#OccupyWallStreet. Why is this not getting major MSM attention?

Quote:

---

“I have become increasingly concerned – as had the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties – that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community. We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake – the final decision to act was mine.

“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.

“Some have argued to allow the protestors to stay in the park indefinitely – others have suggested we just wait for winter and hope the cold weather drove the protestors away – but inaction was not an option. I could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to injure another first responder before acting. Others have cautioned against action because enforcing our laws might be used by some protestors as a pretext for violence – but we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws.
“Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others. There have been reports of businesses being threatened and complaints about noise and unsanitary conditions that have seriously impacted the quality of life for residents and businesses in this now-thriving neighborhood. The majority of protestors have been peaceful and responsible. But an unfortunate minority have not been and as the number of protestors has grown, this has created an intolerable situation.

---

i bolded the part that proves this has NOTHING to do with free speech. This is not really a protest anymore as it is a rallying point for people who are lazy SOBs to congregate and cause trouble.

I do not like bloomberg but he is doing the right thing. THe judge that offered the injunction, it wont stand.

You cannot take over and assume control of a private park (that is used for public use) , refuse to follow their rules and expect them to be ok with it. Anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.

If you think this was solely about moving the protesters and cleaning up the park, why did they kick out the media FIRST, then create a no-fly-zone, then call in NYPD Counterterrorism units? I mean, if what you're doing is really legal, why cover it up?

If you think this was just about keeping ONE EMT from getting injured, then why use excessive force, and INJURE MULTIPLE protestors? Is that supposed to be an acceptable trade off? Is one human more valuable than another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

A quick question for you though. The tea party (the original, not the new anti-tax one) was an illegal act destroying a private business's property. What is your take on the morality of such action? Was that action laudible because you agree with the motivations and goal or is it deplorable simply because it was illegal and violated property rights?

---

Vteckidd, I was really hoping you would answer my question. By the way, please don't relate it to the OWS protests, I just want to hear your thoughts on the event in it's own historical context.

Ill answer it tomorrow that's a question that takes time. I was busy at work today and I'm on my phone now. Two totally different events, two totally different contexts etc. Will expound later

Funny article from drudge about a month ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drudge

Here's The Real Reason Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Getting Kicked Out Of Zuccotti Park--Coming on the heels of the Solyndra debacle, the Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee for the Granite Reliable wind farm project owned by Brookfield Asset Management(BAM). Among its many holdings BAM owns Brookfield Renewable Power, which owns the Granite Reliable and it also owns Brookfield Office Properties, whose holdings include the now famous Zuccotti Park. 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.

The Granite Reliable Power Project under construction in Coos Bay, New Hampshire is the state's largest wind farm and the New Hampshire Union Leader questionswhy Brookfield would need federal subsidies at all, particularly following the bankruptcy of Solyndra.

Mayor Bloomberg's announcement Monday that protesters could remain as long as they liked, also raised a few eyebrows and it turns out he has a personal connection to Brookfield as well. The mayor's longtime domestic partner Diana Taylor is on the Board of Directors at Brookfield Properties along with John E. Zuccotti himself.

---

Appears the Judge that signed the injunction was struck down in only a couple of hours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/ny...eakers.html?hp

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...ticle-1.977674

Looks like I was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...ticle-1.977674

Looks like I was right.

---

You were also late.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

They let them stay without the tents and sleeping bags

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

They let them stay without the tents and sleeping bags

---

Yea. They upheld the right to assemble but asserted that they don't have the right set up a 'permanent' encampment.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Yea. They upheld the right to assemble but asserted that they don't have the right set up a 'permanent' encampment.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

---

x2 which is what Blank CD never got. That was our point all along. No one is against freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. But they were using that as covers to basically do whatever they want. They are allowed to assemble and protest, they cant setup permanent encampments.

One of the protestors was like "OMG THAT WAS MY HOME!" are you fucking kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

One of the protestors was like "OMG THAT WAS MY HOME!" are you fucking kidding me?

---

It was a homeless man

No it wasn't LOL it was some hippie chick that was pissed they stole her tent.

Get a job like the rest of us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Ill answer it tomorrow that's a question that takes time. I was busy at work today and I'm on my phone now. Two totally different events, two totally different contexts etc. Will expound later

---

Of course there are some similarities but I agree they are quite different which is why I asked you avoid relating it to the OWS protests. I'm not asking for a doctoral thesis, just a quick rundown on your thoughts about property rights, law, and ethics in a historical context.

#Occupy. It works. Again...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74835245/R...ccupy-Movement

...and again

http://movetoamend.org/events/los-an...ate-personhood

...and again

http://movetoamend.org/news/madison-...onal-amendment

lol thats a stretch at most.

I was right, occupy is dead, doubt we will see it come back. their "movement" was ended after they failed to get their message out coherently. All they proved was that its easy to let thugs and violence take over your movement, and that they had no real idea on how to advance their message.

Case closed

A stretch you say? Cleveland even put "because of the occupy movement" in their resolution, and one of the bills is even acronymed "OCCUPIED"! It's not a stretch. The right people are hearing the message. You think Mr. City Politician was just sitting around and came up with the idea to push a resolution to end corporate personhood on his own and said "Occupy Movement? Never heard of it.."? THAT is the stretch. I know it's tough for conservatives to accept, but it's working, gradually, but it's working, and there is your proof

hey newsflash a city RESOLUTION doesnt mean dick. They could pass one tomorrow that says "kittens are cute" doesnt mean anything.

Its just an attempt to try and keep the movement going, when clearly, it is dead. If it had any real merit, it would be alive, but its not.

When a movement has the ability to unite both left and right to combat it because of the violence and horrible conditions it brings, that is unique

http://movetoamend.org/news/madison-...onal-amendment


you also realize this was reported on April 6th 2011, well before the "OCCUPY" movement started...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Its just an attempt to try and keep the movement going, when clearly, it is dead. If it had any real merit, it would be alive, but its not.

When a movement has the ability to unite both left and right to combat it because of the violence and horrible conditions it brings, that is unique

---

Dead? No. Far from it. And no one is "combating" it except the far right and the not so far right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

http://movetoamend.org/news/madison-...onal-amendment


you also realize this was reported on April 6th 2011, well before the "OCCUPY" movement started...........

---

I know. That just means they recognized the problem before everyone else did. The other two were published recently

city resolutions dont mean anything seriously.

Although, i agree with ending the corporate RIGHTS thing, but the Occupy movement is gone man. SOME Of the things that they stood for that normal people agree with or could condone (banks getting bailouts, corporate greed , etc) were lost when the thugs, rapists, and degenerates showed up to incite anarchy.

Pittsburg...you're doing it right

http://pittsburgh.legistar.com/Legis...Options&Search

Three San Diego occupiers arrested for felony conspiracy.

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/01/12...mple-mic-check

Why do this? LEO's trying to prove a point? They'll take it to court and the judge will drop it. The police are just making themselves look bad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oned-tent.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Three San Diego occupiers arrested for felony conspiracy.

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/01/12...mple-mic-check

Why do this? LEO's trying to prove a point? They'll take it to court and the judge will drop it. The police are just making themselves look bad.

---

You really did find yourself a nice, respectable source.