# Why The OWS Is Allowed in Public Parks



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

1. The Democrats were certain that they had the equal and opposite response to the Tea Party...

a. *Obama supported *it...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg]Obama Supports Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]

b. "House Democratic Leader Rep. *Nancy Pelosi*, D-Calif., said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement,..." Politics News: Latest Political News and U.S. Elections Coverage - ABC News

2. Zuccotti Park, NYC...private park:
a. *"...we basically look to the police leadership and mayor *to decide what to do, Brookfields chairman, John Zuccotti, said last month.

 Sure, we understand the pressure the companys been under -- including, most shamefully, from cynical New York pols looking to cozy up to the heavily out-of-towner-based group, local radicals, and their manipulators in the labor unions seeking to capitalize on the occupation.

 That pressure explains why Brookfield has been reluctant to push City Hall -- publicly -- for action.
Time to throw the bums out - NYPOST.com

b. Mayor Bloomberg:"Mayor *Bloomberg & Co. have essentially been hiding *behind the fact that Zuccotti Park is not city property.

If Brookfield were to come to us and say that their rules are being violated ... the Police Department will do what it has to do, Bloomberg said last week. But this is not a public park. (ibid.)

3. *Connect the dots*: the White House had hopes that this 'movement' would push the electorate in their direction, and put the pressure on Zuccotti and Bloomberg....wrong again, Obama. What pressure?

a. "The Union Leader of New Hampshire reported that the *Obama administration has backed a local wind farm (tied to Brookfield) with taxpayer dollars*. The title of the story, A NH Solyndra? Wind farm gets fed loan leads one to believe that the project is probably on shaky financial footing. The Union Leader connects the dots from the White House to Brookfield and then, in the wake of the Solyndra bankruptcy, questions the financial wisdom of this loan.

Why would a company created by a $3.2 billion company and backed by a $2.7 billion private fund need federal loan guarantees? That would be an important question at any time, but it is more pertinent after the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker that got a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration last year."
Occupy Wall Street | Zuccotti Park | Who is John Zuccotti? | TheBlaze.com

b. "The Department of Energy finalized the *loan guarantee less than a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters took to Zuccotti Park, and with the Obama administration's *Tuesday endorsement of the protests, rumors are starting to circulate that this could be the reason Brookfield is allowing protesters to remain on its property."
Here's The Real Reason Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Getting Kicked Out Of Zuccotti Park

So, let's review:
1. *Fear of the power of the Tea Party *( see mid-term elections, 2010) had the incompetent Leftists in charge of the Democrat Party searching for a response.

2. The incipient band of rabble known as the OWS (the eponymic Pee Party) seemed to fit the bill....

3. *White House bribes *the owners of Zuccotti Park with taxpayer funds, to allow the 'occupation.'

4. Little Mikey Bloomberg falls right in line.

5. Violence and illegality becomes the hallmark....

6. Another strike out by the Obama administration.


Wadda ya' say....call it a scandal?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The Democrats were certain that they had the equal and opposite response to the Tea Party...
> 
> a. *Obama supported *it...
> Obama Supports Occupy Wall Street - YouTube
> ...



Bottom Up
Top Down
Inside out


----------



## editec (Nov 14, 2011)

*



Why The OWS Is Allowed in Public Parks?

Click to expand...

 
Is that a rhetorical question?*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 14, 2011)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, Techy, why would you pretend that these folks merely visit parks, public or privately owned, such as Zuccotti?

You know very well that they annex said parks.

Would you care to read the OP, and respond to the question as to whether the Obama administration encouraged this disgusting congregation?

No?

I can understand why...it represents both skullduggery and incompetence.


Snidely Whiplash in the White House: "Curses! Foiled again!"


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Obama and Pelosi both encouraged it.  Heck even a local politician who is running against Scott Brown for the senate seat here used it...then an ad came out against her for it...let me show you videos

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNxez4ddpa0]Crossroads GPS: "Foundation" MA - YouTube[/ame]



Oh and here is an interesting video with obama's and pelosi's support in it.  The video is obviously not pro OWS

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8UtYQ2zKmk]Democrats Shamefully support Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## American Horse (Nov 14, 2011)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a public park; it's private property, and improper activities on private property are normally called "public nuisances" by the authorities and are shut down, with legal action  taken against the instigators.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Well, Pilgrim...now it's official!

