Mayor Bloomberg gives "O.K." to Anonymous protesters..

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   


“People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we’ll be happy to make sure they have locations to do it,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sept. 15 at a press conference. “As long as they do it where other people’s rights are respected, this is the place where people can speak their minds, and that’s what makes New York New York.”


SOURCE

It says they are trying to rally together 20 thousand plus protesters to occupy wall street in tents and what-not, kitchens set up and everything. (they want to stay for months)

What will this do? What will they accomplish by doing this? is it a good move? And is Bloomberg just covering his rear by allowing this?




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Libran1
 


nothings going to change unless its a violent uprising.
it seems bad but if its directed at the people who have been ruining this world for decades then its justified



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
#OCCUPYWALLSTREET


You can follow this on twitters

I agree with the above poster that you will need riots for anything to get done unless you think the facist zionist banksters will hand over blood money just because people ask them nicely.

You can work the first 120 days of the year to cover your tax bill and continue working like a slave or you can take a few days out and try to do something about all these taxes you are forced to pay and in the process you might save a few lives and by that i mean your own !



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Taxation without representation is what this country was founded upon. It is happening again, and has been for a while. Except this time, it is not by a governing body across an ocean. It is right here in our homeland. Just a matter of time before there is a revolution. I mean revolution by Ideas, not arms. The pendulum swings both ways and it is on the upturn. I hope the government heeds the warnings before there is a revolt.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by Libran1
 


nothings going to change unless its a violent uprising.
it seems bad but if its directed at the people who have been ruining this world for decades then its justified


Mayor Bloomberg didn't mention anything about " a violent uprising" though, just the opposite actually.




“As long as they do it where other people’s rights are respected, this is the place where people can speak their minds, and that’s what makes New York New York.”


Imo, there is no need for violent uprisings. The one's who get hurt aren't the one's who are guilty. Violence isn't the answer in the majority of the cases.


edit on 17-9-2011 by sweetliberty because: to add a word



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I don't know why they chose the weekend, 20,000 people barging into the trading floor would make more of an impact. Are they going to be there for a while? Will they block access?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
I don't know why they chose the weekend, 20,000 people barging into the trading floor would make more of an impact. Are they going to be there for a while? Will they block access?


Of course they won't block access and that is the whole reason why this protest that Bloomberg is allowing won't work. Who the hell is Bloomberg that he thinks he has to allow a protest in order for it to occur. The U.S. really does NOT protest effectively because no one wants to go to jail in order to do it. LAWFUL protest in this country IS NOT EFFECTIVE.

I am in NO WAY an advocate for violent protest, IN NO WAY... just effective, peaceful protest. Block access to whatever you're protesting, in this case Wall Street... that'll get their attention. Protest down the street where it affects no one, nope, not gonna do a damn thing.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I just love it when people of Earth come together in peace and unity to take a stand against the corruption and oppression of governments and big corporations!!!!!!!!!!!!

Power to the people.

Namaste



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Of course Mayor Bloomberg allows the protests. This is an Obama-sponsored event. Former ACORN founder Trumka is one of the organizers.
This is nothing more than the administration creating an event so they can "react" to it.

I cry false-flag/bull dooky/astroturf/phony event.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Master_007
I agree with the above poster that you will need riots for anything to get done unless you think the facist zionist banksters will hand over blood money just because people ask them nicely.


Riots are not the answer. If you riot, all they will do is call in riot police and slaughter the lot of you. The cabal has an overwhelming monopoly on violence, and they continue to build it on a daily basis; and because of that, they just love it when someone gives them an excuse.

If you're looking for a real solution, try this:-






posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Riots have worked in many places most recently Egypt for example. A country that is based on freedom and that includes freedom of press etc. a riot might be even more effective. You're making a mistake assuming that police / military would automatically shoot everyone who riots. Rioting would be fought against by many officers if it is targeted at the general population but if it is targeted at the leaders only they might even join in.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

“People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we’ll be happy to make sure they have locations to do it,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sept. 15 at a press conference. “As long as they do it where other people’s rights are respected, this is the place where people can speak their minds, and that’s what makes New York New York.”


Let me translate that.

“People can protest if they want as long as they do it in the places we tell them they can. That won’t be areas where they might be effective because we can’t allow them to stop people from making obscene money.”


The New York City Police Department is aware of the protest and is “planning accordingly,” Paul Browne, a spokesman for the department, said in an e-mail.


Violence won’t be initiated by the protesters, it will be by the PTB. The first time someone can’t get their limo down Wall Street, you can bet the police will move in to clear a path.

