Support NeoGAF

[140.85]

It's going to be politicized no matter what, it might as well be politicized on the side of the people and not big business.

Business consists of people.

 

[empty vessel]

Business consists of people.

So does government. What's your point? The point is that business concerns are narrow and people (in their roles as citizens) have far broader social concerns. It is not good for society to exclusively or predominately appease narrow business interests (which generally means the interests of corporate executives and large shareholders), especially at the expense of broader interests enjoying wide support among the public, e.g., health.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Nowhere near as destructive as quickly as forgiving all debt, destroying colleges, paying people $20/hr whether employed or not, complete opening of borders, getting rid of credit agencies (really, that's the problem?), spending 2 trillion on infrastructure and forests and ripping down nuclear plants out of money we don't have, and banning all private insurers.

Baby steps people. We need to raise taxes, close loopholes, end wars, and re-work some free trade agreements.

Drastic changes are bad in the end, and people who want drastic changes don't understand the global economy.

but you don't get it.

the OWS people don't want those specific demands. They won't ever happen. They know this, we know this, you don't seem to know this.
They know they have to go high and talk down. If they start with what they really want they can only talk down.

 

[140.85]

So does government. What's your point? The point is that business concerns are narrow and people (in their roles as citizens) have far broader social concerns. It is not good for society to exclusively or predominately appease narrow business interests (which generally means the interests of corporate executives and large shareholders), especially at the expense of broader interests enjoying wide support among the public, e.g., health.

Isn't it obvious what the point is? "People" and "business" are not separate entities and it's nonsense to operate from the assumption the interest of one will always conflict with the other.

 

[.GqueB.]

but you don't get it.

the OWS people don't want those specific demands. They won't ever happen. They know this, we know this, you don't seem to know this.
They know they have to go high and talk down. If they start with what they really want they can only talk down.

We all get that they want to aim high but your aim also has to be sensible and make sense or people arent going to take you seriously. It really is that simple.

$20/hr minimum wage?

 

[Azih]

Business consists of people.

Businesses are run for and controlled by the owners/shareholders which are primarily the 1% or close to it. Their interests do not align with the 99%.

So you're right that it's all people. It's not the same people though.

 

[GaimeGuy]

A constitutional amendment should not be required to create campaign finance laws. There should be very few things that require a constitutional amendment, as it is supposed to serve as a framework for the government. Once you need to start amending the constitution to do something like prevent a multi-billion dollar corporation from campaigning on behalf of an individual, or to provide health care or any other service to individuals, the constituion ceases to be a framework for government and becomes the law itself, with congressional acts merely extending and clarifying the law already in place.

A constitutional amendment should be needed only to change the structure of government. Optionally, it can be used to enshrine certain secular values within law more deeply and with a higher legal standing than a normal act of congress, (which is why it requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states) Never to circumvent existing rules, though.

The 19th amendment for example shouldn't be needed. And indeed, if it were to vanish overnight here in 2011, any legislation which prevented women from voting would almost certainly be struck down under the 14th and 15th amendments. Nevertheless, the 19th amendment serves as a historical reminder that women wwere not always considered persons, and in the event that such an opinion becomes more widespread in the future, there exists an explicit reminder to promote otherwise within the constitution.

Segregation was both upheld and struck down by the supreme court, as another example for something which didn't take a constituional amendment, but probably could have gone that way under different rulings

 

[140.85]

Businesses are run for and controlled by the owners/shareholders which are primarily the 1% or close to it. Their interests do not align with the 99%.

Really? Never? I don't think so.

 

[Azih]

Really? Never? I don't think so.

Not in terms of fiscal policy anyway. Higher taxes and government provided social services level the playing field, the opposite benefits those who are already rich and can pay for their own services.

 

[sangreal]

But they are allowed to form PACs and other lobbying organizations

So? Those groups can't donate to campaigns either. Why shouldn't they be able to spend money to advocate for their cause?

and organize their employees to contribute on behalf of the company.

It is illegal for a corporation to funnel cash through their employees to a campaign. Are you suggesting employees of Corporations shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns on their own?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

Apparently so, since all of these links just provide data on individual employee contributions. The only thing that makes them special is that they work for a corporation. And that some of them are rich.

 

[NervousXtian]

but you don't get it.

the OWS people don't want those specific demands. They won't ever happen. They know this, we know this, you don't seem to know this.
They know they have to go high and talk down. If they start with what they really want they can only talk down.

No, it's the difference between asking for world peace and stopping the war in Afghanistan.