Another flub by the Democrats!  And they threw in the towel!

This morn, the police did at Zuccotti Park exactly what the American people will do in November '12: they threw the bums out!



"Hundreds of New York City police officers cleared Zuccotti Park of the Occupy Wall Street protesters early Tuesday, arresting dozens of people there after warning them that the nearly two-month-old camp would be cleared and restored before the morning and that any demonstrator who did not leave would be arrested. 

The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of Whose park? Our park! as officers began moving in and tearing down tents. The protesters rallied around an area known as the kitchen, near the middle of the park and began building barricades with tables and pieces of scrap wood. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html


So, the Progressives thought they had the answer to the Tea Party in the OWS shock troops, but the usual violence and illegality associated with the Left revealed the ineptitute of these ersatz revolutionaries.

Bye, bye, Obama-boys!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

American Horse said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



So true, Horse!

Can you imagine that Lefty Bloomberg would think folks would believe that he couldn't do what his police did this morning just because it was 'private property'???

As though they wouldn't arrest you on your own front lawn if they smelled pot!
No...the Dems thought they had the answer to the Tea Party...

Nah, they should have tried their mobile shout-out.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMDbFZfX_0]Occupy Wall Street "Dazed and Confused" -a comparison of OWS and the Tea Party. - YouTube[/ame]

^^^^ Really long video but if you have the time to watch its an excellent comparison between OWS and the TEA party.  They actually back up what they say and go into detail a bit which is part of why the video is so long.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 15, 2011)

American Horse said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Privately Owned Public Space - New York City Department of City Planning

See the link above for details on POPS or privately owned public spaces. Basically developers traded space at lower levels of the properties for the ability to build higher buildings. Some of them, like zuccotti park, are open spaces at ground level of the property. Others are rooftop areas on smaller buildings in a development, still others are basically open areas in the lower floor of buildings, often with resturants and public restrooms. Some are just corridors between buildings with plants and seats. 

The reason the protesters selected these instead of actual parks (NYC Parks Department) is that the rules state they must be availible for 24 hour occupation by people involved in leasure activities. NYC parks have more stringent rules, such as closing times, and equipment bans already in place. These spaces never had such rules, because they never really needed them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

*''The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama&#8217;s America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly...." 

This is a letter to the editor of  Knoxville News-Sentinel .  It is correct and true, and on the newspaper&#8217;s website.     The letter was wrongly attributed to Thomas Sowell.  Thomas Sowell did not write this letter to the editor, so I have been informed.  It was written by a Knoxville local named Jack Furnari. 

The rest of the letter may be found here:
Obama&#8217;s America | LibertyLog


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

martybegan said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



"The reason the protesters selected these instead of actual parks ..."

Marty, the question is, rather, why they were allowed to remain by the owners.

And the answer is the essence of the OP....the owners were induced by a Left wing administration that hoped, believed, that this group would be the answer to the Tea Party.

"The Department of Energy finalized the *loan guarantee less than a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters took to Zuccotti Park*, and with the Obama administration's Tuesday endorsement of the protests, rumors are starting to circulate that this could be *the reason Brookfield is allowing protesters to remain *on its property."
Here's The Real Reason Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Getting Kicked Out Of Zuccotti Park


----------



## hortysir (Nov 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> *_*''The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obamas America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule.*_ It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly...."
> 
> This is a letter to the editor of  Knoxville News-Sentinel .  It is correct and true, and on the newspapers website.     The letter was wrongly attributed to Thomas Sowell.  Thomas Sowell did not write this letter to the editor, so I have been informed.  It was written by a Knoxville local named Jack Furnari.
> 
> ...




I think I just found a new sig line


----------



## Luissa (Nov 15, 2011)

Is like the Soros thing? Where he donated all this money to OWS, but really didn't?

The group speaks out against democrats and republican almost every day on their facebook page. 
To put Obama aside, why would it matter is someone who is running for office supported the OWS?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 15, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Is like the Soros thing? Where he donated all this money to OWS, but really didn't?
> 
> The group speaks out against democrats and republican almost every day on their facebook page.
> To put Obama aside, why would it matter is someone who is running for office supported the OWS?





A lot of the groups that donated money and paid people to go to the OWS receive Sorros money.  The connection is as good as, and even better than, the Koch connections people bring up.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 15, 2011)

martybegan said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Excellent post, thank you for making it!


