CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,641
- 69,788
- 2,330
They would be kicked out of any campground in America
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They would be kicked out of any campground in America
Of course none of you will remember, but I predicted quite a while back that this might happen, and said that it was the only way the gathering in New York would be ended.
I also said it wasn't the end of the movement. It's not.
No. Illegal Camping is a violation against City Ordinance. There are numerous Health Department Violations to boot.
No. Illegal Camping is a violation against City Ordinance. There are numerous Health Department Violations to boot.
That may be, so why has the city allowed it to go on for so long?
No. Illegal Camping is a violation against City Ordinance. There are numerous Health Department Violations to boot.
That may be, so why has the city allowed it to go on for so long?
Because Occupy expressed issues that have the support of huge majorities of the American people. Cracking down on them was politically difficult.
Bloomberg did exactly what I expected. He waited until cold weather reduced the number of protesters, thus preventing a big, ugly confrontation, and then sent in the cops. I'm neither surprised nor particularly concerned.
I've also been saying for a while now that it's time for the movement to switch tactics. I think that occupying public space has accomplished what it can accomplish (which is considerable) and we need to pursue other methods, many of which are in fact in train. The movement is by no means over. There will be more protests as the situation calls for, more general strikes (and longer ones); there will be a gathering of movement-elected representatives in Philadelphia next year to vote on a petition to present to the government; there will be more direct action like the bank boycotts; there will be pressure at the state level to call for a new constitutional convention.
I understand why some of you on the right would consider this a victory, but it's not. It's not even really a setback.
Of course none of you will remember, but I predicted quite a while back that this might happen, and said that it was the only way the gathering in New York would be ended.
I also said it wasn't the end of the movement. It's not.
What huge majorities? What issues? What positions? All I see is a bunch of whining.
Also be careful what you wish for about a constitutional convention. Your "utopia" stated in the link in your signature requires everyone to think like you think, and I can assure you, most do not.
By this point in the history of the tea party I knew all about it from both sides and in depth, the fact that people still have no idea what OWS is about or what they want are engaged in some of the worst willful ignorance I have observed for a very long time. Educate yourselves people.
What huge majorities? What issues? What positions? All I see is a bunch of whining.
Haven't been paying much attention, I guess. I'm talking about the issues of corporate influence on government through campaign contributions, and the widening income gaps over the past thirty years. Occupy has brought these to public notice and put them on the table.
Also be careful what you wish for about a constitutional convention. Your "utopia" stated in the link in your signature requires everyone to think like you think, and I can assure you, most do not.
Well, if you've read it, I'm pleased.
However, a constitutional convention need not go as far as I've described in "Democracy." A constitutional amendment defining speech as not including money and corporations as not being people would be much less radical, and much more likely to succeed.
By this point in the history of the tea party I knew all about it from both sides and in depth, the fact that people still have no idea what OWS is about or what they want are engaged in some of the worst willful ignorance I have observed for a very long time. Educate yourselves people.
Concepts such as corporate influnce on government, as well as the widening income gap make terrible poll questions, as most people will answer that they disagree with it, without having to consider what would have to be done to eliminate them.
The only way to eliminate corporate influence on elections is to, as you state, amend the consitution. However, any ban would probably also stop ANY grouping of people from having an influence on elections via contributions, be it compaines, unions, PAC's, lobby groups, non profits like greenpeace, etc. At that point you would either have to raise the individual limit for contributions, therefore defeating your whole get corporations out of government meme, or find another way of funding them.
To eliminate the income gap, you would have to basically take money from one group of people and give it to another. Something like that would require laws that are probably unconsitutional.
Concepts such as corporate influnce on government, as well as the widening income gap make terrible poll questions, as most people will answer that they disagree with it, without having to consider what would have to be done to eliminate them.
Many posters here do not agree with Occupy on these issues. Economic conservatives generally don't think either of them is a problem. That a huge majority of the people think they ARE problems is significant.
The only way to eliminate corporate influence on elections is to, as you state, amend the consitution. However, any ban would probably also stop ANY grouping of people from having an influence on elections via contributions, be it compaines, unions, PAC's, lobby groups, non profits like greenpeace, etc. At that point you would either have to raise the individual limit for contributions, therefore defeating your whole get corporations out of government meme, or find another way of funding them.
Yes, it would eliminate all such influence. That is always raised by critics of campaign finance reform as if the advocates weren't aware of that, or had a problem with it. Such is not the case.
There is no need to raise the individual limit for contributions; if the amount of money available to spend on elections is reduced, less money will be spent on elections. Why is that a problem? The amount of money we spend on elections is absurd.
To eliminate the income gap, you would have to basically take money from one group of people and give it to another. Something like that would require laws that are probably unconsitutional.
Not true. It was done in the 1940s-1970s, through high top marginal taxes and support for labor unions. None of that is unconstitutional and it's all tested. Of course, there's no need to literally "eliminate" the income gap. It's a matter of degree only.
The city is currently defying that court order. Should be interesting.
The city is currently defying that court order. Should be interesting.
Occupy Wall Street protesters can return to park with tents
Only hours after the NYPD cleared Zuccotti Park of Occupy Wall Street protesters in a controversial 2 a.m. raid, the National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order telling the city to let the protesters return -- tents, tarps and all.