Occupy people... Don't argue with a former USSRen about socialism..

[Brutha]

But, it is quite ironic, that they are protesting the 1% in a park owned by the 1% and the 1% is allowing them to protest them... Doesn't that kinda take away from the protest?

It makes much more sense to protest the 1% at a park that's actually owned by them.
"Look we are here and you can't really do anything about it is part of their message"

The private owner of the park, will get sued soon.

That's highly unlikely.
If they don't get sued for allowing it to happen will that convince you that you don't understand the situation?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It makes much more sense to protest the 1% at a park that's actually owned by them.
"Look we are here and you can't really do anything about it is part of their message"

That's highly unlikely.
If they don't get sued for allowing it to happen will that convince you that you don't understand the situation?

You missed my point. They are being ALLOWED to protest in their park, and they CAN do something about it. So, if that was their message, then they are wrong. Unless you missed the meaning of the word "allow". If the owner actually wanted to, he could kick them out, pronto, and if Bloomberg wanted to, so could he. They, are being allowed, to stay.

As far as being sued. People getting hurt on their property, can, and probably will, sue the company. That's what happens when someone owns something, and allows something to happen. And, seeing how they have no permits, and haven't actually gotten any liability insurance, then the blame will fall squarely on the owners. They don't have to get sued for allowing it to happen. Who's going to sue them for that? Only if something happens because of it will they get sued. It will happen by someone in the park, or it will happen by a passerby who is injured by them.

So, what is your point? What are you trying to convince me of, that you claim I don't understand? We are talking about America here, not Germany. People are allowed to sue over just about anything.

[Brutha]

. They are being ALLOWED to protest in their park, and they CAN do something about it. So, if that was their message, then they are wrong. Unless you missed the meaning of the word "allow"

It's about power. The occupy people have enough power to avoid getting kicked out even when the owner of the park wrote a letter to the police to get them kicked out.

Written that letter was probably enough to let the owner avoid liability.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's about power. The occupy people have enough power to avoid getting kicked out even when the owner of the park wrote a letter to the police to get them kicked out.

Written that letter was probably enough to let the owner avoid liability.

No, it's not enough. Because the only reason they didn't get kicked out, was because the owner changed his mind. They are NOW, allowing them to stay, which puts the liability right back on them. They are the owners of the park, period. We've had people sue the owners of homes they were robbing, and win!

Yet another reason why our health care is so expensive, and why I've been pushing tort reform for so long.

All of this is also on Bloomberg's shoulders as well, seeing how New York doesn't allow sleeping on the streets over night. If anything, I'm sure Bloom had some influence on the board of the company, through his GF, and told them to back off for now. Either way, the board decided to back off, which makes them responsible. Unless the government actually passed a law, that allowed for them to stay there, and covered the costs and liability, which they haven't.

[russianrocket]

Occupy Wall Street kitchen slowdown targets squatters - NYPOST.com


woh woh woh.... What happened to everyone equal? Freeloaders complaining about freeloaders. Seriously, doesn't anyone see the irony of this? They won't give "some" people something for nothing. OWS Movement has collected over $500,000 in donations so far, and yet they get angry when the homeless try to eat one of their 5 star chef prepared meals!

Another lesson they are learning concerns "open borders". The free meals are attracting non-protesters who are siphoning off the benefits for those who really need it. Can't wait for OWS to put up a fence around the park and require those who get meals to show valid ID's. This might make responsible capitalists out of the lot after all.

But protesters and a cop on duty told The Post that most of the crime goes unreported, because of a bizarre “stop snitching” rule.

An interesting comment.

The "occupiers" revolted over not getting any more free high end food, and some confronted Police over it? Also, and let me get this straight, the "occupiers" (who are protesting, among other things...the disparity of the "haves" and "have nots") want to distance or distinguish themselves from the "professional homeless", and so do the Chefs, who feel that they are being taken advantage of and working extraordinary long hours? The irony here is delicious (no pun intended)...LMAO...Folks, entertainment wise, this is getting better and better everyday.

[Brutha]

I read somewhere that Michael Bloomberg's wife is on the Board of the Corporation that owns the park.

Now that's collusion for ya!

The fact that Bloomberg represents the goverment in this case is quite an irony.
He's a oligarch.
He represents corporate America just as much as he represents the government.

woh woh woh.... What happened to everyone equal? Freeloaders complaining about freeloaders. Seriously, doesn't anyone see the irony of this? They won't give "some" people something for nothing.

It's really interesting.

As throwing them out didn't succeed they changed tactics by telling all the homeless people to go there and taking away the power generators.
There are enough homeless people in New York to overload the Occupy Wall Street people.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The fact that Bloomberg represents the goverment in this case is quite an irony.
He's a oligarch.
He represents corporate America just as much as he represents the government.

It's actually his girlfriend, and it's not a secret. But, yeah, again, no one is arguing against whether government/corporating collusion exists. And that's not really irony, it's just a fact. Irony is what I posted. Protesters fighting to get the haves to share with the have nots, complaining about THEMSELVES having to share with the have nots.

[Brutha]

But, yeah, again, no one is arguing against whether government/corporating collusion exists.

You gave the impression that you think that Bloomberg doesn't do anything against the protesters because they are anti-corporations instead of being anti-government.

And that's not really irony, it's just a fact.

Whether a fact happens to be ironic depends on the way you see the story.
A lot of US cities aren't run by billionaires. The fact that this happens in one such city is noteworthy.

Irony is what I posted.

It's partly ironic.

