Occupy Wall Street and the First Amendment

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Greenmachine

Disgusting Judgement in my opinion and one that is likely to lead to civil unrest. People will refuse to leave, will bring more sleeping bags. Followed by the police using excess force to remove them.

It leave the question. If one wants to protest where can one do it.
Anytime there has been protest in Dublin. They end up being broken up very quickly. Enmasse Riot police pulling people from a peaceful protesting crowd.

Occupy Dame Street is the first time, I have seen a protest in Dublin be successful in not being broken up.
I am not sure what they really hope to achieve but they are showing their determination.

Does it disrupt my passing by the area. Not significantly. It changes it yes.

What does disrupt me is the goverments allowing the housing marketing getting out of hand, the individuals many of them who bought into this trojan horse. The subsequent bailout and the the fact that I now have to pay for all these other peoples mistakes and likely so will my children.

I never bought into any of this nonsense and have never lived outside my means, yet I have to share the burden.

We are going to face another lost generation of men and women leaving for pastures greener. How then will we attract this "Direct Foreign Investment" we so badly need.

I really hope a similar initative is not going to take place here.

I understand the anger and frustration of the protestor.
I don't feel they will achieve their end.
I am proud of the fact that they are doing something I won't.
They are taking their disallusionment of the system and making themself heard.

prech101

(I wrote this b4 i seen OWS thread was closed,, why????, prob due to the amount of illogical arguments being posted)


PBear,
I would say Ghandi is turning is in his grave. with your attempted use.....
Mayor Bloomberg is one of the richest men in US, he is simply protecting his fellow 1 %.
I believe they brought in JCB’s’s and dumped hundreds of books, surprised they didn’t burn them.
People are entitled to demonstrate and in the land of the free,, irony is not missed here.
I believe this will make the movement even stronger, there will twice as many people the next day. What most of you underestimate is the power of the people because you have bought into the systems way of making you think. Control the people with ”media model” set the boundaries of the argument so people are fooled into believing they are actually discussing the topics that matter.
75%+ of the world media is controlled by a few people, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
PBear and Solide,, i haven’t got a clue what you are trying to say, you seem to just keep positing verbal trash. If you are unable to keep up with the argument suggest you sit back research the topic you are trying to diminish and come back with some sort of logic to your argument, in fairness I disagree with a number of posters here, but i respect people’s opinions when they argue from a postion of knowledge etc, not when they simply try and fans the flames for their own amusement.

To those who think this is the end OWS, oh ye of little faith, Mayor War bucks has actually helped beyond belief. Recent poll shows 53% of all Americans regardless of political stance support OWS.

This is not a sprint, its a marathon 2012 is going to be interesting......

joshrogan

They are back in Zuccotti park.

Jonny7

prech101 wrote: »

(I wrote this b4 i seen OWS thread was closed,, why????, prob due to the amount of illogical arguments being posted)


PBear,
I would say Ghandi is turning is in his grave. with your attempted use.....
Mayor Bloomberg is one of the richest men in US, he is simply protecting his fellow 1 %.
I believe they brought in JCB’s’s and dumped hundreds of books, surprised they didn’t burn them.
People are entitled to demonstrate and in the land of the free,, irony is not missed here.
I believe this will make the movement even stronger, there will twice as many people the next day. What most of you underestimate is the power of the people because you have bought into the systems way of making you think. Control the people with ”media model” set the boundaries of the argument so people are fooled into believing they are actually discussing the topics that matter.
75%+ of the world media is controlled by a few people, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
PBear and Solide,, i haven’t got a clue what you are trying to say, you seem to just keep positing verbal trash. If you are unable to keep up with the argument suggest you sit back research the topic you are trying to diminish and come back with some sort of logic to your argument, in fairness I disagree with a number of posters here, but i respect people’s opinions when they argue from a postion of knowledge etc, not when they simply try and fans the flames for their own amusement.

To those who think this is the end OWS, oh ye of little faith, Mayor War bucks has actually helped beyond belief. Recent poll shows 53% of all Americans regardless of political stance support OWS.

