Occupy Wall Street crowd evicted for nonpayment of rent

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dsteingass**

That has nothing to do with a terrorism attack against the subways like you OP. They are making the trip from the borroughs to Foley Square. No one ever talked about a terrorism attack aka interfering with the subways. It just isnt there, i'm sorry. You want that to happen so you can bitch, but i'm sorry, there is no proof to the claim that you made.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?

You spun this to say that their "stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services" it was not. Was this what you WANTED them to say because it fit your view? This is in fact, baseless. Do you know what/Where Foley Station is? If their goal was to disrupt subway service, then how the hell were they supposed to get from the borroughs TO foley station by 5? The plans were to
1.enter the subway in the borroughs,
2. hand out flyers peaceably (which is legal and constitutional for everyone whether you want to believe it or not
3. meet at foley station.
I don't care how much you WANTED the thing to escalate to a threat against the NYC subway system, which is terrorism, and would have solidified your view against them ALL as subhuman.

**CptJake**

Please quote where I mentioned terrorist anything.

HINT: You can't because I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

I stated, and their website backs up, they intended to disrupt subway activity. That is what occupying the subway stations does. They know that. You know but can't admit that.

What the heck do you think terms like Blockade and Occupy are used for by this group? Are they Secret Code Words for pass out flyers? Why not just mention "We need a couple of dudes to pass out flyers" vice calling for as many people as they can get to "occupy"?

Now, you stated:

The website said handing out flyers.

Care to back that up?

By the way, here are the stations THEY listed as needing to be "occupied"

Stations
•Bronx
◦Fordham Rd
◦3rd Ave, 138th Street
◦163rd and Southern Blvd
◦161st and River - Yankee Stadium
•Brooklyn
◦Broadway Junction
◦Borough Hall
◦301 Grove Street
◦St Jose Patron Church,185 Suydam St, Bushwick
•Queens
◦Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave.
◦Jamaica Center/Parsons/Archer
◦92-10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights
•Manhattan
◦125th St. A,B,C,D

◦Union Sq. (Mass student strike)
◦23rd St and 8th Ave
•Staten Island
◦St. George, Staten Island Ferry Terminal

◦479 Port Richmond Avenue, Port Richmond

You don't think the intent was disruption?

Again, you are either willfully ignorant or actively deceptive.

And you can't link to any actual plan on thier website to just "pass out flyers"...

Again, from their website:

Thursday November 17th Day of Action
Shut Down Wall Street! Occupy the Subways! Take the Square!

How does that NOT equate to disrupting NYC?

**dsteingass**

Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.

If they disrupted the subway, how were they going to get from the stations in the burroughs to Foley Square?

Their stated goal was to "occupy the subways" What makes YOU think that means to interfere with their operations? i.e. shut them down, break them, make then not work.

When asked about the subways, after a tweet escalated the situation they said they were going to hand out flyers.
You are certainly allowed to believe this if you choose, but it will never make it factual.

And I am here ONLY to fight ignorance, on any scale. Please don't insult my intelligence with offensive statements like "you are willfully ignorant"

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:Great, so you would support local and state governments that were beating up, unleashing dogs, and using water canons on Civil Rights protesters?

<3

Only if they smelled bad, didn't bathe, and didn't have a clue what they were actually protesting. Oh and if those protestors called for violence and destruction of the capitalist system. These aren't civil rights protesters.

But forget water cannons. I want Cossacks with sabres and bottles of vodka. If you're going to do it do it right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think it is right to shut down the Subway's when the meatball sub is the $5 footlong of the month. That just hurts everyone.

And let's get our emotions under control and not start insulting the water cannon, it is just an innocent tool that is only guilty of being fun and awesome.

As a Murphy's deli officianado, I'm pretty ambivalent about closing down Subways myself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Harriticus wrote:Saw them trying to create traffic jams and running around screaming on subways today. Harassing working class people isn't going to help their movement much.

Might get them shanked though. I hear NYers aren't the nicest crowd during rush hour.

**Kilkrazy**

CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?

That doesn't matter. What matters is the attitude of the general public to any disruption.

During recent London tube strikes there has been significant public anger against the strikers because of the perception that they are a coddled elite causing general disruption of people's lives in order to enrich themselves even more.

**Scrabb**

AustonT wrote:
Scrabb wrote:
dsteingass wrote:Doesn't Wall St. close at 5?
The plan was to get together at 7:00 in the morning. The subway stop was near the end of the activities for the day, as I understand it.

