Breaking news: Zuccati park, evacuated by police raid NOW - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;33284174]It's not the best poster, don't read into it too much. Especially considering the Tienanmen Tank man, as the protests were at least in part, massive neoliberalism economic reform, which got us into the wallstreet mess[/QUOTE] Well it seems to be a message everyone believes. Everyone wants a "Democracy", or they think that we're a Democracy. If they want to be taken seriously then they should at least understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

General assembly at Foley street right now on the stream. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] for Facebook users, theother99 updates through Facebook too: [email]timpoolchi@gmail.com[/email] [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] They're saying this may be the end of aggressive action for the night, but no way to be sure. Police are surrounding the area at foley but news vans and reporters are there as well and word is they think things have settled down for the night.

I just spent the last 20 minutes reading every post. You have no idea how upsetting it is to wake up and read all of this. However, I do think that this will make many more people join the "Occupy" movement world-wide.

[QUOTE=OvB;33282653]Zuccati park is privately owned. If the owners want them out they can't really stop them. We'll need to see who initiated this order.[/QUOTE] "We do not like corporations that have this much power" "Get off our corporation's lawn."

I met a comedian a while ago who was at the camp at the time of the raid. He just posted this on Facebook. Ted Alexandro: Well said, Paulette Beete: You may not hear much detail on the press about the raid on Zuccotti Park because NYPD was confiscating press passes and denying access to reporters as part of the raid. It breaks my heart when stories coming out of the U.S. sound exactly like what happens in countries we're always lecturing about human rights, democracy, etc. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] Ted Alexandro: No matter how you felt about Zuccotti Park and those who inhabited it for the past two months, I hope the absolute disregard for freedom of the press during tonight's raid on the park gives you pause. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] Check out his twitter for his updates during the raid. [url]https://twitter.com/#!/tedalexandro[/url]

I don't know about you guys but I think its about time OW really starts to set some demands and gets more organized, because I don't see much happening currently sep for clashes between the police.

gonna be no where left to stand in america to protest because the country has been so fucking privatized

Not to sound heartless, but I think the worst part of this crackdown was the intentional media blackout. He who controls the media controls the masses. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] After seeing this, my support for Occupy Wall Street just skyrocketed.

[QUOTE=Magistrate;33285124]gonna be no where left to stand in america to protest because the country has been so fucking privatized[/QUOTE] Exactly, I honestly can't think of many truly public areas in my community. The local park is privately owned by the local Lions Club and that's about it. the rest is either developed or planned to be built into housing developments (because that's a good idea right now.) Even the land town Hall is on is technically belongs to a local church who "donated" the land to be used forever ago.

[QUOTE=Contag;33282736]Except protests are supposed to be disruptive to the normal state of affairs[/QUOTE] Yeah that's not a constitutional right. You can't protest on private property without the owner's permission.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33282850]I can't say I'm surprised. But I can say I don't believe OCW is "peaceful"[/QUOTE] I can't say I'm surprised you're so fucking stupid. Conservatives: Constitutional rights aren't for people I disagree with.

@BreakingNews - New York judge says Occupy Wall Street protesters can return to park for now; hearing scheduled for today - @NYTMetro nyti.ms/uUreSF

The movement really needs to [i]do[/i] something now. Occupying the park is an excellent symbol and flagship, but there needs to be more things that will start directly affecting money. Things like closing down Oakland's port or moving money out of the banks.

[QUOTE=Tigster;33282779]I thought they had a big clean up effort after the last time the owners wanted them out? I've been in and out when it comes to following this, but didn't that satisfy the owners? If not, I don't know what else the protesters can do, other than move to another location.[/QUOTE] The owner didnt want the protesters to be harmed so he has been letting them stay, im not sure whats up with the police now though. Besides, doesnt the owner have an agreement with the city to allow public use? if so, he shouldnt be able to select which people are and arent a part of the "public"