This is not a sprint, its a marathon 2012 is going to be interesting......

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

I think this thread has just demonstrated further how a lack of understanding of open markets and private property contributes to the same sort of bile coming out of OWS.

Amerika

An affront on the First Amendment? I think Michael Bloomberg addresses the issue pretty succinctly.

"This morning we planned to re-open Zuccotti Park to the public, including any protestors, at approximately 8:00 AM when the cleaning was completed. The opening of the park was delayed due to legal action taken against the City, but Zuccotti Park is now open to the public. The court’s ruling vindicates our position that First Amendment rights do not include the right to endanger the public or infringe on the rights of others by taking over a public space with tents and tarps. The City has the ultimate responsibility to protect public health and safety and we will continue to ensure that everyone can express themselves in New York City. Zuccotti Park will remain open to all who want to enjoy it, as long as they abide by the park’s rules."

And I laugh when I see OWS claim they "are the 99%." Pretty disingenuous, unless you consider the 99% are just a bunch of disaffected white kids.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Even Harvard, that most respected of institutions, is in on the madness. These students walked out of a class because of the professor's views on economics (not Keynesian enough apparently). Elite my arse.

Suryavarman

Valmont wrote: »

Even Harvard, that most respected of institutions, is in on the madness. These students walked out of a class because of the professor's views on economics (not Keynesian enough apparently). Elite my arse.

Just shows how completely ignorant of economics some of these protesters are. Accusing probably the most famous living Keynesian after Paul Krugman of not being Keynesian enough is embarrassing to say the least. Also, that they don't understand why Keynesianism isn't discussed in a MICROeconomics class doesn't signal good news for their winter exams.

LostinKildare

Ah, you guys. You'd be standing on the dock in Boston in 1773, crying as the colonists dumped the East India Company's tea into the water, "Stop! STOP! It's private properteeeeee!"

You'd be right there with the slaveholders of the Civil War South, saying "It's not fair! They paid good money for those darkies! Private properteeeeee!"


I had to laugh when I saw a video of the loathsome Karl Rove speechifying at Johns Hopkins the other night. When he was interrupted by protesters from Occupy Baltimore, he shouted at them, "Who gave you the right to occupy America!?!"

The founding fathers, Karl. In the part of the Bill of Rights that protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In right-wing libertarian la-la land, when you've successfully transferred all public lands into private hands, where will the People peaceably assemble to petition the Government?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

LostinKildare wrote: »

In right-wing libertarian la-la land, when you've successfully transferred all public lands into private hands, where will the People peaceably assemble to petition the Government?

just another glaring plot hole in the Libertarian vision... well.. intended side effect but an embarrassing one.

Denerick

I just love some of the reasoning here. First of all its assumed that 'direct action' is equatable with freedom of speech. A neo nazi group who 'occupy' a park in the middle of a Jewish district in New York are clearly expressing their 'right to freely assemble and congregate'. I can't see too many hippies sympathising with this, right? You don't have a right to take over and control an area of public land for your exclusive use. By all means, protest, but stop trying to organise mini revolutions and generally getting in the way of people going about their daily lives.

As far as I can tell, an occupation of public land by a left wing group is fine, but if a far right group does it... you know... freedom of speech isn't as paramount.

The Burkean in me is terrified of where this Occupy Wall Street thing is going. 'Defiance' is all well and good when you live under a brutal dictatorship where the only apparant path to democratic change is through direct action and confrontation. But defiance in a liberal democracy with a sophisticated judiciary and a representative system is utter madness. Turn up in front of Capitol Hill, wave your little flags and placards, and go home. Stop getting in peoples way.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. They cannot go and take over a farmer's field, for example.