I fully support the effort and if I could be there, I would. If they plan to occupy Wall Street for “a few months”, I hope they have a plan to deal with forceful attacks.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Riots don't work though. New boss same as old boss? Ring any bells?

Ok here is the correct way to change things:

You vote with your $$$.

If you support a business model, invest into it and purchase their goods.

If you do not support a business, do not buy their products.

This is a simple and incredibly effective solution to solving economic disparity. However the problem is, no one really ever attempts this solution realistically.

Also, spreading information to keep people up to date on corporate deeds or misdeeds is critical to ensuring that the people can make the right economic decisions and can support productive fair business models while forcing the detrimental models into obscurity.

Ask yourselves, which plan has the highest chance of success? Did you see what the media did to the rioters in the UK recently? They were demonized successfully and the majority of the population fell for it and believed that the protests/riots were merely acts of selfish theft and destruction with no real progress or solutions.

By spending our money more wisely, no one can demonize you so easily. And you can hit their bottom line $$$, which hurts far worse than having to call up the insurance company and ask them to cover the damages (which eliminates the purpose of causing destruction in the first place).

I am merely suggesting a more cunning strategy with higher probabilities of success.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Any Brits down south can get in on the action. I wish I was even close.

Occupy Bank of England, or follow on twit #OccupyBankOfEngland.

Namaste


Please no rioting! Enough people take part it will be sufficient to protest peacefully.
Rioting will just ensure complete media blackout, lots of mess and injuries. Don't do it.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Threegirls because: to add warning



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni


“People can protest if they want as long as they do it in the places we tell them they can. That won’t be areas where they might be effective because we can’t allow them to stop people from making obscene money.”


Protest "zones" are not Constitutionally acceptable.

All public space is protest space, however there are exceptions.

Blocking someone from their job can block them from their paychecks and ruin their lives, think of the lowly janitors and other folks at the bottom of the barrel, they have rights too and we must respect and protect those rights.

If a protest is going to happen, I highly suggest utilizing a method that upholds the liberty of all citizens. This way onlookers will be impressed with the cordial nature of the protest, and may be more inclined to listen to the grievances being voiced.

As long as no one's liberty is trampled, there can be benefits from such an action. But as pointed out before, things can go wrong quickly without anyone having any control over it. This is the most critical aspect and will require foresight and planning to avoid any detrimental aspects that may arise.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Riots have worked in many places most recently Egypt for example.


The Egyptian riots worked for two reasons.

a} They were almost entirely non-violent.
b} They were actually artificial, and were what the elite wanted anyway. (landdestroyer.blogspot.com...)

Artificial riots caused by manipulating the youth, are a strategy that the elite and America in particular have been using to cause regime change, for a while now. It's a more desirable strategy than military intervention, as it generally causes less loss of life, and also isn't traceable back to the American government or the elites themselves.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
You're correct imo.
I also think the union thugs are having a fun time orchestrating their plans so that their emotionally charged reactionary sheep will fall into place accordingly. I feel they are going to cause more violent protests in as many places as possible.
This isn't good at all. This is an attack on the Constitution, it's another attempt to erode the 1st Amendment for starters.

Since they can't argue with logic and facts, they resort to threats and violence.



reply to post by beezzer
 


edit on 17-9-2011 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
A good example would be the hacking of PayPal.

Sure, the protest itself may have had good intentions, but what did it really accomplish?

Do such actions hurt the big wigs? I would say it does not hurt them hardly at all.

However, thousands of freelancers and contractors such as you and myself were indeed harmed economically by this. And who are the majority of these people?

They are people who finally found a way to get around the system, and avoid using banks like we have all been forced into by the system. Paypal gave the people a way around the bank, and so hurting PayPal hurts the freedom movement at it's core, and lessens any economic leverage that the free people may have acquired.

Hurting Paypal ends up helping the big banks and the government, because it can cause economic hardship for free people who avoid them.

My point is that we should think long and hard about the repercussions of what actions we decide to take against the system itself. Consequences may turn out to be counter-productive to the original mission of the protest, and this must be avoided at all costs.
edit on 17-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Janitors are not "lowly".

We are respectful, productive members of the working class in this country!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Janitors are not "lowly".

We are respectful, productive members of the working class in this country!


I meant low pay. And it was in respect to the Wall Street tycoons of which the protesters are seeking to cause trouble for.

Many of the big time folks do indeed look at us as 'lowly' especially since our pay checks are so small and "low".

I did not mean it in a condescending or insulting manner, it was meant to protect the liberty of the normal everyday workers. I consider janitors the highest position in society personally, as they do the hardest work and are the most useful to the protection of our sanitary conditions.


I apologize for using terminology that could be easily misconstrued to be insulting. It was not my intentions at all.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join