAEL_STALLMAN.shtml

According to http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Michael_D._Stallman :

-"Stallman worked, during law school, as a legislative assistant for the Hon. Ted Weiss, City Councilman from 1970 to 1974"

-Lots of work and some teaching history. Examples include: "worked from 1978 to 1986 as a principal law clerk for the Hon. Martin Evans. Also, in 1984 and 1985, he taught as an adjunct assistant professor of law at Baruch College of the City University of New York."

-"Stallman began his legal career in 1986, when he was appointed to the New York City Civil Court. He was elected to this court the following year and was re-elected in 1997 and 2007. Since 1999, he has served as an acting justice of the New York County Supreme Court, New York."

That's all a quick Google search produced for me.

[-] 1 points by infokat (25) 12 years ago

The government and foul play? Nooooo!!! I am not surprised under the rule of billionaire King Bloomberg's reign and his "army".

[-] 1 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

It's not too surprising but I would rather not jump to conclusions. I don't claim to know much about legal proceedings and so might be missing some key facts. One person in a stream chat mentioned fishing for a sympathetic judge. That's my current suspicion but, again, I'm willing to hear reasoning before I make up my mind about it.


[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 12 years ago

Oh That's sad.

Naw..I'm just fucking with ya. I love it.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 12 years ago

stevo has a sad life. I think he's a scorned cop. He may understand someday just as the followers of Hittler did. Just because a leader tell you to do something does mean that their right. Grow up stevo.

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 12 years ago

Just keep typing moron. waste more time

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 12 years ago

e=energy m=mass c = speed of light

[-] -1 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

DC should now be the focus.

[-] -1 points by workhardplayhard (33) 12 years ago

time to go home

[-] -1 points by noows (-2) 12 years ago

Looks like SWAT team beats SQUAT team.

[-] -2 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

We occupy crowds of nonprotesters instead. Secretly at first to infiltrate the crowds then we start protesting http://occupywallst.org/forum/flash-protesting-an-idea-to-consider/

[-] -3 points by rocknewtown (18) from New York, NY 12 years ago

OWS people are not mainstream America. About 90% of the people in this country are doing just fine or really well in fact, so stop trying to co-opt mainstream society.

Face it - you protesters are part of a small 8-12% in this country who are unemployable. It's logical that you regret taking out 200k in loans for an art school degree that won't get you anywhere, but you need to take responsibility for your decisions and quit wining. I can't get over this sense of entitlement!

If we agreed with you we'd be with you. Ever wonder why there are only a few hundred of you in a city of 8 million, and most of you hipsters at OWS aren't even from here and simply visiting from middle-america to protest.... Please leave us regular American's alone and get out of OUR city and stop trying to use us for your twisted agenda!

[-] 1 points by srsly (24) 12 years ago

Every one of your claims is factually false. The majority of people in the country have seen their bills go up and their wages and benefits go down. Pensions have been destroyed by wall street fraudsters, and now they want to take social security too. 44 million are currently on food stamps; the highest number in our history. Millions are out of work.

Polling in the last month shows that a majority of people support Occupy Wall Street. And even more people support the ideals behind the movement.

There have been 10s of thousands of people protesting in the Occupy movement. Far more than the Tea Part ever mustered.

[-] 1 points by rocknewtown (18) from New York, NY 12 years ago

OWS is obviously a group of disgruntled hicksters from middle-america who dreamed of making it rich in ceramics, puppetry, fine arts, or whatever – only to see their dreams vanquished by the current recession. And now they’re simply facing the tough reality that they've made horrible idiotic decisions in life, so they want the govt to bail them out by paying back their student loans for them since they're unemployable. Imagine going to school for something that would help you contribute to society! But no - can't be a doctor, or a scientist, an engineer, a lawyer. No, those aren't cool jobs that allow you to comment on Gawker on the internet all day and play around on facebook uploading vintage-looking photos from the party in Bushwick last weekend.

Own up to your mistakes. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to take on debt for useless degrees and no one held guns to your parent’s heads and forced them to buy mcmansions in suburban CIncinnati that are now worthless. Obviously a lot of you are the offspring of parents who were unable to pay their mortgages, made poor financial decisions, etc. It makes perfect sense - the apples don't fall far from the tree out there in ol' Ohio, right?

Face it, you are not the 99%! You are maybe now part of the 8% or so who comprise a great part of the unemployable permanent underclass in our society. So please leave NYC. We’re glad you were able to experience our city for a short time. We hope you had fun. Now please - go back where you came from. You're not entitled to camp out in a privately owned place where real NYers live their lives and pay taxes.