Are you aware that Zuccotti Park is not such a clear-cut case? Is it not fully a private property -- it is an amalgamation of private and public, an entity called an "Privately Owned Public Space" (POPS). These are areas ceded by corporate owners to NYC for use as public spaces in exchange for planning waivers on other properties belonging to the corporation (typically, relaxation on the height restrictions -- I believe they got an extra 9 stories or so on a nearby skyscraper). Ironically, these spaces are more accessible to the public, more "public" than the completely public parks owned by the city, because most of them are required by their planning deals to be kept open to the public 24 hours a day; in contrast, NYC public parks close at night (so obviously you cannot camp there overnight).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You'd be hard-pressed to make the case they were trespassing in a POPS, and I'd wager that's why the city's legal team did not make that argument, and AFAIK none of the protestors ever were arrested for trespassing there.

Now, will you respond to this?:

LostinKildare wrote: »

In right-wing libertarian la-la land, when you've successfully transferred all public lands into private hands, where will the People peaceably assemble to petition the Government?

LostinKildare

This is what the NYC Police Commissioner was saying about it last month.

And yet . . he set NY's Finest at barricades to keep Zuccotti Park closed on Tuesday morning in defiance of a court order that barred them from preventing the protesters from entering -- with their tents -- up until 11:30 am. Somehow he and Bloomberg didn't end up in a cell for that blatantly illegal contempt.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said cops are preparing for the Occupy Wall Street protest to last indefinitely.
“People are going to be here for an extended period of time. We’re going to accommodate them as long as they do it peacefully and in accordance with the laws and regulations," Kelly told reporters following a City Council hearing Thursday.
But he said that neither police nor executives from Brookfield Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, have the authority to kick the protesters out at this point.
The park, where demonstrators have been encamped for three weeks, is privately owned but operates as a public space that must be open 24-hours-a-day under an agreement with the city.
"Right now, they are there and the owners of that plaza don’t have the legal right to eject them,” Kelly said.
The commissioner explained that Zuccotti Park was built by Brookfield in exchange for zoning variances, and that as part of the developer's contract, the public is entitled to round-the-clock access.
Brookfield recently posted a list of regulations at the park — including bans on sleeping bags and tarps as well as a prohibition against lying down on benches, sitting areas and walkways — but Kelly said that police could not intervene.
“You would need a legal basis to do that. And what I’m saying is the public has a right to access that piece of land. So this has to be worked out legally," he said.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20111006/downtown/only-park-owner-can-kick-out-occupy-wall-street-protesters-nypd-says#ixzz1aCoDzTCm

Spacedog

Could be said that the Egyptian protests was squatting, except that there was a critical mass of people and popular opinion was behind them. There is a war of ideology going on, those who want to to see the change they voted for for in the presidential election but never materialised.

When Obama was elected, he said that the 'change' he promised would emerge from the masses. One would think he's fall in line with the OWS movement if his election rhetoric was sincere. At the end of the day he is as much a puppet as any post war president. and a long overdue ground swell of support from the masses for meaningful reform and reassessment of social society is brought forward.

The more people are beaten back, the more determined they will become to have their voices heard.

LostinKildare

Denerick wrote: »

I just love some of the reasoning here. First of all its assumed that 'direct action' is equatable with freedom of speech.

I don't think anyone equated direct action and freedom of speech. That would be silly, they're different things.

A neo nazi group who 'occupy' a park in the middle of a Jewish district in New York are clearly expressing their 'right to freely assemble and congregate'. I can't see too many hippies sympathising with this, right? .....
As far as I can tell, an occupation of public land by a left wing group is fine, but if a far right group does it... you know... freedom of speech isn't as paramount.

I don't think you have to be a hippie to abhor the content of the Neo-Nazi message, but their freedom to voice it? Why not? Better that they are allowed to get it out there, exposed to the free debate of the public, than that it grows in power because of repression by the state.

The Burkean in me is terrified of where this Occupy Wall Street thing is going. 'Defiance' is all well and good when you live under a brutal dictatorship where the only apparant path to democratic change is through direct action and confrontation. But defiance in a liberal democracy with a sophisticated judiciary and a representative system is utter madness. Turn up in front of Capitol Hill, wave your little flags and placards, and go home. Stop getting in peoples way.

