Occupy Boston is being evicted!!!!

DeafCaroline said:
"Adding to suspicions that the Boston police and city officials sought to hide their actions from the public, police reportedly enforced a media blackout. Many officers were seen covering their badge numbers. According to Occupy Boston, "Credentialed press, citizen journalists, academic researchers, and Occupy Boston media members were repeatedly corralled and moved to surrounding areas 50 feet away or more, prohibiting many from thoroughly covering the raid." Livestreamers, medics, and legal observers were also among those targeted and arrested.

Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, and many other cities have now experienced nearly identical raids. Almost always, city officials claim to act in the public interest, citing "health and safety" or "sanitation" as their reason to suppress Occupy. But we know this is a lie. Occupy Boston alone distributed many thousands of meals, lent books, provided shelter for those who had nowhere else to go, and delivered services that the government has refused to provide because they are too busy providing tax breaks to the rich and bailouts to the banks and corporations.

An Occupation is not a hazard; it is a haven. If city governments cared about sanitation, they would not spend thousands of dollars to evict homeless Occupiers. Instead, they could use that money to open more shelters for the homeless, many of whom must live in squalor every day. If the politicians and police are so concerned about health, instead of prioritizing the arrest of peaceful protesters who have harmed no one, why don't they make providing real universal health care their priority?"

Occupy Boston: "We might have been evicted, but we shall not be moved." | OccupyWallSt.org
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that a foreigner is more knowledgable and interested in this than the American public.
 
DeafCaroline said:
You don't think the banks did anything wrong even though major national newspaper have reported over and over again the laws they broke?

and secondly, that account, among other things, was meant to be used to help state attorneys keep fighting against bank settlements. it's only capitlism if OWs stands to profit from it. Have they done that? Gotten rich from protesting? Hmmm...no.

Occupy Wall Street finds money brings problems too | Reuters
Click to expand...

Not the OWS protesters themselves, but the people who used the OWS movement as a spring board to make money for themselves or at least take advantage of it. Remember Jay-Z? What do people know about the money being donated to "organizations" in support of the OWS movement like VacationGuy234 discussed? Where would exactly the oversight be while money donated continues to grow? Accountability? Transparency? The very same questions asked of banks and such and now they are facing the same thing.
 
kokonut said:
Not the OWS protesters themselves, but the people who used the OWS movement as a spring board to make money for themselves or at least take advantage of it. Remember Jay-Z? What do people know about the money being donated to "organizations" in support of the OWS movement like VacationGuy234 discussed? Where would exactly the oversight be while money donated continues to grow? Accountability? Transparency? The very same questions asked of banks and such and now they are facing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. You are talking about mere thousands or a few million while the banks are stealing trillions. Hardly the same thing.
 
kokonut said:
Not the OWS protesters themselves, but the people who used the OWS movement as a spring board to make money for themselves or at least take advantage of it. Remember Jay-Z? What do people know about the money being donated to "organizations" in support of the OWS movement like VacationGuy234 discussed? Where would exactly the oversight be while money donated continues to grow? Accountability? Transparency? The very same questions asked of banks and such and now they are facing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Show me where OWS is attempting to capitalize off the protest and show me where their funds are being questioned and show me where OWS is attempting to cover up any facts about their bank account.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Show me where OWS is attempting to capitalize off the protest and show me where their funds are being questioned and show me where OWS is attempting to cover up any facts about their bank account.
Click to expand...

I didn't say OWS itself, just some people who may be taking advantage of the movement itself. I pointed out Jay-Z already as one example. What about, for example, Cafe Press? Ows Gifts, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More - CafePress. For those OWS supporters who set up shop, do they actually keep the money they make or do they donate it for a better cause? As for their bank accounts, are there any transparency on where all of their donated money going? Just wondering....:hmm:
 
kokonut said:
I didn't say OWS itself, just some people who may be taking advantage of the movement itself. I pointed out Jay-Z already as one example. What about, for example, Cafe Press? Ows Gifts, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More - CafePress. For those OWS supporters who set up shop, do they actually keep the money they make or do they donate it for a better cause? As for their bank accounts, are there any transparency on where all of their donated money going? Just wondering....:hmm:
Click to expand...

Why do you think there's no transparency to begin with? in order for you to be suspicious, you have to had read somewhere that they are up to no good.

Or are you just trying to imply OWS is not being transparent without any justification for that accusation?

OWS can't control what people to profit off their movement just like da Vinci can't control Italy profiting off of tourist items featuring the Mona Lisa smile or George Bush can't control people profitting off of selling t-shirts with his face on them.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Why do you think there's no transparency to begin with? in order for you to be suspicious, you have to had read somewhere that they are up to no good.