One is doable, the other not-so-much.

Pick a concise message and layout a plan of action that's achievable. Without that, what's the point? Protesting for the sake of protesting.

 

[empty vessel]

Isn't it obvious what the point is? "People" and "business" are not separate entities and it's nonsense to operate from the assumption the interest of one will always conflict with the other.

Nor that the interest of one is the interest of all. Which is, of course, precisely the complaint about catering to business--and especially corporate--interests.

So? Those groups can't donate to campaigns either. Why shouldn't they be able to spend money to advocate for their cause?

Because the only people who should be influencing elections in a democratic society founded on popular sovereignty are citizens. Corporations are not citizens. They are legal fictions created by the government itself.

 

[LuchaShaq]

It's pretty impossible to find a unbiased news source these days.

There is a huge difference between biased and honest (I'm ok with it) and biased and full of lies. (Not cool)

 

[Joe]

One of my nypd friends on Facebook:
"This sucks do you know how much money in overtime I was making because of these idiots?"

"Some think its over but I think we just pissed the hippies off"

"Kicking a beehive"

 

[kame-sennin]

Yup, the conversation has changed dramatically since OWS came about. People are actually talking about what benefits the richest of the rich as opposed to what benefits the majority of people and that was almost impossible before as pundits started screeching about "class warfare" ad nauseam and painted anyone who dared to disagree as 'socialists' or some such nonsense. They still do but there's room for debate now that wasn't there before.

Just quoting this because it's really important. The fact that the President has addressed these issues, that they're being asked in primary debates, that even republicans are conceding that some of the protester's demands are fair, is such a huge victory in and of itself. Discussion is the key to solving problems, and for the first time since the financial crisis we are having a discussion about income inequality and the influence of corporate money in politics. This is huge even if it goes no further.

 

[kame-sennin]

For starters, read this article by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?":

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements — whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. "If the allegations in these settlements are true," says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, "it's management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims."

That's the way it's supposed to work. But a veritable mountain of evidence indicates that when it comes to Wall Street, the justice system not only sucks at punishing financial criminals, it has actually evolved into a highly effective mechanism for protecting financial criminals. This institutional reality has absolutely nothing to do with politics or ideology — it takes place no matter who's in office or which party's in power. To understand how the machinery functions, you have to start back at least a decade ago, as case after case of financial malfeasance was pursued too slowly or not at all, fumbled by a government bureaucracy that too often is on a first-name basis with its targets. Indeed, the shocking pattern of nonenforcement with regard to Wall Street is so deeply ingrained in Washington that it raises a profound and difficult question about the very nature of our society: whether we have created a class of people whose misdeeds are no longer perceived as crimes, almost no matter what those misdeeds are. The SEC and the Justice Department have evolved into a bizarre species of social surgeon serving this nonjailable class, expert not at administering punishment and justice, but at finding and removing criminal responsibility from the bodies of the accused.

The most amazing noncase in the entire crash — the one that truly defies the most basic notion of justice when it comes to Wall Street supervillains — is the one involving AIG and Joe Cassano, the nebbishy Patient Zero of the financial crisis. As chief of AIGFP, the firm's financial products subsidiary, Cassano repeatedly made public statements in 2007 claiming that his portfolio of mortgage derivatives would suffer "no dollar of loss" — an almost comically obvious misrepresentation. "God couldn't manage a $60 billion real estate portfolio without a single dollar of loss," says Turner, the agency's former chief accountant. "If the SEC can't make a disclosure case against AIG, then they might as well close up shop."

As in the Lehman case, federal prosecutors not only had plenty of evidence against AIG — they also had an eyewitness to Cassano's actions who was prepared to tell all. As an accountant at AIGFP, Joseph St. Denis had a number of run-ins with Cassano during the summer of 2007. At the time, Cassano had already made nearly $500 billion worth of derivative bets that would ultimately blow up, destroy the world's largest insurance company, and trigger the largest government bailout of a single company in U.S. history. He made many fatal mistakes, but chief among them was engaging in contracts that required AIG to post billions of dollars in collateral if there was any downgrade to its credit rating.

A year later, after the crash, St. Denis wrote a letter about his experiences to the House Government Oversight Committee, which was looking into the AIG collapse. He also met with investigators for the government, which was preparing a criminal case against Cassano. But the case never went to court. Last May, the Justice Department confirmed that it would not file charges against executives at AIGFP. Cassano, who has denied any wrongdoing, was reportedly told he was no longer a target.