People have lost faith in the "sophisticated judiciary" that handed the presidency to George Bush and badly damaged our democratic system with, for example, the Citizens United judgement. Corporations are persons, and money is free speech -- does that sound right to you? And the representative system -- it is obviously corrupted. Political protest always has been and always will be an integral part of US democracy. When that dies, democracy is dead.

As for the "stop making a show of yourself, it bothers me" argument, that might work in Ireland; it doesn't stifle Americans.

Manic Moran

The First has never been free of time, place and manner restrictions. It is legal naivitee to think that any action cannot be restricted because it's under the banner of 'free speech'

NTM

DeVore

Manic Moran wrote: »

The First has never been free of time, place and manner restrictions. It is legal naivitee to think that any action cannot be restricted because it's under the banner of 'free speech'

NTM

But its also not "hate speech" as it was likened to up above (with the whole white power vs jews analogy).

If this anger is bottled up and contained, its going to explode. Bottling things up which are expanding fast is exactly how we make bombs. I would think Manic is at least one person who has some experience with such things!

DeV.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

The First has never been free of time, place and manner restrictions. It is legal naivitee to think that any action cannot be restricted because it's under the banner of 'free speech'

NTM

Yes, and that's the crux of the Zuccotti Park issue.

Permabear, Valmont and their thankers snicker that the OWS are dumb kids who don't understand the concept of private property -- actually they are more au fait with the issue than you are. Why do you think they chose a handy downtown "more public than public" space like ZP for their occupation?

But in any case, you do miss the point. The legal basis for the ousting of the protesters had nothing to do with private property rights. It revolved around the "time, place and manner" restrictions on free speech/free assembly in public spaces that MM refers to. That is, whether this public space could be used as an encampment. Time, place, manner restrictions proposed by the govt are subject to scrutiny to ensure they are not mere pretexts to stifle 1st amendment expression, and the fact that the rule against camping was instituted only after the encampment was established is a pretty good basis for appeal of the judge's decision.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well well, you're something else aren't you, playing the old civility card now when it suits, the fact is, that you are never respectful of those with whom you disagree.

jimmymal

saw this last night on the whole debacle
scathing and a little sarcastic a times but as a whole, very watchable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByV1Q8mq-y4

20Cent

Bloomberg has unwittingly shown what is wrong in the US at the moment. You have a billionaire media mogul buying the mayors job and using it to protect his wall st buddies. 0 arrests for the economic crash orchestrated by wall st and hundreds of protesters arrested.
The media were blocked from entering the park while the eviction was underway this should be unacceptable to everybody, helicopters above to stop news helicopters filming. Peoples property smashed up and dumped, even a library of 5000+ books trashed. It also shows how important public spaces are for citizens to be allowed speak their mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prech101

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"Open Trade" & "constitutional freedoms". they don't exist any more, open Trade,, are you having a laugh. maybe the students have seen how unfair and rigged the game really is!!

Its unfair to claim OWS is just hippy/white kids, shows your general ignorance and lack of understanding of issues or worse your obvious wish not to understand them.

Jonny7, fair point, but ask yourself this, why in a world of abundance and technology advances, hydro food production etc do millions stave to death.
Maybe there is no profit in feeding starving babies, which leads back to OWS fairer distribution of wealth, a mindset to work for the common good of the nation/planet not for the bottom line of mega rich shareholders etc.

Denerick, we do live under a brutal dictatorship, a economic dictatorship, one where the rules are changed to suit the real players of the game( Sac's citi bank, and the likes, ya know the kind of rules that make private debt public debt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I suspect that it is the latter part that the protesters and their supporters are most worried about. They can no longer substitute style for substance. The powerful imagery of several hundred protesters occupying a park in New York City's financial district is no longer something that can be relied on. They now have to rely solely on the power of their message. The trouble is, they have not produced any coherent message or realistic list of demands since the protests began; it's just white noise.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can repeat it til you are blue in the face, but the technical private ownership of this public space is irrelevent in this case, as I explained above. Govts also impose time, manner and space conditions on public spaces -- that is, this is not solely a privilege of private ownership.