Or are you just trying to imply OWS is not being transparent without any justification for that accusation?

OWS can't control what people to profit off their movement just like da Vinci can't control Italy profiting off of tourist items featuring the Mona Lisa smile or George Bush can't control people profitting off of selling t-shirts with his face on them.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. But by that convention I can ask if people think there are indeed enough transparency to begin with. Who are the leaders in this leaderless organization who run these donation campaigns? Do you believe they have been transparent? For me, I'm still looking.....
 
DeafCaroline said:
Why do you think there's no transparency to begin with? in order for you to be suspicious, you have to had read somewhere that they are up to no good.

Or are you just trying to imply OWS is not being transparent without any justification for that accusation?
OWS can't control what people to profit off their movement just like da Vinci can't control Italy profiting off of tourist items featuring the Mona Lisa smile or George Bush can't control people profitting off of selling t-shirts with his face on them.
Click to expand...

I vote for the bolded explanation. It would be consistent with a pattern established long ago.
 
DeafCaroline said:
"Adding to suspicions that the Boston police and city officials sought to hide their actions from the public, police reportedly enforced a media blackout. Many officers were seen covering their badge numbers. According to Occupy Boston, "Credentialed press, citizen journalists, academic researchers, and Occupy Boston media members were repeatedly corralled and moved to surrounding areas 50 feet away or more, prohibiting many from thoroughly covering the raid." Livestreamers, medics, and legal observers were also among those targeted and arrested.

Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, and many other cities have now experienced nearly identical raids. Almost always, city officials claim to act in the public interest, citing "health and safety" or "sanitation" as their reason to suppress Occupy. But we know this is a lie. Occupy Boston alone distributed many thousands of meals, lent books, provided shelter for those who had nowhere else to go, and delivered services that the government has refused to provide because they are too busy providing tax breaks to the rich and bailouts to the banks and corporations.

An Occupation is not a hazard; it is a haven. If city governments cared about sanitation, they would not spend thousands of dollars to evict homeless Occupiers. Instead, they could use that money to open more shelters for the homeless, many of whom must live in squalor every day. If the politicians and police are so concerned about health, instead of prioritizing the arrest of peaceful protesters who have harmed no one, why don't they make providing real universal health care their priority?"

Occupy Boston: "We might have been evicted, but we shall not be moved." | OccupyWallSt.org
Click to expand...
Excellent point here.
 
kokonut said:
Isn't capitalism great? Set up an organization with leaderless leaders. Start protesting. Assail all banks as evil and all that. Set up a bank account and wait for sympathetic ears to start depositing money into their account with no idea on accountability behind an organization's motive on how that money will be used.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is the way it is and people do have to be smart about were they put their money. People want to help, but you have to be cautious about it.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Show me where OWS is attempting to capitalize off the protest and show me where their funds are being questioned and show me where OWS is attempting to cover up any facts about their bank account.
Click to expand...

If you look at the post by deafdyke with the link to the web site for Occupy Boston, you'll see were people can make donations. Now, taking people's money and not having a goal is not deceptive, but stating it in such a way that it will accomplish a goal is deceptive. Is the product of what they are going to deliver real? Just like Dan Dupre, who scammed people out of millions by stating all they have to do is place ads to get rich, before he was indicted and committed suicide, clearly, it is illegal to not deliver something real.

The fact is, nobody is running Occupy Wall Street and that money may well be going to anybody including Republican, Democratic parties or shady environmental groups.

If it where me and I controlled OW, I would take the money and create a lobby for the people to balance the lobbyist of Wall Street. I'd hire a bunch of lawyers to bring suit against the government much like the ACLU.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If you look at the post by deafdyke with the link to the web site for Occupy Boston, you'll see were people can make donations. Now, taking people's money and not having a goal is not deceptive, but stating it in such a way that it will accomplish a goal is deceptive. Is the product of what they are going to deliver real? Just like Dan Dupre, who scammed people out of millions by stating all they have to do is place ads to get rich, before he was indicted and committed suicide, clearly, it is illegal to not deliver something real.

The fact is, nobody is running Occupy Wall Street and that money may well be going to anybody including Republican, Democratic parties or shady environmental groups.

If it where me and I controlled OW, I would take the money and create a lobby for the people to balance the lobbyist of Wall Street. I'd hire a bunch of lawyers to bring suit against the government much like the ACLU.
Click to expand...