----------



## Luissa (Nov 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> *''The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obamas America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly...."
> 
> This is a letter to the editor of  Knoxville News-Sentinel .  It is correct and true, and on the newspapers website.     The letter was wrongly attributed to Thomas Sowell.  Thomas Sowell did not write this letter to the editor, so I have been informed.  It was written by a Knoxville local named Jack Furnari.
> 
> ...



So you consider a group who most have had some college, a large portion has bachelor's degree and master's degree unaccomplished and ignorant? 
I think the person you quoted is partisan and it is showing. 
And these kids are not destroying America, thinking the way that man does is destroying America. Putting corporation and Wall Street ahead Main street is destroying America. 

And I also want to know who he is referring to when he said they sacrificed greatly?


----------



## Amelia (Nov 15, 2011)

That's government for you | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com


Cub Scouts reduced to tears for picking up leaves in a park.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 15, 2011)

Well, PC, for once your OP is almost on target, as far as explaining why Occupy is being allowed to continue doing things that are of dubious legality.

There are just a couple of errors in your analysis.

1) The Obama administration is not capitalizing politically on Occupy nearly as much as you imply, nor, in my opinion, as much as it should.

2) While talk about misbehavior on the part of the protesters may have become a major meme in right-wing circles, among the general population sympathy for the protest is running very high, and support for the movement's issues is huge.

So this is hardly a "strike-out" for the administration. First, it has yet to swing; second, this is a sucker pitch set up for a homer if there ever was one.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 15, 2011)

Amelia said:


> That's government for you | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com
> 
> 
> Cub Scouts reduced to tears for picking up leaves in a park.





> As I understand the story, Governor Granholm --- and remember that she is a Democrat --- initiated a program whereby all adults in Michigan who accept Medicaid dollars for the care of their disabled adult children are deemed to be providing care for their children as employees  yes, as employees  of some government outfit called the Michigan Quality Community Care Council.



In this section the author has no clue what he is talking about, just so you know. 

You know how I know? Because I take care of Adults who are disabled, and my friend's dad is paid to take care of his............ through the state. When you do this, you are also usually required to go through training, and for good reason.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



The crux of the current legal argument is that, since the owners never enforced rules like no tents, no generators, no staying overnight, they cannot start doing it now. 

The owners are bound to allow public access as part of the easment giving them the ability to build X additional floors in thier building. Under the agreement the city is responsible for policing the area, as a public space, but the company has to maintain it and provide upkeep, as it still legally owns it. 

In a more structured court setting, i.e. one that doesnt have a raging liberal on the bench, the city and the owner will probably win the ability to enact the newer rules, including the no tent/tarp, as well as a time limit for occupation.

Please note that this is different from cases of property owners losing thier rights to thier property due to abandonment to the public. In this cases there is a set agreement between the city and the owner recognizing thr owner's possession of the property, regardless of the required public access.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 15, 2011)

With my certificate I can do the very same thing my friend's dad does, and register with the state.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 15, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Well, PC, for once your OP is almost on target, as far as explaining why Occupy is being allowed to continue doing things that are of dubious legality.
> 
> There are just a couple of errors in your analysis.
> 
> ...



I'm not seeing much sympathy for the protesters in my circles. Most people who work in the area cant stand them, and most people in the rest of the city dont want them moving to where they are. 

Support by the hipster/progressive manhattanite cliques? Yes. Among the outer boro working class? not so much.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Is like the Soros thing? Where he donated all this money to OWS, but really didn't?
> 
> The group speaks out against democrats and republican almost every day on their facebook page.
> To put Obama aside, why would it matter is someone who is running for office supported the OWS?



I'm fascinated by your ability to cloud your own mind.

No, don't put Obama aside...his attempt to support the idea that there is a class that must be attacked is a key characteristic of the Left.

Had you remained au fait on this topic, you would be conversant with the facts that Wall Street is not the origin of the problem, that America has no permanent 'wealthy,' and that the only (slim) hope this incompetent has of re-election is to convince folks like yourself that he stands between "the 1%" and the 'wealth they have stolen'.

Sadly, no matter the remediation I provide, you remain immune.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Is like the Soros thing? Where he donated all this money to OWS, but really didn't?
> ...


You mean class warfare, right? 
You know what the funny thing is? Class Warfare is the product of someone interpreting it into English falsely. The original phrase wasn't Class Warfare. I always thought it was interesting.