In addition, Mayor Bloomberg made the obvious point that the rights of non-protesters are as important as those of the protesters themselves. By completely monopolizing a public space with tents and other structures for two months, the Occupy Wall Street protesters were depriving the public of their right to use the park in the manner intended by its owners. They were also causing continual disruption to the lives of local residents, adversely affecting local businesses, and creating a sanitation and public health risk. While the protesters have a First Amendment right to express their opinions, they don't have the right to monopolize and disrupt a neighborhood like this for months on end.

Meh. Public protest is messy. It disturbs people, that is the point. AFAIK, the protesters weren't blocking other people from accessing the park. If your contention is that they were "monopolizing" the space by the very fact of their presence, i.e., that they and their personal belongings were taking up space, well every demonstration takes up space, making it unavailable to others. Indeed, if you and your friends go and sit on a park bench, you are monopolizing that public space and depriving others of their use of it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, okay, and I hope that from now on you too will raise the tone of your own posts, which are among the most rude, condescending posts on this forum.


Here you go:
In a right-wing libertarian world where all public lands have been transferred into private hands, where will the People peaceably assemble to petition the Government?

Permabear wrote: »

The New York Times reported that after being evicted from Zuccotti Park, Occupy Wall Street protesters in black bandannas were seen using bolt cutters to cut the chain-link fence around a privately owned lot belonging to Trinity Church. The protesters then began streaming in with the intent to "occupy" it. That's how "au fait" they are with the concept of private property.

Actually, that plaza -- Duarte Square -- is owned half by the city and half by the church. OWS protesters were gathered in the public, city-owned part of the square. A few undisciplined people, to the dismay of the majority, broke into the church-owned side and were arrested.

How does this prove that even those very few OWS protesters are not "au fait" with the concept of private property? It doesn't show that they aren't knowledgeable about it -- it shows that, in this instance anyway, they don't respect it. An entirely different thing.

Valmont

LostinKildare wrote: »

You can repeat it til you are blue in the face, but the technical private ownership of this public space is irrelevent

So private property is an irrelevant technicality now? What planet are we arguing on here?! And what does the oxymoron "private ownership of a public space" even mean?

LostinKildare wrote: »

In a right-wing libertarian world where all public lands have been transferred into private hands, where will the People peaceably assemble to petition the Government?

Nobody would stop them from assembling on their own property. Perhaps they could rent some space?

LostinKildare wrote: »

Meh. Public protest is messy. It disturbs people, that is the point.

Finally we get to the bottom of it: we have a message, you have to listen, and on our terms.

As with any grandiose collectivised movement, the rights of individuals are inherently disregarded.

LostinKildare

Valmont wrote: »

So private property is an irrelevant technicality now? What planet are we arguing on here?! And what does the oxymoron "private ownership of a public space" even mean?

Irrelevant to this case, specifically. I explained what a POPS is above.

Nobody would stop them from assembling on their own property. Perhaps they could rent some space?

One would either have to be a property owner, or find a sympathetic property owner and pay him, in order to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right? That in effect precludes poor people from exercising their right to peaceable assembly.

Finally we get to the bottom of it: we have a message, you have to listen, and on our terms.

As with any grandiose collectivised movement, the rights of individuals are inherently disregarded.

No. Your right to protest is circumscribed in many many ways. And the rights of opposing groups (e.g. protesters and the people who want them to stop) must be balanced. And they are, continually, by the courts.

prech101

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What is the percentage split between races in the states, are there more white people than say black, Chinese?? stands to reason you would see more of them if there ARE more of them in the country in question,,,,
Younger people tend to stand up more than say older folks set in there ways with the belief that nothing changes so what's the point. you keep ref hippies,(the 84 year old who was peppered sprayed by police, I suppose she was just an old hippy looking for trouble!!)
The reporting blackout of eviction of OWS,, why was that???
So previous movements didn't work, so what!, try something else, I can tell you what is not the answer and that is apathy.

I don't live in US (which I am very happy about, Police States don't appeal to me, or some would say a war hungry country) not that the average american is ,but the people in charge are.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

Bloomberg has unwittingly shown what is wrong in the US at the moment. You have a billionaire media mogul buying the mayors job and using it to protect his wall st buddies. 0 arrests for the economic crash orchestrated by wall st and hundreds of protesters arrested.