Shortly after that, Cassano strolled into Washington to testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. It was his first public appearance since the crash. He has not had to pay back a single cent out of the hundreds of millions of dollars he earned selling his insane pseudo-insurance policies on subprime mortgage deals. Now, out from under prosecution, he appeared before the FCIC and had the enormous balls to compliment his own business acumen, saying his atom-bomb swaps portfolio was, in retrospect, not that badly constructed. "I think the portfolios are withstanding the test of time," he said.

The Revolving Door isn't just a footnote in financial law enforcement; over the past decade, more than a dozen high-ranking SEC officials have gone on to lucrative jobs at Wall Street banks or white-shoe law firms, where partnerships are worth millions. That makes SEC officials like Paul Berger and Linda Thomsen the equivalent of college basketball stars waiting for their first NBA contract. Are you really going to give up a shot at the Knicks or the Lakers just to find out whether a Wall Street big shot like John Mack was guilty of insider trading? "You take one of these jobs," says Turner, the former chief accountant for the SEC, "and you're fit for life."

But the real fireworks came when Khuzami, the SEC's director of enforcement, talked about a new "cooperation initiative" the agency had recently unveiled, in which executives are being offered incentives to report fraud they have witnessed or committed. From now on, Khuzami said, when corporate lawyers like the ones he was addressing want to know if their Wall Street clients are going to be charged by the Justice Department before deciding whether to come forward, all they have to do is ask the SEC.

"We are going to try to get those individuals answers," Khuzami announced, as to "whether or not there is criminal interest in the case — so that defense counsel can have as much information as possible in deciding whether or not to choose to sign up their client."

All of this paints a disturbing picture of a closed and corrupt system, a timeless circle of friends that virtually guarantees a collegial approach to the policing of high finance. Even before the corruption starts, the state is crippled by economic reality: Since law enforcement on Wall Street requires serious intellectual firepower, the banks seize a huge advantage from the start by hiring away the top talent. Budde, the former Lehman lawyer, says it's well known that all the best legal minds go to the big corporate law firms, while the "bottom 20 percent go to the SEC." Which makes it tough for the agency to track devious legal machinations, like the scheme to hide $263 million of Dick Fuld's compensation.

"It's such a mismatch, it's not even funny," Budde says.

But even beyond that, the system is skewed by the irrepressible pull of riches and power. If talent rises in the SEC or the Justice Department, it sooner or later jumps ship for those fat NBA contracts. Or, conversely, graduates of the big corporate firms take sabbaticals from their rich lifestyles to slum it in government service for a year or two. Many of those appointments are inevitably hand-picked by lifelong stooges for Wall Street like Chuck Schumer, who has accepted $14.6 million in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other major players in the finance industry, along with their corporate lawyers.

As for President Obama, what is there to be said? Goldman Sachs was his number-one private campaign contributor. He put a Citigroup executive in charge of his economic transition team, and he just named an executive of JP Morgan Chase, the proud owner of $7.7 million in Chase stock, his new chief of staff. "The betrayal that this represents by Obama to everybody is just — we're not ready to believe it," says Budde, a classmate of the president from their Columbia days. "He's really fucking us over like that? Really? That's really a JP Morgan guy, really?"

More at the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

 

[makingmusic476]

Is that list of demands actually sanctioned by a large portion of occupy wall street? Who decided that's what the movement is for?

I like half the ideas on the list, but they'd only be feasible in tandem with other drastic changes that aren't mentioned. Meanwhile, the other half of the demands are batshit insane.

I'm perfectly fine believing that those are the wants of a fringe group of occupiers, but then the rest of the protesters need to step up and say something different, instead of this "general assembly. we don't want to discuss on their terms. etc. etc." crap.

 

[smokeymicpot]

It is all over the news now. Its pretty crazy it seems.

 

[Joe]

Ows is calling for a day of "mass action" Thurs Nov 17.....what does that mean?

 

[remnant]

Just quoting this because it's really important. The fact that the President has addressed these issues, that they're being asked in primary debates, that even republicans are conceding that some of the protester's demands are fair, is such a huge victory in and of itself. Discussion is the key to solving problems, and for the first time since the financial crisis we are having a discussion about income inequality and the influence of corporate money in politics. This is huge even if it goes no further.

campaign finance reform(aka corporations and money influence in politics) has been a hot topic since McCain-Feingold in 2002. Income inequality has been discussed ad nauseam for even longer. Maybe you weren't paying attention but the conversation hasn't changed at all.

 

[Wazzim]

Ows is calling for a day of "mass action" Thurs Nov 17.....what does that mean?