10s of thousands protesting? Really? Wow! Out of a country of 310 Million? Lets be extremely generous and say you have 50,00 protesters nationwide. Out of 350M what % is that? You are 0.00016% of our population! Will you please get a clue and walk right on over to the Port Authority – hit he road and stop looking for handouts from NYC? Thanks!

Almost forgot - try that shit in the subway tomorrow - holding doors open or whatever you think will be fun and disruptive to people (the real 99%, not your pitiful backwoods 0.00016%) and you'll see how actual NYers with jobs respond to you bored out of town hicksters with nothing better to do. Try that shit in Morrisiana with the bros in the Bronx or in Gravesend with the guidos and lets see how it works for you. Oh yeah, I forgot - you've never heard of those places since you're all hicksters from middle-america who’ve only ridden the L train from Lower Manhattan to Bushwick since you arrived here 2 mos ago.


[-] -3 points by MayorBloomberg (1) 12 years ago

Its over. Game over. Time to go home boys and girls. Time to go and get a real job.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Touche, fuehrer Goonberg.

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

What an insult. Karma is hell Sir! Even though you live in la la land and are a puppet you have to realize there are not enough jobs left in America for all.

[-] -1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

I have lawn work that I could use someone to do. Any of you up for it?

[-] 1 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

Yes, but I doubt you live in my area. How much are you offering?

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

Wow. If that is where you live then yes too far away. $50 to mow the yard. an extra $30 once the leave on the tree fall off to rake them

[-] 1 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

That's pretty damn good. I don't see how anyone could find that beneath them.

[-] 0 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

"Because I got a college degree"

Some one told me that the other day on here

[-] 1 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 12 years ago

That's unfortunate. I can't see making a long-term plan out of it but everything helps. I'm about a year from earning a degree yet still a sucker for manual labor in conjunction with academic pursuit. I like the sense of accomplishment and the balance that exercising body and mind brings into my life. I'm also not entirely sure you weren't trolled.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Can't you do that yourself? Lazy?

[-] 0 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

Yes I could. But I don't want to. Could you build your own house? Yes. Why don't you lazy?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

You know lawns actually waste our water which we are having a shortage of. Ever think about planting drought tolerant plants, edible gardens or food instead? Our city is giving rebates for people to get rid of a lot of grass.

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

true, but I got a dog and I feel bad. And I have a garden and my fron lawn is deccorated with drough tollerant plants

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Okay, if that is your argument then go for it! lol We are talking about mowing grass ... Okay, what is the square footage of your yard and we will see if your offer is "fair"? I live in Austin, TX where are you?

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

El Paso, TX. and I would say about 2,500 square feet.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

So you have 2,500 square feet of grass? And you want to pay $50???? I am not familiar with current rates, but is that a fair offer? I am a little to far away though ...

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

that's my total back yard... but with the shed, and grden taken out probablyprobably closer to 1,800 actuallty. 20 by 10 yard rectangle.

and yes you are.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

I see. I apologize for being so judgmental. Maybe advertising on Craig's list or going to places like the Salvation Army or homeless shelters you can find help. What kind of dog do you have?

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 12 years ago

No it's cool; my fault. I was looking at the numer and forgot. Well I have a neighbor kid do it right now but I'ld pay some one else to do it instead if they wanted to, and they din't have a job already.

A chocolate lab

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

My apologies again ... I feel like crap. It is real hard communicating through the Internet with text. Giving employment is good and the places I suggested may be good although your neighbor's family may need the money too. I do not know.

Yes, Labs need a yard. (-: Have a good night ...

[-] -2 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 12 years ago

give me the vise grips BAWA BAWA

[+] -4 points by MayorBloomberg (1) 12 years ago

Nah nah nah nah! Nah nah nah nah! Hey hey hey, goodbye!

[-] 3 points by DonHawkins (37) 12 years ago

He who laughs last, laughs best.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Hey, how much of J. P. Morgan "donation of 4.6 million" did you have to spend on your goon force for OWS? lol

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

I cannot believe that this mentality is actually the Mayor.

[+] -5 points by progmarx (66) 12 years ago

This seems like a fair resolving of the situation. Fair for OWS,they can still stand around all day and chant their ridicules demands. Fair for the community,they don't have to suffer the loss of business,clean up defecation and the other OWS's unintended consequences. The city can hopefully dedicate more Police to do what they are actually paid for besides baby sitting OWS. No more camping is a good decision.

[-] -1 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Ignorant! Ha, for once the police were actually earning their paychecks instead of eating donuts!