[QUOTE=Contag;33282736]Except protests are supposed to be disruptive to the normal state of affairs[/QUOTE] No, they're not. This mindset is why protests are seen in such a negative light by much of the United States. Protests neither need to be nor [I]should[/I] be disruptive. Protests need only be visible. Standing in visible defiance of the concepts which you are protesting, while remaining peaceful and orderly, is the best possible way to put your point across. Did Martin Luther King bar entry to businesses and harass store owners? Did Ghandi ever charge a police line? These people completely changed the world by doing no more than being visible, and encouraging those who wished to see change to do the same. Peaceful sit-ins, marches, speeches, and displays that only threatened [I]established social ideals[/I] rather than tangible concepts. The key word in "Peaceful Protests" is "peaceful." If you fail to stay composed and cooperative, then you've only served to hurt your cause.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;33285205]Yeah that's not a constitutional right. You can't protest on private property without the owner's permission.[/QUOTE] JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;33285205]Yeah that's not a constitutional right. You can't protest on private property without the owner's permission.[/QUOTE] When it is in the public like a park like this, different rules apply. As they did not have rules stating that you cant camp out at the park overnight, there was nothing they could do and they allowed them to stay.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;33285262]The movement really needs to [i]do[/i] something now. Occupying the park is an excellent symbol and flagship, but there needs to be more things that will start directly affecting money. Things like closing down Oakland's port or moving money out of the banks.[/QUOTE] Pulling their business out of the banks they're protesting against? Absolutely, yes. That is the very soul of peaceful protest. But shutting down a major port, choking a key supply route into the city? Absolutely not. No way. Nuh-uh. Such an action would be entirely criminal, and only serve to damage support; both for the fact that it is an "attack" rather than a "reaction," and because the port is only partially-related to the banks they are protesting. There's a very big difference between refusing a company your business and directly attacking it. The protestors must always stay within the bounds of legality in order to retain the moral high-ground and give true legitimacy to their cause. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;33285347]JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE[/QUOTE] If you want your protest to appear legitimate and curry real support where it matters most (the general public), then yes, it does. The only thing throwing yourself against riot shields or attacking businesses or refusing to operate within the bounds of legality will prove is that you are the sort of person who will throw yourself against a riot shield, attack a business, and refuse to obey the law. It has a negative impact on your support among the common folk, and gives fuel to the people arguing against your cause.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285372]If you want your protest to appear legitimate, then yes, it does. The only thing throwing yourself against riot shields or attacking businesses or refusing to operate within the bounds of legality will prove is that you are the sort of person who will throw yourself against a riot shield, attack a business, and refuse to obey the law. It has a negative impact on your support among the common folk, and gives fuel to the people arguing against your cause.[/QUOTE] protest against the injustice of the system by standing aside and abiding by the results of the system yup, that's how massive reform and revolutions occur...

[QUOTE=Contag;33285403]protest against the injustice of the system by standing aside and abiding by the results of the system yup, that's how massive reform and revolutions occur...[/QUOTE] That's how Martin Luther King and Ghandi did it; do you think your cause has special circumstances?

[QUOTE=Contag;33282781]Jesus christ protests tend to be effective when they are illegal it's a symbol of "hey, this is so fucked I'll break your laws" legal formalists everywhere just because it infringes on their rights, doesn't mean it is immoral and shouldn't be done I'm pretty sure that their rights to not be fucked over by wall street ranks a [I]little[/I] fucking higher than private property rights[/QUOTE] Oh for the love of God. Its better to be able to actually look the police in the eye and say, "Public property Bro, can't touch us." You want your protest to gain traction [I]AND BE LEGAL at the same time.[/I]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285372]Pulling their business out of the banks they're protesting against? Absolutely, yes. That is the very soul of peaceful protest. But shutting down a major port, choking a key supply route into the city? Absolutely not. No way. Nuh-uh. Such an action would be entirely criminal, and only serve to damage support; both for the fact that it is an "attack" rather than a "reaction," and because the port is only partially-related to the banks they are protesting. There's a very big difference between refusing a company your business and directly attacking it. The protestors must always stay within the bounds of legality in order to retain the moral high-ground and give true legitimacy to their cause. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] If you want your protest to appear legitimate and curry real support where it matters most (the general public), then yes, it does. The only thing throwing yourself against riot shields or attacking businesses or refusing to operate within the bounds of legality will prove is that you are the sort of person who will throw yourself against a riot shield, attack a business, and refuse to obey the law. It has a negative impact on your support among the common folk, and gives fuel to the people arguing against your cause.[/QUOTE] You use Ghandi as an example yet (although I'm no scholar and don't have the best memory) I don't believe he always followed the letter of the law. he was always peaceful, put if I remember correctly the was a law or two broken. As I said I could be wrong but this is just my blurry memory from high school.