And if you think I blindly support Obama now, well you haven't been paying attention. And it has nothing to do with attacking a certain class, it about holding certain people accountable for the problem they created and not just catering to that certain group while screwing over the middle class and poor. Of course, people like you will let yourself be brainwashed people who call these people ignorant. They might not agree with your point of view, but to call them ignorant is being a little partisan.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

Luissa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *''The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obamas America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly...."
> ...



Of course he is partisan.
Partisan means a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

I, too, am partisan. I believe stongly in the Constitution, and the safeguards of principles such as property rights.
The OWS and folks who have been fooled into supporting same are demanding things that do not belong to them, the lawful gains that others have accumulated.

 "Putting corporation and Wall Street ahead Main street."
I couldn't have provided better evidence myself!

The bumper-sticker thinking that you provide indicates that there is a huge gulf between your beliefs, and reality.

In America, there is no class-barrier. Rather, there is opportunity. This is why more than three-quarters of those working *Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991,* says Sowell.
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Latest Headlines - Investors.com 

I strongly suggest you pick up a copy of "Economic Facts and Fallacies," by Dr. Sowell...pay special attention to chapter five.

In that chapter you will begin to understand to whom he was "referring to when he said they sacrificed greatly."

The wealthy in this great nation are very rarely those who inherit wealth. Some 90% earned it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2011)

Luissa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



First, I must tell you that I really appreciate this back and forth. This is the reason the USMB was created.

" it about holding certain people accountable for the problem they created..." 
Well, we agree....as long as you realize that said people are* the Progressives, *starting with President Wilson, who had every desire to scrap the Constitution, and most especially FDR who, via his Second Bill of Rights speech, changed the impetus from equality before the law to equlity of wealth. FDR's GSE are *the origin of the mortgage meltdown.*


"...and not just catering to that certain group while screwing over the middle class and poor."
The *middle class is doing very well, and continues to grow in wealth and income*.

1.	There are those who have been mislead into believing that American workers incomes have not risen in recent times. 
a.	In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after accounting for inflation.    A Rising Tide?

2.	The statistics that claim the above* fail to include the value of *benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, The Myths of Rich and Poor, p.21

a.	Nor do these sophists separated *full time workers from part time *(part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

3.	In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers* increased *between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, Income and Wealth, p. 63.

a.	*If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. *And, even this is illusory, as it doesnt include the statistically invisible (not on tax forms) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans. Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b.	And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the *CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation.* http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c.	*An example*: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

4.	 Stagnation? The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is *real per capita consumption*. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a.	A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as *the Reagan boom.*

Thank you for this opportunity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 15, 2011)

Ol' PC with the usual political shit. 

No, the 'Progressives' and 'Liberals' are not all about scrapping the Constitution. If any Americans are about that, it would be the 'Conservatives' that love torture, and would far rather see money for the rich than health care for America's children.

But keep up your BS, PC. People like those within the OWS movement can definately point to people like yourself as the reason that they are out in the street, and use your message in the coming elections to influence people.


----------



## Rocko (Nov 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' PC with the usual political shit.
> 
> No, the 'Progressives' and 'Liberals' are not all about scrapping the Constitution. If any Americans are about that, it would be the 'Conservatives' that love torture, and would far rather see money for the rich than health care for America's children.
> 
> But keep up your BS, PC. People like those within the OWS movement can definately point to people like yourself as the reason that they are out in the street, and use your message in the coming elections to influence people.



You are a pure moron. the constitution says nothing about health care for America's children, you dumb fuck. You show me one conservative that says they love torture.

The stupid  ows movement is made up of incoherent adolescents, who want something for nothing, protest your heart out, moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' PC with the usual political shit.
> 
> No, the 'Progressives' and 'Liberals' are not all about scrapping the Constitution. If any Americans are about that, it would be the 'Conservatives' that love torture, and would far rather see money for the rich than health care for America's children.
> 
> But keep up your BS, PC. People like those within the OWS movement can definately point to people like yourself as the reason that they are out in the street, and use your message in the coming elections to influence people.



Ill slow downI didnt realize it was an idiot x-ing.

Am I going to have to make you look foolish again???