This is false. Arrests > 0. Several albeit few arrests have been made. Not simply limited to Bernie Madoff.

Politifact: [QUOTE=Politifact, Michael Moore: "Not a single banker, a CEO from Wall Street, anyone from corporate America — nobody, (there was) not one arrest of any of these people who brought down the economy in 2008." {mostly true}(Article)
]

Why not more prosecutions?

In reviewing the research and talking to experts about why there have not been more prosecutions associated with the financial crisis, we found several reasons.

For one thing, such cases tend to be difficult, and it's not immediately clear what offenses executives could be charged with.

"You can't get up in front of a jury and say, 'These guys were responsible for bringing down the economy, so please convict them of a crime,'" said Samuel Buell, a professor of law at Duke University, who studies criminal law and the regulation of corporations and financial markets.

Criminal intent can be particularly hard to prove, and federal officials may be struggling to bring specific charges against individuals who believed they were following the law. Buell dismissed the idea that the Obama administration is simply indifferent to corporate crime.

"There's no downside to putting a few people in prison and showing you're tough on corporate crime," he said. "You can only imagine that would be a political benefit to this administration, which makes me think the only thing holding them back is problems of proof. The last thing they would want to do is bring a big, splashy case against the banks, and then lose and be called incompetent."

William Black, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who studies elite financial fraud, was involved in a string of successful prosecutions against savings and loan officials back in the 1980s. He said the problem now is that financial regulators are not working closely enough with prosecutors to investigate and bring charges against executives.

"It is hard, and it does take resources, and it takes expertise in fraud mechanisms so you can explain it to a jury," Black said. "But this is frankly easier than the savings and loan crisis. There's nothing complicated about a liar's loan."

Black said that back in the 1980s, financial regulators routinely referred information to prosecutors to prosecute savings and loan executives. That hasn't happened this time around.

Earlier this year, the New York Times published a detailed report on why there have not been more high-profile prosecutions; it's the single best report we've seen on the issue. Its investigation found stark differences between how prosecutors and regulators handled the S&L crisis and how the same authorities are handling the current crisis. (See this chart comparing the two eras.) It also included a list of potential crimes suggested by legal experts outside of the federal government.

As we were looking into this issue, President Barack Obama spoke about whether federal efforts have been strong enough when it comes to prosecuting crimes associated with the financial crisis. Jake Tapper of ABC News asked him to respond to the Occupy Wall Street protesters and their anger that the Obama administration hasn't been more aggressive with prosecutions.

"One of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. That's exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices," Obama said. (Dodd-Frank was an overhaul of the finance industry that Obama signed into law on July 21, 2010.)

"The financial sector is very creative, and they are always looking for ways to make money. That's their job. And if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will take advantage of it. So without commenting on particular prosecutions -- obviously that's not my job; that's the Attorney General's job -- I think part of people's frustrations, part of my frustration, was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren't necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. And that's why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the American people from reckless decision-making and irresponsible behavior."
[/QUOTE]

karma_ wrote: »

Well well, you're something else aren't you, playing the old civility card now when it suits, the fact is, that you are never respectful of those with whom you disagree.

Never?

I can list several posts in this thread alone in which that is not the case. Presumably thousands more if I had the stamina of a computer.

Prech101 wrote:

Denerick, we do live under a brutal dictatorship, a economic dictatorship, one where the rules are changed to suit the real players of the game( Sac's citi bank, and the likes, ya know the kind of rules that make private debt public debt.

Incorrect, we live under a Democratic Republic in which our leaders have enacted policies that make private debts public.