Forcing Wall Street to close for the whole day and marching over the Brooklyn bridge.

 

[jchap]

Forcing Wall Street to close for the whole day and marching over the Brooklyn bridge.

Day of mass arrests

/popcorn

 

[sangreal]

http://www.uslaw.com/USLowstrodecision.pdf

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the 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 i t f rom 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 benef iciar ies of this zoning bonus.

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, petitioner's application for a temporary restraining order is denied.
​

 

[Wazzim]

Day of mass arrests

/popcorn

Yes. One of the spokesmans for the event already said that confrontation with the police will be inevitable.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Day of mass arrests

/popcorn

Shit is gonna hit the fan.

The park got cleaned up fast.

 

[Wazzim]

http://www.uslaw.com/USLowstrodecision.pdf

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the 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 i t f rom 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 benef iciar ies of this zoning bonus.

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, petitioner's application for a temporary restraining order is denied.
​

Bought out fuckers, I wonder how much they got paid for this.

 

[Karma Kramer]

campaign finance reform(aka corporations and money influence in politics) has been a hot topic since McCain-Feingold in 2002. Income inequality has been discussed ad nauseam for even longer. Maybe you weren't paying attention but the conversation hasn't changed at all.

Even if this is true, both campaign finance reform and income inequality reform has gone in the opposite direction and we are worse off today than we were in 2002. Seems like even more discussion needs to be focused on these problems.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Relevant:

I have a confession to make. At first, I misunderstood Occupy Wall Street.
The first few times I went down to Zuccotti Park, I came away with mixed feelings. I loved the energy and was amazed by the obvious organic appeal of the movement, the way it was growing on its own. But my initial impression was that it would not be taken very seriously by the Citibanks and Goldman Sachs of the world. You could put 50,000 angry protesters on Wall Street, 100,000 even, and Lloyd Blankfein is probably not going to break a sweat. He knows he's not going to wake up tomorrow and see Cornel West or Richard Trumka running the Federal Reserve. He knows modern finance is a giant mechanical parasite that only an expert surgeon can remove. Yell and scream all you want, but he and his fellow financial Frankensteins are the only ones who know how to turn the machine off.
That's what I was thinking during the first few weeks of the protests. But I'm beginning to see another angle. Occupy Wall Street was always about something much bigger than a movement against big banks and modern finance. It's about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. This is a visceral, impassioned, deep-seated rejection of the entire direction of our society, a refusal to take even one more step forward into the shallow commercial abyss of phoniness, short-term calculation, withered idealism and intellectual bankruptcy that American mass society has become. If there is such a thing as going on strike from one's own culture, this is it. And by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it's flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left.
The right-wing media wasted no time in cannon-blasting the movement with its usual idiotic clichés, casting Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of dirty hippies who should get a job and stop chewing up Mike Bloomberg's police overtime budget with their urban sleepovers. Just like they did a half-century ago, when the debate over the Vietnam War somehow stopped being about why we were brutally murdering millions of innocent Indochinese civilians and instead became a referendum on bralessness and long hair and flower-child rhetoric, the depraved flacks of the right-wing media have breezily blown off a generation of fraud and corruption and market-perverting bailouts, making the whole debate about the protesters themselves – their hygiene, their "envy" of the rich, their "hypocrisy."

-Matt Taibbi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-love-the-ows-protests-20111110#ixzz1doXOODSY

 

[remnant]

Shit is gonna hit the fan.

The park got cleaned up fast.

I'm surprised the NYC occupiers went relatively peacefully. I don't think it's going to be very violent at all. This isn't Oakland.

Even if this is true, both campaign finance reform and income inequality reform has gone in the opposite direction and we are worse off today then we were in 2002.

Actually individual income inequality has remained steady since the 1990's until it decreased in 2008-09 and McCain-Feingold is still largely in effect, but whatever.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Actually individual income inequality has remained steady since the 1990's until it decreased in 2008-09 and McCain-Feingold is still largely in effect, but whatever.

So income inequality is worse (because of deregulation)... and because of Citizens United, McCain-Feingold is hardly what it was before.

The US Supreme Court Thursday struck down a major portion of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws that prevented union and corporate paid issue ads in the final 30 days of election campaigns. The court also ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want to support candidates running for Congress or President.

The historic 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads and rolled back centuries-old law about corporate spending. Under the ruling, corporations and unions will still be prohibited from giving direct contributions to candidates.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35287

 

[kame-sennin]

campaign finance reform(aka corporations and money influence in politics) has been a hot topic since McCain-Feingold in 2002. Income inequality has been discussed ad nauseam for even longer. Maybe you weren't paying attention but the conversation hasn't changed at all.