1. Wilson wrote in The State, 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." *His writings attack the Constitution*, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the administrative state, which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government. American progressivism: a reader - Ronald J. Pestritto, William J. Atto - Google Books

2. *A main problem was that Americans believed their rights "unalienable," *to use the Declaration's termi.e., they cannot be defined or taken away by government. This made it difficult for *Progressives to put the government in charge of private property*, and so Goodnow argued for a positive understanding of rights as granted by government itself:
The rights which [an individual] possesses are...conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the *legislative authority *in view of the needs of that society. *Social expediency, *rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action. The Claremont Institute - Leaving the Constitution

And, of course, this doctrine of progressives, expressed by Wilson:

3. *Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, *and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws.  Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5] 

Poor, sad Rocks....
See how much you'd have known if you could read?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 16, 2011)

Luissa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Luissa I have 3 questions for clarification before I respond to you.

1) What is the problem that was created?
2) Who created the problem?
3) how did they create the problem?


----------



## Luissa (Nov 16, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Is like the Soros thing? Where he donated all this money to OWS, but really didn't?
> ...



The only connection I have seen made is the Tide Foundation. And like I said before that was no smoking gun, but you get an A for effort.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 16, 2011)

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Like I said the connections are as good as the Koch connections so by proxy you are actually admitting that the Koch/teaparty thing is really not all that people play it up to be.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 16, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



You do realize the media outlet that originally ran the story pretty much retracted their statement, right? The Tide Foundation gave $170,000 to Adbusters over something like 13 years, and Soros has donated money to the Tide Foundation. That still doesn't prove he gave money to the OWS. For one the OWS is a different group than Adbusters, with different bank accounts and everything. 
That would be like if Ronald McDonald House donated money to a certain group, and someone claiming I donated money to that group because I give them my change when I go to McDonalds.
Koch brothers have directly donated millions of dollars to the Tea Party.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 16, 2011)

It was actually $185,000 according to this link, the other one I read said $170,000. Sorry!
Reuters: George Soros Money Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Politicons

Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests | Reuters



> Soros spokesman Michael Vachon said that Soros has not "funded the protests directly or indirectly." He added: "Assertions to the contrary are an attempt by those who oppose the protesters to cast doubt on the authenticity of the movement."
> 
> Soros has donated at least $3.5 million to an organization called the Tides Center in recent years, earmarking the funds for specific purposes. Tides has given grants to Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada whose inventive marketing campaign sparked the first demonstrations last month.
> 
> Vachon said Open Society specified what its donations could be used for. He said they were not general purpose funds to be used at the discretion of Tides -- for example for grants to Adbusters. "Our grants to Tides were for other purposes."




So can we stop stating Soros donated money to them now?


----------



## Luissa (Nov 16, 2011)

I think it was funny that one article was posted at 630am and another saying he wasn't a supporter was posted by 930pm that night. I guess they realized they were kind of stupid trying to say he donated to them. I guess some people around here should do a little follow up. Just sayin


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 16, 2011)

Luissa said:


> It was actually $185,000 according to this link, the other one I read said $170,000. Sorry!
> Reuters: George Soros Money Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Politicons
> 
> Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests | Reuters
> ...



He donates money to groups such as these:












Some of those groups donated money to, sent people to, and had a physical presence at OWS locations.

Like I said the ties of soros to OWS are as strong as, if not stronger than, any ties Koch has to the tea party.  Going by your own standard used to tie Koch to the teaparties I can make this claim all day long, unless you want to backtrack on the whole koch/teaparty business......


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 16, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2E08DD322E3B5DDC]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 17, 2011)

Luissa said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > That's government for you | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com
> ...



Do you live in Michigan?  I do.....
Here's a link to their webpage.  At the bottom it shows they're represented by SEIU, which should be a warning to everyone to stay away from it!  There's alot of information on it if you just google it.....

Home | MQCCC

There's talk now that Gov Snyder will be phasing this out....but there's nothing definate to post right now.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 17, 2011)

No, but they have the same program in many states including mine. The reason they have to join the union is because they are a paid caregiver through the state. Would you rather they not get paid? If I went through the training and wanted to be an independent caregiver through the state I would have to join the union. It also doesn't mention if they qualify they can usually get benefits. Personally, having been a caregiver I would rather they be trained. My friends dad is even nurse delegated, and has as many training hours as I do. And if he goes through hard tines he can pick up other clients other than his adult son. 