Most of the arrests today were done when they tried to shut down wall street.

You mean they were blocking traffic or trying to enter the NYSE?

NYSE. That's where and when most of the arrests were.

**Frazzled**

Seriously?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/17/ows-protesters-chant-follow-those-kids-as-small-children-try-to-go-to-school-on-wall-street/

OWS Protesters Chant ‘Follow Those Kids!’ As Small Children Try To Go To School On Wall Street
Tiny Tots, Some As Young As 4, Overwhelmed By Hostility, Crush Of Humanity
November 17, 2011 11:45 PM
Millionaire's MarchNEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — They were caught in the middle of madness.

Some grade school students were forced to walk a gauntlet of screaming “Occupy Wall Street” protesters just to get to school on Thursday.

It was a wild day in lower Manhattan for most everyone involved, including elementary school children who had to brave the mayhem just to get to class on the other side of Wall Street.

GALLERY: Occupy Wall Street “Day Of Action”

In the middle of thousands of protestors yelling and chanting — some kicking and screaming – CBS 2’s Emily Smith found little school kids trying to get to class. Nervous parents led them through the barriers on Wall Street. The NYPD helped funnel the children, anything to ease their fears while some protestors chanted “follow those kids!”

“These guys are terrorists, yelling at little kids,” one father said.

“For them it’s horrible. They’re afraid of all the crowds. We’re not even able to get through. They’re just, he’s … very afraid now,” a mother added.

One protester followed a father and his little daughter all the way down the block. As the school day ended just after 3 p.m. children trickled out of Leman Manhattan Prep on Broad Street. Smith heard a 4-year-old boy telling his mom he was scared. He told Smith it looked like a parade.

“There was a parade. It was scary — crowded with school,” the boy said.

“After a while it got so bad some parents couldn’t get their children through and they had to go late,” said Gary Goldenstein of Tribeca.

Some saw the day’s doings as chaos; others saw it differently.

“The parents actually along with teachers were at every entry point into this area, which is fantastic,” said Vicki Pitcock of Tribeca.

School officials said they haven’t had to change school times or cancel class, and are trying to keep it that way.

How far is too far? Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.

**CptJake**

dsteingass wrote:Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.

If they disrupted the subway, how were they going to get from the stations in the burroughs to Foley Square?

Their stated goal was to "occupy the subways" What makes YOU think that means to interfere with their operations? i.e. shut them down, break them, make then not work.

When asked about the subways, after a tweet escalated the situation they said they were going to hand out flyers.
You are certainly allowed to believe this if you choose, but it will never make it factual.

And I am here ONLY to fight ignorance, on any scale. Please don't insult my intelligence with offensive statements like "you are willfully ignorant"

I've never said (and don't believe) disrupting the subways via their occupation is terrorism, just as their attempt to block off the bridge last night is not terrorism (or do you wanna deny that too?). I have seen terrorism, these guys ain't it.

You still have not shown ANY sources the intent was to pass out flyers. I have used their own words.

Shut Down Wall Street! Occupy the Subways! Take the Square!

Again, back up your claim or continue to back up mine that you are being willfully ignorant or actively misleading.

**d-usa**

I traveled on a plane once, had some lady sit in my seat and occupy it. Called the TSA to throw the terrorist off the plane...

We should also call the FBI everytime we knock on a bathroom door and somebody screams "occupied"...

Since the verb "occupy" is now terrorism related.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:I traveled on a plane once, had some lady sit in my seat and occupy it. Called the TSA to throw the terrorist off the plane...

We should also call the FBI everytime we knock on a bathroom door and somebody screams "occupied"...

Since the verb "occupy" is now terrorism related.

When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:I traveled on a plane once, had some lady sit in my seat and occupy it. Called the TSA to throw the terrorist off the plane...

We should also call the FBI everytime we knock on a bathroom door and somebody screams "occupied"...

Since the verb "occupy" is now terrorism related.

Can you use your airplane seat if it is occupied by someone else?

Can you use the occupied crapper booth?

Or does the occupation preclude your use?

Starting to understand what occupy means yet?

And quit putting words in my mouth. I have not used 'terrorism' in regards to the occupiers, and have stated I did not consider their actions acts of terrorism.

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.

**dsteingass**

I have already posted my source earlier re: flyers that proves you are wrong. And you still refuse to answer my question. If the stated intent was to disrupt the subways like you claim, then how would they convene at Foley Station at 5:00 pm AS STATED?