Before OWS, the national debate was centered around austerity. The debate has clearly shifted and you know it. Obama has been forced to address the legality of Wall Streets' actions leading up to the financial crisis - a complete political non-starter just a few months ago.

Even if this is true, both campaign finance reform and income inequality reform has gone in the opposite direction and we are worse off today than we were in 2002. Seems like even more discussion needs to be focused on these problems.

But it isn't.

 

[smokeymicpot]

I'm surprised the NYC occupiers went relatively peacefully. I don't think it's going to be very violent at all. This isn't Oakland.



Actually individual income inequality has remained steady since the 1990's until it decreased in 2008-09 and McCain-Feingold is still largely in effect, but whatever.

Its peaceful now but the assholes will come out.

I wish I wasn't working though so I can go down there.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Forcing Wall Street to close for the whole day and marching over the Brooklyn bridge.

Man am I happy I don't live in Brooklyn any more and having to deal with that nonsense. Should make for some interesting viewing.

 

[Sanky Panky]

OWS needs to hit politicians and corporations where it hurts.

Nothing really can be done to Goldman Sachs from the outside, other than government regulation. How is the best way to affect politicians? bad media and votes.

There has to be a way to uncover what senators and Reps are getting by way of corporations, and I would make it so that people publicly pledge to NOT vote for said politician. I would start a counter of people that have pledged in the different districts and states, and OWS can be a movement to spread the word to the average American of why they should not vote for the candidate. This would really backfire on Democrats (since only libs would go for anything OWS) but fuck 'em. They are the same shills and don't deserve that.

This should be a witch-hunt for corporate shills in government. Bad publicity for both dems and republicans, and the withholding of votes en-masse and publicly.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

OWS needs to hit politicians and corporations where it hurts.

Nothing really can be done to Goldman Sachs from the outside, other than government regulation. How is the best way to affect politicians? bad media and votes.

There has to be a way to uncover what senators and Reps are getting by way of corporations, and I would make it so that people publicly pledge to NOT vote for said politician. I would start a counter of people that have pledged in the different districts and states, and OWS can be a movement to spread the word to the average American of why they should not vote for the candidate. This would really backfire on Democrats (since only libs would go for anything OWS) but fuck 'em. They are the same shills and don't deserve that.

This should be a witch-hunt for corporate shills in government. Bad publicity for both dems and republicans, and the withholding of votes en-masse and publicly.

Oh man would the Republican Party love that, hell they'd probably give you money to finance it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Man am I happy I don't live in Brooklyn any more and having to deal with that nonsense. Should make for some interesting viewing.

First of all, it only lasted for a couple hours. Second, if you lived in New York and drive around in a car often you shouldn't be complaining about traffic. Thirdly.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz172asCf2M (I think it can be disputed if they caused the traffic jam, especially when the police blockaded them on the bridge)

 

[kame-sennin]

Protesters are reentering the park right now.

Edit: bags are being checked for sleeping bags and tents which are now contraband. I'm watching live coverage from NBC NY.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Injunction against the city is dead.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=867939&f=19

two months.

Mr. Bloomberg said the city had planned to reopen the park on Tuesday morning after the protesters' tents and tarps had been removed and the park's stone steps had been cleaned. He said the police had already let about 50 protesters back in when officials received word of a temporary restraining order sought by lawyers for the protesters. The police closed the park again while a judge heard arguments in State Supreme Court.

But late Tuesday afternoon,the judge ruled for the city,saying the protesters could go into Zuccotti Park but could not take their tents and sleeping bags. The judge,Justice Michael D. Stallman, said the demonstrators "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 landlord or "others who might wish to use the space safely."

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.uslaw.com/USLowstrodecision.pdf

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the 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 i t f rom 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 benef iciar ies of this zoning bonus.

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, petitioner's application for a temporary restraining order is denied.
​

A relevant fact: "[The judge] said that the protesters 'had not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time place and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.'” So a court in a massively inequitable society sides with power and enforces an obvious pretext to suppress First Amendment activities as "reasonable restrictions"? Who could have predicted this stunning development?

 

[Previous]

I know the entire whole of protesters have completely different political views, and nobody can really speak for all of them. But the demand list I keep seeing posted around is just breath taking.

A demand for a $18 minimum wage and a six hour workday?