The classical term for it is tragedy. Either the protestars don't do anything about it and go broke because they don't have the money to feed every homeless person in New York or they do something about the homeless eating at their protest.

Both choices are bad for them and they chose the one that has the higher chance of allowing their protest to continue.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You gave the impression that you think that Bloomberg doesn't do anything against the protesters because they are anti-corporations instead of being anti-government.
Whether a fact happens to be ironic depends on the way you see the story.
A lot of US cities aren't run by billionaires. The fact that this happens in one such city is noteworthy.
It's partly ironic.

The classical term for it is tragedy. Either the protestars don't do anything about it and go broke because they don't have the money to feed every homeless person in New York or they do something about the homeless eating at their protest.

Both choices are bad for them and they chose the one that has the higher chance of allowing their protest to continue.

Ok, it's partly ironic. I'll give you that. But, it's really only as ironic as Warren Buffet helping them out. And, Bloomberg is still doing a lot to counter the protest. He's letting it happen, but barely. Only enough to keep people on his side.



My story is also irony, because they are doing, the very thing they are protesting against. Whether or not they chose something that will allow them to survive longer, is debatable. They are more then willing to ask the homeless for survival tips and lessons. But, feeding them.. Well, they are obviously more important then the homeless. They are doing the very thing they accuse corporations of doing. Protecting their own self interests over that of people who are needy. That's not even getting into the fact that they are begging for coats and boots and everything else that HOMELESS people NEED. The whole point of their protests, is that the little man needs help! Who needs more help then the homeless? These white college students who all have homes to go to, and instead are camping out, and taking the supplies that should be going to more deserving people who don't have the option of going home?


All the while, they have $500,000 in the bank. All their organic food has so far been donated, and the gourmet chefs have done it for free. I'd say, that not being hypocrites, will give them a better chance at allowing their protests to continue, because things like this, only put the average citizen, against them.

[Brutha]

And, Bloomberg is still doing a lot to counter the protest. He's letting it happen, but barely. Only enough to keep people on his side.

He's was in a bad position.
Getting the message out to the homeless that there's free food at the occupy WS meeting seems to be a pretty brilliant move.

They are more then willing to ask the homeless for survival tips and lessons. But, feeding them.. Well, they are obviously more important then the homeless.

It's a questions of numbers. They have no problem with feeding a few homeless people. They however can't feed all homeless people of New York.

If you want to get rid occupy WS you can organize that all homeless people come to occupy WS for food.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

He's was in a bad position.
Getting the message out to the homeless that there's free food at the occupy WS meeting seems to be a pretty brilliant move.
It's a questions of numbers. They have no problem with feeding a few homeless people. They however can't feed all homeless people of New York.

If you want to get rid occupy WS you can organize that all homeless people come to occupy WS for food.

Was that your way of throwing an accusation at him? While it would have been a smart move, I doubt HE did that. So unless you have an article, stating that he pot out pamphlets out to the homeless or told all soup kitchens to tell the homeless? Homeless people are crafty, and they talk to one another. You'd have to be an idiot not to take advantage of the situation.

It's not a question of numbers. They have $500,000, and have been getting FREE gourmet meals. Even a tiny bit of their meal, going to the homeless, would be more then enough for the homeless. This is pure, and simply, hypocrisy. protesters are now officially protesting BOTH the top 1% and the bottom 1%. They want to take from the top 1% and aren't willing to give to the bottom 1%.

And, getting more into percentages. The top 1% of the 99% are getting food, while the 98% are getting bupkis. Who knows, maybe the companies giving out free food, are trying to teach the 99% a lesson of capitalism.

I'd also like to add, that while we lost some middle class, the poor, have gotten much less poor. The wealth was spread, away from the middle class. But, isn't it better to have less middle class and less lower class in the process?

But still, the 99%ers that are complaining, have 300% more then the bottom 1% who are wanting food. You really don't see how that pretty much destroys their argument?

[Criseyde]

So much for it being all college liberals...

Strange Bedfellows: Militias Exercise Their Second Amendment Rights To Protect Occupy Phoenix! | Addicting Info

These are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination. The armed citizen, J.T. is, in fact, a neo-nazi. While one can assume he finds hippes and liberals…distasteful, he still makes a point of stating that he doesn’t even need to agree with the protest; they still have the right to be there without being assaulted by, yup, the government.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

So much for it being all college liberals...

Strange Bedfellows: Militias Exercise Their Second Amendment Rights To Protect Occupy Phoenix! | Addicting Info

They are part of the tea party too. What's your point? They like to go out there and fight the man no matter who is protesting what. If they get to display their guns, they will be there. They arent part of occupy. They aew there to take advantage of yhe chaos and protesting their right to bear arms. Same with the homeless coming to get free food.

[Andrew Gubb]

I like tea!

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I like tea!

Let's have a tea party then.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Let's have a tea party then.

Yes! Let's!

Bradshaw will bring the cardamom muffins!







True fact: I worked out earlier today that I'd have to drink 200,000 cups of tea to get my calorie requirement for one day. Maybe that's why I'm so fat.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Yes! Let's!

Bradshaw will bring the cardamom muffins!







True fact: I worked out earlier today that I'd have to drink 200,000 cups of tea to get my calorie requirement for one day. Maybe that's why I'm so fat.

Oh JOY!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I like tea!

lol me thinks Andrew unblocked me.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

lol me thinks Andrew unblocked me.

Everyone deserves a second chance.

Just don't blow it this time.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by elucidate

everyone deserves a second chance.

just don't blow it this time.

+1