I like it. However, that seems like a lenghthy process. Hmmmm, maybe we could coerce the ACLU to file suit? After all, our liberties are affected.
You have good ideas, dude. :)
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If you look at the post by deafdyke with the link to the web site for Occupy Boston, you'll see were people can make donations. Now, taking people's money and not having a goal is not deceptive, but stating it in such a way that it will accomplish a goal is deceptive. Is the product of what they are going to deliver real? Just like Dan Dupre, who scammed people out of millions by stating all they have to do is place ads to get rich, before he was indicted and committed suicide, clearly, it is illegal to not deliver something real.

The fact is, nobody is running Occupy Wall Street and that money may well be going to anybody including Republican, Democratic parties or shady environmental groups.

If it where me and I controlled OW, I would take the money and create a lobby for the people to balance the lobbyist of Wall Street. I'd hire a bunch of lawyers to bring suit against the government much like the ACLU.
Click to expand...

How is it deceptive? People donating to OWS know what the organization is and what it is about the same as you do. They are not claiming anything that they are not doing that could be interpreted as deceptive.

Money donated to OWS going to partisan polictics? Or environmental groups for that matter? Really? Come on.

Good idea on the lobbyist, but pretty impractical. After all, lobbyists help to create the very problems that OWS is protesting.
 
jillio said:
How is it deceptive? People donating to OWS know what the organization is and what it is about the same as you do. They are not claiming anything that they are not doing that could be interpreted as deceptive.

Money donated to OWS going to partisan polictics? Or environmental groups for that matter? Really? Come on.

Good idea on the lobbyist, but pretty impractical. After all, lobbyists help to create the very problems that OWS is protesting.
Click to expand...

There are two links for donations to OWB itself, show me the transparency in that? The defense fund does not mean they are bailing out people and the fund for OWB itself can mean anything from a new car to a trip to the Bahamas. It's their discretion how the money is spent.

And, yes, were there is money there is politics. I see no reason to doubt this.

It is deceptive to state you are going to accomplish something and the use the money for anything else such a diverting funds to a terrorist group or for personal pleasure. This is why people get arrested for false charities. And, make no mistake, OW is a charity.

I'm not saying they are doing this. I'm just saying it is not transparent when you simple say, "we have a fund you can donate to".
 
Don't get the wrong impression, I don't hate the group, I'm all for it.

But a group with no clear direction will not take anyone anywhere, and is incredibly easy to hijack politically. You've got people giving money for everything from genocide of Native Americans to wind turbines in Boston. How hard can it be to hijack something like that and how do you hold a group like that accountable. Just sayin..
 
Wirelessly posted (droid)

The politicians have it set up so that occupy can't get candidates on the ballot. I blame both political parties for this. Historically, 3rd party candidates don't do well. I'd love to gave a 3rd party with an electable candidate. The problem is that campaigns are all about the money. Campaign financing reform anyone?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If you look at the post by deafdyke with the link to the web site for Occupy Boston, you'll see were people can make donations. Now, taking people's money and not having a goal is not deceptive, but stating it in such a way that it will accomplish a goal is deceptive. Is the product of what they are going to deliver real? Just like Dan Dupre, who scammed people out of millions by stating all they have to do is place ads to get rich, before he was indicted and committed suicide, clearly, it is illegal to not deliver something real.

The fact is, nobody is running Occupy Wall Street and that money may well be going to anybody including Republican, Democratic parties or shady environmental groups.

If it where me and I controlled OW, I would take the money and create a lobby for the people to balance the lobbyist of Wall Street. I'd hire a bunch of lawyers to bring suit against the government much like the ACLU.
Click to expand...

That is what they're intending to use the money for, to help support attorney generals keep fighting against the banks who want to settle, and to fight against the government who wants the attorney generals to settle.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
There are two links for donations to OWB itself, show me the transparency in that? The defense fund does not mean they are bailing out people and the fund for OWB itself can mean anything from a new car to a trip to the Bahamas. It's their discretion how the money is spent.

And, yes, were there is money there is politics. I see no reason to doubt this.

It is deceptive to state you are going to accomplish something and the use the money for anything else such a diverting funds to a terrorist group or for personal pleasure. This is why people get arrested for false charities. And, make no mistake, OW is a charity.

I'm not saying they are doing this. I'm just saying it is not transparent when you simple say, "we have a fund you can donate to".
Click to expand...

So what do they have to do to make it transparent enough for you? I just want to know what it is that they have done to make you say they're not being transparent.

Without basis for the accusation, you're making up stories.
 
Back
Top