..and a $90/hour max?... at 6 hours a day every day for a year that only comes aprox $200k.

that...this... is a joke list right?

 

[Clevinger]

I know the entire whole of protesters have completely different political views, and nobody can really speak for all of them. But the demand list I keep seeing posted around is just breath taking.

A demand for a $18 minimum wage and a six hour workday?

..and a $90/hour max?... at 6 hours a day every day for a year that only comes aprox $200k.

that...this... is a joke list right?

It's one silly list from one dumb protester that people have been using to discredit the movement since the beginning.

 

[empty vessel]

I know the entire whole of protesters have completely different political views, and nobody can really speak for all of them. But the demand list I keep seeing posted around is just breath taking.

A demand for a $18 minimum wage and a six hour workday?

..and a $90/hour max?... at 6 hours a day every day for a year that only comes aprox $200k.

that...this... is a joke list right?

It's a forum post by one person.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

Although many of those look great to me.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

A relevant fact: "[The judge] said that the protesters 'had not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time place and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.'” So a court in a massively inequitable society sides with power and enforces an obvious pretext to suppress First Amendment activities as "reasonable restrictions"? Who could have predicted this stunning development?

The judge also wasn't bothered by it enough to continue the TRO.

 

[empty vessel]

The judge also wasn't bothered by it enough to continue the TRO.

Isn't that my point? I especially like the legal reasoning that removing people expressing First Amendment liberties is in the public interest because the public was preventing the public's use of the park by using it too much.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's a forum post by one person.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

Although many of those look great to me.

Oh man thanks for the link, much gold will be mined from the vein.

 

[remnant]

So income inequality is worse (because of deregulation)... and because of Citizens United, McCain-Feingold is hardly what it was before.

The major deregulatory initiatives went into effect in the late 70's, early 80's. Not in the mid 90's.

And McCain-Feingold was always a garbage law that solely benefited incumbent politicians and power groups. Either way it was not something that was not discussed in politics.

Before OWS, the national debate was centered around austerity. The debate has clearly shifted and you know it. Obama has been forced to address the legality of Wall Streets' actions leading up to the financial crisis - a complete political non-starter just a few months ago.

Uhh no it was not. The national debate was Obama pushing a second stimulus off the back of a millionaire surtax. before that we were discussing raising the debt ceiling. Before that was whether or not we should let the Bush tax cut expire. That is not austerity. Maybe you are confusing us with europe.

Obama just passed major legislation called Dodd-Frank solely off the back of comtempt at Wall St. That was a non-starter? What a joke.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Isn't that my point?

That's why I don't know what your complaining about, it was fully considered and not found to be an issue.

 

[empty vessel]

Oh man thanks for the link, much gold will be mined from the vein.

Most of those are perfectly reasonable.

Although I agree that you probably would feel much more at home here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2807461/posts

That's why I don't know what your complaining about, it was fully considered and not found to be an issue.

My point is that our courts are useless in a highly inequitable and corrupt society. They cannot and should not ever be depended upon to uphold the liberties of people. We have to defend them ourselves.

 

[Evlar]

The major deregulatory initiatives went into effect in the late 70's, early 80's. Not in the mid 90's.

And McCain-Feingold was always a garbage law that solely benefited incumbent politicians and power groups. Either way it was not something that was not discussed in politics.


Uhh no it was not. The national debate was Obama pushing a second stimulus off the back of a millionaire surtax. before that we were discussing raising the debt ceiling. Before that was whether or not we should let the Bush tax cut expire. That is not austerity. Maybe you are confusing us with europe.

Obama just passed major legislation called Dodd-Frank solely off the back of comtempt at Wall St. That was a non-starter? What a joke.

... What exactly did the "raising the debt ceiling" debate consist of? I seem to recall one side, with considerable representation in Congress, pushing an agenda of massive cuts, no new revenue, and a balanced budget amendment, as prerequisites to get the debt ceiling raised.

I mean, that certainly sounds like fucking austerity to me. A particularly idiotic approach to it, too.

Not that the other side was much better... Massive cuts with small revenue increases (relative to the cuts).

 

[Mortrialus]

Uhh no it was not. The national debate was Obama pushing a second stimulus off the back of a millionaire surtax. before that we were discussing raising the debt ceiling. Before that was whether or not we should let the Bush tax cut expire. That is not austerity. Maybe you are confusing us with europe.

The new republican congressmen in the house have been proposing and pushing plenty of (Pathetic) austerity measures. The entire debt ceiling debacle was centered around Republicans blocking the raising of the debt ceiling without massive austerity measures put in place.