Don't get me wrong, it's f*cked up, but call a spade a spade.

prech101 wrote: »

What is the percentage split between races in the states, are there more white people than say black, Chinese??

about 70% on average are white. Less so in New York, which is closer to 65%. And there are numerous, numerous studies that underline that non-white demographics have a higher mean poverty level than whites. If we really want to discuss racial politics here, one would hope to conclude that more non-whites would be showing up to these protests.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

about 70% on average are white. Less so in New York, which is closer to 65%. And there are numerous, numerous studies that underline that non-white demographics have a higher mean poverty level than whites. If we really want to discuss racial politics here, one would hope to conclude that more non-whites would be showing up to these protests.

When you just look at New York City just 44.6% of people are white.

20Cent

Overheal wrote: »

This is false. Arrests > 0. Several albeit few arrests have been made. Not simply limited to Bernie Madoff.

Politifact:
Never?
#

From your link

If you're looking for arrests and prosecutions against executives associated with the biggest banks, you won't find them. And we found no arrests of execs with the firms most widely associated with the financial crisis such as Countrywide, AIG or Lehman Brothers.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

From your link

If you're looking for arrests and prosecutions against executives associated with the biggest banks, you won't find them. And we found no arrests of execs with the firms most widely associated with the financial crisis such as Countrywide, AIG or Lehman Brothers.

You didn't limit your remark to executives.

0 arrests for the economic crash orchestrated by wall st

prech101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prech101
Denerick, we do live under a brutal dictatorship, a economic dictatorship, one where the rules are changed to suit the real players of the game( Sac's citi bank, and the likes, ya know the kind of rules that make private debt public debt.
Incorrect, we live under a Democratic Republic in which our leaders have enacted policies that make private debts public.

Overheal,

I would argue you live a society that you perceive to be of a Democratic nature, when really you pick from a list of approved cronies every 4/5 years and they do the bidding of the money men who fund there climb to the top of the pile. then the elected carry out the bidding of those who funded them, not the bidding of those who elected them.

I have said it before and I will say it again, "take money out of politics" and see what happens, you might just get the people who have an interest in serving the people for the good of the people instead of most of the current lot who are just interested in serving themselves.
There is no need for the amount of funding these politicians get, slur campaigns and all the other **** that goes with things!!

Amerika

prech101 wrote: »

I have said it before and I will say it again, "take money out of politics" and see what happens, you might just get the people who have an interest in serving the people for the good of the people instead of most of the current lot who are just interested in serving themselves.

You're sorta describing the Tea Party candidates that have recently been elected into office. Ironic, isn't it.

prech101

Amerika wrote: »

You're sorta describing the Tea Party candidates that have recently been elected into office. Ironic, isn't it.

"Sorta" well that's an awfully big word really,, isn't it!!!

Well lets hope they live up to your expectations.

I have no problem with any politician be they on the so called left or right, once they work for the good of the people and not big business.

Transparent actions, accountability and milestones of achievements are what I would like to see.

along with you guessed it........... money out of politics!!!!

Amerika

prech101 wrote: »

"Sorta" well that's an awfully big word really,, isn't it!!!

Well lets hope they live up to your expectations.

They sorta have already.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45291915/Tea_Party_Debt_Commission_to_Present_Findings_in_Joint_House_Senate_Hearing_While_super_committee_fumbles_grassroots_activists_identify_9_trillion_in_budget_cuts

20Cent

Overheal wrote: »

You didn't limit your remark to executives.

If you want to be pedantic.
Also from your link.

To summarize our findings, we found a few prosecutions, but not many. And we wouldn't describe the targets as the people who were responsible for bringing down the economy.

Anyway isn't that strange?

Matt Holck

Manic Moran wrote: »

The First has never been free of time, place and manner restrictions. It is legal naivitee to think that any action cannot be restricted because it's under the banner of 'free speech'

NTM

freedom to peacefully assemble

OWS is conducting assembly organization

this takes time and space

matthew8

The problem with prosecuting people who brought down the economy is that it's very subjective. People always say that these CEOs have blatantly broken the law without even posting the law and saying why they broke it. If they did a legal action that brought down the economy it's not like we can arrest them for making a bad business move. And we can't make new laws just so we can arrest people who were doing something perfectly legal at the time. We could also blame the government for bringing down the economy, but then we'd end up arresting everyone in congress and senate 1992-2000 as well as Bill Clinton for the Glass Steagall repeal (supported by republicans bar Ron Paul and probably a few more people) and forcing banks to give mortgages to blacks without any questions being asked (supported by democrats). But we couldn't arrest them because they had the democratic mandate for these actions.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic.