Caroljo said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 17, 2011)

Hi luissa 

So do you agree that soros is connected or do you agree that Koch doesn't fund the teaparties 



Oh and who, what, and how?



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > It was actually $185,000 according to this link, the other one I read said $170,000. Sorry!
> ...





PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Hi luissa
> 
> So do you agree that soros is connected or do you agree that Koch doesn't fund the teaparties
> 
> ...



You tenacious bulldog, you!


----------



## Luissa (Nov 17, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > It was actually $185,000 according to this link, the other one I read said $170,000. Sorry!
> ...



So you still have no proof he donated to OWS, do you?


As for the Koch brothers...........



> Dear Supporter,
> Please join the Tea Party Express and Americans for Prosperity on Thursday, September 8th at 5:30 p.m. as the Tea Party Express national bus tour stops in Concord, North Carolina.
> 
> RSVP HERE!
> ...



Tax Day Tea Party Events | Americans for Prosperity

Isn't David Koch the Chairman of the Board for Americans for Prosperity?
That is a little more direct than what you are trying to state.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 17, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Hi luissa
> ...


So you think Soros ties are strong to OWS than the Koch brothers are to the Tea Party?
I know Pilgrim cant accept it, but I would hope you could. If Pilgrim can prove Soros is the Chairman of the Board for a foundation that plans OWS events he will have a point, and I will owe him props. Until then, you both will seem a little brainwashed to me.  And I say that with much kindness because I like you both.


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 17, 2011)

Luissa said:


> No, but they have the same program in many states including mine. The reason they have to join the union is because they are a paid caregiver through the state. Would you rather they not get paid? If I went through the training and wanted to be an independent caregiver through the state I would have to join the union. It also doesn't mention if they qualify they can usually get benefits. Personally, having been a caregiver I would rather they be trained. My friends dad is even nurse delegated, and has as many training hours as I do. And if he goes through hard tines he can pick up other clients other than his adult son.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the explanation...i know you know more about this than i do...and of course i wouldn't want to see someone not get paid.  I just hate it with ANY job when you're forced to join a union to be an employee.  Where i work, when i first got hired in to the factory, we didn't have to join the union, but you still have to pay the dues, you can still get representation if you need it...you just can't vote on anything!  Made no sense to me!   I'm in the office now so i don't have to hand any of my money over to the creeps!


----------



## Luissa (Nov 17, 2011)

Caroljo said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > No, but they have the same program in many states including mine. The reason they have to join the union is because they are a paid caregiver through the state. Would you rather they not get paid? If I went through the training and wanted to be an independent caregiver through the state I would have to join the union. It also doesn't mention if they qualify they can usually get benefits. Personally, having been a caregiver I would rather they be trained. My friends dad is even nurse delegated, and has as many training hours as I do. And if he goes through hard tines he can pick up other clients other than his adult son.
> ...



Here in Washington State I am pretty sure you don't have to join the union. I should ask my friend's dad. I understand the problem with the Union, but the program is a good one in my opinion. I don't have time to look up the numbers but I know there is millions of family caregivers that do not get paid, and I am not saying all should get paid. In my friend's case his dad did not get paid until a few years ago, and he only takes a few shifts. He has other caregivers who are paid through a agency, I actually used to be one of them. It is easier to get jobs through an agency, but after I was certified I could have registered with the state. I thought about it, because I think you only have to maintain 20hrs a week to get health benefits.(that is in my state)
Now I just work at a facility, but what I do and my facility is heavily monitored by the state. The author of the article would have been better to bring up that part. You should see some of the laws they have for facilities. I understand there is reasons for many of them, but some seem like they are a little over reaching.

In this last election we voted on some new laws for caregivers in regards to back ground checks etc. I voted against it, because any place you work at is going to do one, if you register with the state they are going to do one. If you hold a licenses they are going to do a background check. I didn't see the need for more laws.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 17, 2011)

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Ahhhh so the koch people fund and work with americans for prosperity which in turn gives money to the tea party express which means they fund the teaparty in your opion?   Yet Sorros funds and works with groups that ended up sending people and resources to help out OWS yet he doesn't help fund it.......

Very inconsistent there Luissa.  I am dissapointed in you.

I'm just using your standard consitantly.  Either both individuals are involved with their respective groups due to finances and ties to organizations involved in them or they aren't...which one do you want to go with?  

I'm willing to go either way, its up to you.


----------