[QUOTE=rundevil;33285435]You use Ghandi as an example yet (although I'm no scholar and don't have the best memory) I don't believe he always followed the letter of the law. he was always peaceful, put if I remember correctly the was a law or to broken.[/QUOTE] He followed the law to the letter, all of his protests were in public areas.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285422]That's how Martin Luther King and Ghandi did it; do you think your cause has special circumstances?[/QUOTE] also, Martin Luther King jr. was a great man but he was certainly not the only person protesting at the time, and they all certainly didn't follow the laws. Look at Rosa parks.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285321]No, they're not. This mindset is why protests are seen in such a negative light by much of the United States. Protests neither need to be nor [I]should[/I] be disruptive. Protests need only be visible. Standing in visible defiance of the concepts which you are protesting, while remaining peaceful and orderly, is the best possible way to put your point across. Did Martin Luther King bar entry to businesses and harass store owners? Did Ghandi ever charge a police line? These people completely changed the world by doing no more than being visible, and encouraging those who wished to see change to do the same. Peaceful sit-ins, marches, speeches, and displays that only threatened [I]established social ideals[/I] rather than tangible concepts. The key word in "Peaceful Protests" is "peaceful." If you fail to stay composed and cooperative, then you've only served to hurt your cause.[/QUOTE] [quote] Did Martin Luther King bar entry to businesses and harass store owners?[/quote] Wow what a terrible example The civil rights movement used sit-ins all the time to disrupt businesses [quote]Greensboro sit-ins: The Greensboro sit-ins were a series of nonviolent protests which led to the Woolworth's department store chain reversing its policy of racial segregation in the Southern United States. Despite sometimes violent reaction to the sit-ins, these demonstrations eventually led to positive results. For example, the sit-ins received significant media and government attention. When the Woolworth's sit-in began, the Greensboro newspaper published daily articles on the growth and impact of the demonstration. The sit-ins made headlines in other cities as well, as the demonstrations spread throughout the Southern states. A Charlotte newspaper published an article on February 9, 1960, describing the[B] state-wide sit-ins and the resulting closures of dozens of lunch counters.[/B][/quote] Another shocking example there BDA, the decolonization of India was anything but peaceful [quote]The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India-Burma border, responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi at the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. All the members of the Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were arrested and imprisoned at the Ahmednagar Fort. Due to the arrest of major leaders, a young and till then relatively unknown Aruna Asaf Ali presided over the AICC session on August 9 and hoisted the flag; later the Congress party was banned. These actions only created sympathy for the cause among the population.[B] Despite lack of direct leadership, large protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. Not all demonstrations were peaceful, at some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut and transport and communication lines were severed.[/B] A minor uprising took place in Ballia Ballia, now the easternmost district of Uttar Pradesh. People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders and established their own independent rule. It took weeks before the British could reestablish their writ in the district.[/quote] Why do you think strikes work? [quote]Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.[/quote] Perhaps the founding fathers should have merely been visible, while remaining peaceful and orderly.

[QUOTE=Contag;33285458]Wow what a terrible example The civil rights movement used sit-ins all the time to disrupt businesses Another shocking example there BDA, the decolonization of India was anything but peaceful Why do you think strikes work? Perhaps the founding fathers should have merely been visible, while remaining peaceful and orderly.[/QUOTE] Why do you think Ghandi started starving himself? He didn't want a violent revolution. He was a lawyer after all before he started doing the protests.

[QUOTE=Contag;33282655]enjoy your constitutional rig- welcome to the post 9/11 world[/QUOTE] What do you not understand about private property

For the people complaining about them being on 'Private Property' by being at the park answer this, where else re they going to protest? Occupy NYPD? No wait that sounds like a fun idea.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285422]That's how Martin Luther King and Ghandi did it; do you think your cause has special circumstances?[/QUOTE] That's not how they did it. Ghandi was widely considered a failure in the period directly following the Quit India movement. You ignore that there were pretty significant striking, violent protesting and so on, which had been going for a while here's one of the big ones [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_mutiny[/url]

[QUOTE=Swilly;33285475]Why do you think Ghandi started starving himself? He didn't want a violent revolution. He was a lawyer after all before he started doing the protests.[/QUOTE] Just because Ghandi or MLK were peaceful doesn't mean the entire movement was. Infact think of all the other people who did as well, they didn't do it by themselves; and not all those people were peaceful. Those two were, and big ups to them, but plenty of others [i]weren't[/i]. Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, the Founding Fathers. Peace might help, but it alone didn't accomplish their goal.