As do you.

Also from your link.

To summarize our findings, we found a few prosecutions, but not many. And we wouldn't describe the targets as the people who were responsible for bringing down the economy.

Anyway isn't that strange?

Also from my link, they explain at great length the Why to that question. It's difficult to make arrests when there was nothing done illegally and no inherent criminal intent. Making prosecution very hard to hold up in court. If not impossible.

The actions they undertook were not illegal. The Dodd Frank bill implemented a few measures that would make some of those actions illegal but it has long since been resolved constitutionally that no new law shall be enacted retroactively, meaning their actions still remain legal.

Matt Holck

I'm broke because I have no money

Soldie wrote: »

I suspect that it is the latter part that the protesters and their supporters are most worried about. They can no longer substitute style for substance. The powerful imagery of several hundred protesters occupying a park in New York City's financial district is no longer something that can be relied on. They now have to rely solely on the power of their message. The trouble is, they have not produced any coherent message or realistic list of demands since the protests began; it's just white noise.

End War

Create a Modern system of voting that is publicly trusted

Public Health Care

Rearrange the number games so the banks can't claim the own everything by the legal "rule"

20Cent

Overheal wrote: »

As do you.
Also from my link, they explain at great length the Why to that question. It's difficult to make arrests when there was nothing done illegally and no inherent criminal intent. Making prosecution very hard to hold up in court. If not impossible.

The actions they undertook were not illegal. The Dodd Frank bill implemented a few measures that would make some of those actions illegal but it has long since been resolved constitutionally that no new law shall be enacted retroactively, meaning their actions still remain legal.

False accounting, fraud, market manipulation, insider trading etc are all illegal. Selling a product that you know will crash and taking out insurance for when it does should also be illegal. Intent is proven everyday in courtrooms all over the world not impossible. Goldman Sachs have been shown to have broken the law many times in court and been fined usually less than the amount they scammed and without having to admit wrong doing. Executives from Goldmans were proven to have lied to congress and to their clients, no action taken. This two tier legal system is part of why people are protesting.

Now laws and regulations need to be put in place to stop this happening nothing has been done. Maybe calling it the Occupy law would be a good idea.

LostinKildare

20Cent wrote: »

False accounting, fraud, market manipulation, insider trading etc are all illegal. Selling a product that you know will crash and taking out insurance for when it does should also be illegal. Intent is proven everyday in courtrooms all over the world not impossible. Goldman Sachs have been shown to have broken the law many times in court and been fined usually less than the amount they scammed and without having to admit wrong doing. Executives from Goldmans were proven to have lied to congress and to their clients, no action taken. This two tier legal system is part of why people are protesting.

+1. The system is rigged, and they are being let off. Matt Taibbi wrote an excellent, stomach-churning article on this, "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?"

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

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

False accounting, fraud, market manipulation, insider trading etc are all illegal. Selling a product that you know will crash and taking out insurance for when it does should also be illegal. Intent is proven everyday in courtrooms all over the world not impossible. Goldman Sachs have been shown to have broken the law many times in court and been fined usually less than the amount they scammed and without having to admit wrong doing. Executives from Goldmans were proven to have lied to congress and to their clients, no action taken. This two tier legal system is part of why people are protesting.

Now laws and regulations need to be put in place to stop this happening nothing has been done. Maybe calling it the Occupy law would be a good idea.

Laws and Regulations for things which werent illegal at the time. Sorry. I'm not happy about it either, but legally speaking, that is the reality. The other stuff is simply a matter of Proof and Evidence.

Also did you know that Insider Trading is technically Legal for Cogressmen?

http://consumerist.com/2011/11/insider-trading-is-illegal-unless-youre-a-congressman.html

Only now is law being drafted to prohibit it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/politics/congress-insider-trading/index.html