• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Wall Street protesters refuse to leave for park cleaning

What if...? said:
So your contention is that rich donors are paying millions to accomplish nothing?
Click to expand...
I have to admit logically that makes no sense but man there are a couple of big names tied to the movement and it would seem that's exactly the case.
 
What if...? said:
So your contention is that rich donors are paying millions to accomplish nothing?
Click to expand...

Nothing ? Who said anything about "nothing" ..... except you ?

Freudian slip ? :)
 
liblady said:
no they didn't. cra never forced a bank to make a bad loan. have you seen the regulations of are you just repeating what you've heard?
Click to expand...

Forced? No. Implied that you better or face repercussions? Indeed.

All bad loans? Nope, once the ball got rolling the money was too good.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because your challenge is actually a history of how it got corrupted, it's all there. The only thing you need to add is the abuses that happened because of it.
Click to expand...

The CRA did not in any way force banks to provide risky loans. The CRA clearly states its mandate: that minority borrower's loan applications should be processed in the same manner in which majority loan applicants applications are processed. THAT IS ALL!

Strictly speaking, the CRA demanded that quality loans be applicable to minority borrowers capable of repaying their promises; not for anyone who is a minority to be able to obtain credit regardless of financial status.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The CRA did not in any way force banks to provide risky loans. The CRA clearly states its mandate: that minority borrower's loan applications should be processed in the same manner in which majority loan applicants applications are processed. THAT IS ALL!

Strictly speaking, the CRA demanded that quality loans be applicable to minority borrowers capable of repaying their promises; not for anyone who is a minority to be able to obtain credit regardless of financial status.
Click to expand...
The word is COMPELLED, not FORCED. Sure the DOJ didn't grab a bankers pen and physically FORCE them to sign off on the loans but the COMPELLED them by threat of de-accreditation and possible criminal and other civil charges if the unqualified loans weren't issued. The DOJ might as well have FORCED the lenders to do so.
 
VanceMack said:
Both equal private property. That anarchy thing is a hoot, aint it?
Click to expand...

It's still not compariable. Comparing a park to Wal Mart or a private business where the general populace is allowed to enter without permission would have been more valid.
 
conservativeguy said:
What part of "private property" needs to be explained?
Click to expand...

The same laws that pertain to entering a private park or business and entering a private house are different. The comparison isn't valid. Admit it and move the **** on.
 
SheWolf said:
The same laws that pertain to entering a private park or business and entering a private house are different. The comparison isn't valid. Admit it and move the **** on.
Click to expand...

The owners can tell you too leave. Both in Wal-Mart and a privately owned house. So how are they not comparable?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Between the number of individuals taking up space and the filth they have created, they are preventing the public from using the space, which makes them a nuisance, giving the property owner planty of authority to remove them.
Click to expand...

They are the public...
 
It's public property, and as such, is beholden to the whims of the people that pay for it. So, who pays for it?
 
megaprogman said:
It also shows that they are more than the mindless mob that many here want to portray them as.
Click to expand...

while i don't think they are a mindless mob.. I do question them not cleaning up after themselves until threatened.

folks shouldn't need to be threatened with anything in order to clean up their own sh*t.

so ...mindless mob?.. doubtful
irresponsible and a bit gross? ... yeah
 
Thrilla said:
while i don't think they are a mindless mob.. I do question them not cleaning up after themselves until threatened.

folks shouldn't need to be threatened with anything in order to clean up their own sh*t.

so ...mindless mob?.. doubtful
irresponsible and a bit gross? ... yeah
Click to expand...


So, let's see....not mindless, but also not very clean, kinda smelly, generally...messy.



Hippies.
 
Thrilla said:
while i don't think they are a mindless mob.. I do question them not cleaning up after themselves until threatened.

folks shouldn't need to be threatened with anything in order to clean up their own sh*t.

so ...mindless mob?.. doubtful
irresponsible and a bit gross? ... yeah
Click to expand...

They have been cleaning up after-themselves. Sense day one they had a cleaning comitee and people designated to take out the trash within the group...
 
winston53660 said:
Well it is private that by law has to have public access 24/7/365
Click to expand...

True. But it's more than that...As usual, follow the money:

...Zuccotti Park is a privately owned plaza, part of the enormous portfolio of land in New York owned by Brookfield Properties, which has been allocated for public use twenty four hours a day. This is not through the blind benevolence of the owners Brookfield Properties. Rather, they were required by planning regulations to give something back to the city in order to gain the permissions to make certain developments.

[Pay attention here...]

Mayor Mike Bloomberg, is a divorced man, who has had a long term relationship with a woman who has become for many the First Lady of New York. Diana Taylornow sits on the Board of Brookfield Properties. This must place old Mike in a terrific bind! Surely, you might think, if he allows Brookfield free rein to turf the smelly oiks off the lawn he is open to cries of conflicts of interest.

And Brookfield is stuck in a position of having to maintain good relationships with the people of New York whatever they might wish to do to the protesters. They own 6.2 million square feet of Midtown and 12.8 million square foot of lower Manhattan. They have just too much riding on it to piss off New Yorkers.

But if you think this is thin stuff, perhaps I can just throw a couple of other straws into the air. Brookfield Asset Management has had Joe Biden work for it as a lobbyist. And following Solyndra, the Obama administration has only just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee for Brookfield’s foray into renewable power with Granite Reliable Wind Farm, an enterprise owned by Brookfield Asset Management.
Click to expand...

:rofl It's hopeless.

Edit: Link: http://theoligarchkings.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
by law?

please cite this "law".
Click to expand...

Best I can do right now:

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011, that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. "In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," Kelly said. "The owners have put out regulations [about what's allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things." A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park, expressed concern: "Zuccotti Park is intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public for passive recreation. We are extremely concerned with the conditions that have been created by those currently occupying the park and are actively working with the City of New York to address these conditions and restore the park to its intended purpose."

[h=3]Creation and early background[/h] The park, formerly called Liberty Plaza Park, was created in 1968 by United States Steel in return for a height bonus for its adjacent headquarters at the time of its construction. That building is now known as One Liberty Plaza.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]

[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuccotti_Park[SUP]
[/SUP]


 
winston53660 said:
Best I can do right now:...
Click to expand...

its a privately-owned park. meaning the property owners set the rules.

yes, there was an agreemant that it be open to the public, but there is no "law" governing the park.

if the owners wish to make it open only to hot-dog venders, that is their right as private-property owners.
 
Thunder said:
its a privately-owned park. meaning the property owners set the rules.

yes, there was an agreemant that it be open to the public, but there is no "law" governing the park.

if the owners wish to make it open only to hot-dog venders, that is their right as private-property owners.
Click to expand...

They are bound by contract via the courts the law to keep it open to the public.
if the owners wish to make it open only to hot-dog venders, that is their right as private-property owners
Click to expand...

No they can not do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom