Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: BROOKFIELD and BLOOMBERG Anti-American Partners in Repression

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 10:30 p.m. EST by dankpoet (425)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is why we are here in the first place. DIRTY COLLUSION of corporations and government to deny us our rights as American citizens. BROOKFIELD AND BLOOMBERG, Anti-American Partners in Repression. As a public official and a public company they are particular sensitive to brand attacks. We need to get some banners out there for the cameras tomorrow. Take a look at the article: It specifically says that the rules against tents and camping equipment are novel. Here's the link anyway: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/told-to-leave-protesters-talk-pre-emptive-strategy/?ref=nyregion. reply permalink

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by stanchaz (36) from Brooklyn, NY 13 years ago

Our very own .00001 Percenter... Mayor Bloomberg.... is getting ready to go to sleep tonight,on his sumptuous silk sheets, in his multi-million dollar mansion. At the same time, he is trying to kill off the Occupy Wall Street protests by denying them the use of sleeping bags.....while claiming that he is the number one defender of free speech. WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!! Instead of cleaning up the park, he should help to clean up the economic and social mess created by his Wall Street brethren. His city is suffering. This Emperor has no clothes. This Emperor has NO SHAME!

[-] 1 points by screwluse (6) 13 years ago

RADIO! The next move is to radio! Move Zuccotti to Radio!

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 13 years ago

"That isn't "provocative" just because you disagree, it is the First Amendment. I don't live in China, they'll have to fight for their freedoms. In the meantime I'll stay right here and defend mine. Dingbat mayor or not."

My point is not about enforcing agreement with me or treading on your First Amendment rights. Protesters do not have a Constitutional right to overthrow the US Government, to unilaterally do away with our economic system or to impose, by force or by act of direct democratic will,since we are a Republic after all, a Marxist Socialist regime, in place of our Constitutional Government. So, when protesters discuss these things, it is, from a reasonable persons point of view, if not the only point of view, highly provocative, to say the least.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

EVERY person has the right to endorse Amending the Constitution or to call for Constitutional Convention to do ANY of those things you just claimed they have no right to do. And frankly Amend the Constitution to xyz doesn't always fit on a cardboard sign. Like I said, YOU find it provocative.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 13 years ago

Mayor Bloomberg is a great Mayor and he has made every effort to accommodate protestors and at tremendous expense to the City, no less. He came from a middle class background and despite his tremendous financial success, he remains remarkably keen on allowing Americans to vent their frustration, in a constructive productive manner. Some of the protestors are calling for incredibly provocative things, like changing the form of Government we have or ending Capitalism. People are even calling Mayor Bloomberg Anti- American, like you. Do you believe that you could go to China, go to a park, in a city and then have members of your protest group call for an end to the Government of China, an end to their economic system and then call a local politician Anti-Chinese and that would be cool? You think the Socialists would be ok with that? Go ask Falun Gong members how that might turn out. Did Mayor Bloomberg roll armored cars over you? The USA is not a totalitarian State and Mayor Bloomberg is not a ruthless Socialist Oligarch. If he is Anti-American, he is keeping his secret close to his vest, since he has done nothing to undermine the integrity of our Nation, Government or people. He is a rich guy, but from a middle class background and I am sure he wants the best for the middle class, since his own parents were once in your shoes; in our shoes.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

That isn't "provocative" just because you disagree, it is the First Amendment. I don't live in China, they'll have to fight for their freedoms. In the meantime I'll stay right here and defend mine. Dingbat mayor or not.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 13 years ago

"That isn't "provocative" just because you disagree, it is the First Amendment. I don't live in China, they'll have to fight for their freedoms. In the meantime I'll stay right here and defend mine. Dingbat mayor or not."

dankpoet, My point is not about enforcing agreement with me or treading on your First Amendment rights. Protesters do not have a Constitutional right to overthrow the US Government, to unilaterally do away with our economic system or to impose, by force or by act of direct democratic will,since we are a Republic after all, a Marxist Socialist regime, in place of our Constitutional Government. So, when protesters discuss these things, it is, from a reasonable persons point of view, if not the only point of view, highly provocative, to say the least.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

EVERY person has the right to endorse Amending the Constitution or to call for Constitutional Convention to do any of those things you just claimed they have no right to do. And frankly Amend the Constitution to xyz doesn't always fit on a cardboard sign. Like I said, YOU find it provocative.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

Isn't it private property? Actually, you're kinda lucky they've let you do what you've been able to do so far.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

Brookfield designated it a public park. Now people wish to use the park to voice opinions that could be construed as unfavorable to Brookfield. If they wish to renege so be it but this half measured back stabbing is not tolerable in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

I think more accurately, Brookfield designated it as a park that is OPEN to the public not, for example, that they gave the public some rights to the property or put it in public trust. It's their property, they make the rules. Not like you guys made some agreement with them in advance as far as I know, you just kinda showed up and took over. lol I'd guess that someone probably thought that it was a public park when they picked there. It's not. Bad choice.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

Agreed bad choice. Allows c&g to hide behind their legal hypocrisy in an effort to forestall the movement.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

If the "movement" is that strong, then you don't need the park. No biggie. Move on, regroup, and live to fight another day. You're on kinda shaky ground with the general public as it is. All it takes is one knucklehead to put a trash can through a window and watch your supporters run.

[-] 1 points by dankpoet (425) 13 years ago

Shaky ground is still ground and there weren't any supporters before there was an occupy. I hope it remains peaceful and respectful.