If anyone is being willfully ignorant it is you by only accepting facts that back up your own position, freely ignoring anything that proves otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
apaprently "occupy" means "interfering with the operation of" according to CptJake because that is what he wants it to mean, his reasoning being that because some protestors crapped in a park, all protestors are therefore park-crappers. It is a red-herring argument.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.

You're not a Texan.

Plus they wouldn't move.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dsteingass wrote:I have already posted my source earlier re: flyers that proves you are wrong. And you still refuse to answer my question. If the stated intent was to disrupt the subways like you claim, then how would they convene at Foley Station at 5:00 pm AS STATED?

If anyone is being willfully ignorant it is you by only accepting facts that back up your own position, freely ignoring anything that proves otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
apaprently "occupy" means "interfering with the operation of" according to CptJake because that is what he wants it to mean, his reasoning being that because some protestors crapped in a park, all protestors are therefore park-crappers. It is a red-herring argument.

It helps if you quit calling other posters "willfully ignorant."

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.

You're not a Texan.

Plus they wouldn't move.

Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)

**dsteingass**

disrupting any US mass Transit system is considered an act of terrorism in the US and you know that. I didn't put words into your mouth, that just IS considered terrorism. You are the one whose imagination made "occupy the subways" into "disrupting the subways". Does that comfort you?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.

You're not a Texan.

Plus they wouldn't move.

Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)

Well this was pre 2001. He just wouldn't move and wouldn't tolerate that from a Californian.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.

I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.

You're not a Texan.

Plus they wouldn't move.

Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)

Well this was pre 2001. He just wouldn't move and wouldn't tolerate that from a Californian.

Which was worse? That he wouldn't move, or that he was from California?

**MrDwhitey**

Honestly I'm thinking the "wouldn't move from seat" was just a convenient excuse to pick on a Californian here.

**CptJake**

What does this image convey to you?

from http://occupywallst.org/action/november-17th/

**MrDwhitey**

That some people have unrealistic views of tanks and their profiles.

The turrets also look like they belong on Daleks.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:But forget water cannons. I want Cossacks with sabres and bottles of vodka. If you're going to do it do it right.

Wouldn't Hessians be more appropriate in New York?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Cpt
Tienimen (SP) Square
The reference was not lost on me when I saw it the first time.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Which was worse? That he wouldn't move, or that he was from California?

Yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:Honestly I'm thinking the "wouldn't move from seat" was just a convenient excuse to pick on a Californian here.

You say it like its a bad thing.

**halonachos**

For me the poster says, "Go shopping and support capitalism before you stand in front of square daleks in a poor attempt to relate your pathetic movement to the terrors of Tienanmen Square.".

**Frazzled**

halonachos wrote:For me the poster says, "Go shopping and support capitalism before you stand in front of square daleks in a poor attempt to relate your pathetic movement to the terrors of Tienanmen Square.".

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

(just saying)

**Easy E**

dogma wrote:
Easy E wrote:
In the old days. You are correct. Now days, things can be a bit more bottom up, with less hierarchy thanks to the internet.

Modern organizational structures don;t have to be so top-down focused. Instead, they can focus more on integrated effort, cooperation, many power sources, and nonhierarchical networks. That's part of the communication revolution.

I don't see why the communication revolution suddenly makes the basic principles of organizing large groups of people inviolate. People may be able to communicate faster, and more easily, but ultimately mobilizing a coherent group of people with the purpose of conveying a message in a physical manner still requires a fairly rigid hierarchy. Moreover, integrated effort, cooperation, and the presence of many sources of power were hallmarks of mass movements for political change in the past, the internet hasn't suddenly introduced them.

See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

dogma wrote:
Additionally, its important to realize that mass communication is a double-edged sword in terms of organization because, while it allows you to reach more people more easily, it also allows people to reach each other; which means the idiots are allowed a voice and that's bad for everyone.

I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.

I agree that influencing the discussion is not any easier thanks to mass communication.

Easy E wrote:
Perhaps. But the discussion is no longer exclusively about debit reduction and slashing entitlements. Now, wealth and income inequality has re-entered the discussion.

They never left the discussion.

**Rented Tritium**

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.

**Frazzled**

Former domestic terroist speaks with Occupy Chicago.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Controversial-Professor-Bill-Ayers-Speaks-With-Occupy-Chicago-Protestors--134045388.html?dr

**halonachos**

Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.

I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.

**AustonT**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.

Didn't you know? Now that we have twitter and facebook we are Borg.