Slashdot Mirror


NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment

First time accepted submitter Red_Chaos1 was the first to write with news that, as of around 06:30 UTC, the NYPD appears to have begun removing the encampment of Occupy Wall Street. At 06:34 UTC the Mayor's office issued a tweet declaring: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared." Around 07:15 UTC the first of several large dumpsters were deposited and the police began throwing tents and other debris into it. Reports also indicate that a Long Range Acoustic Device is on the premises. The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage, but the Occupiers are streaming the events (alternative stream; #occupywallstreet on irc.indymedia.org is also rather active for those who don't fancy flash or twitter.) As of 09:15 or so, the situation according to those near NYC is that the park has more or less been cleared.

38 of 933 comments (clear)

  1. Something not quite right by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't particularly warm-hearted feelings for the Occupy hipsters, but...

    The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage

    Seems a bit excessive and somewhat dubious.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Something not quite right by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think it's "a bit excessive"? Hell, in what kind of country news coverage is forbidden? Next time I'll hear about critics to China, I'll talk about this event!!!

    2. Re:Something not quite right by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only reason the protestors are in the park is because the police made it clear they'll arrest anyone who dares to actually protest near wall street. The park is designated a 'free speech zone' because it's far enough out of the way that no-one will see them.

    3. Re:Something not quite right by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the USA, you can't just protest everywhere. They have no real free speech. You only have real free speech in the "Free Speech Zones". Usually, the free speech zones are hidden in places where the sun doesn't shine a lot.

      Wikipedia about free speech zones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

    4. Re:Something not quite right by emj · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cool thing is that these kinds of public/private parks are encouraged in New York since the building of Seagram Building in the sixties, after that building the Zooning Resolution in New York was changed to offer: incentives for developers to install "privately owned public spaces".

    5. Re:Something not quite right by niftydude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems a bit excessive and somewhat dubious.

      I don't want to Godwin this thread - however, it seems that the NYPD has seized the 5000+ book donated library, and thrown all those books in a dumpster.

      Excessive is an understatement

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    6. Re:Something not quite right by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems like that's happening in China. Or Soviet Russia.

      The main difference between China and the US is that the Chinese economy is growing.

      The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the SU had social security.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Something not quite right by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, clearly if they're not the very most abused people on earth, they have no right to complain about anything at all. So what''s your excuse?

    8. Re:Something not quite right by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The park is indeed private property - the owners have given their permission and support to Occupy all along. In their frontpage demand that the park be cleared the New York Post even tries to talk around "respecting the rights of the owners to allow the protests" and then declares that the right should be trampled ANYWAY.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Something not quite right by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OWS has made dozens of good points, if you actually read the signs, blogs, notes or anything of their movements they have quite a few things that are very specifically called for. End of corporates being considered persons, end to lobyism, allowing taxing on the wealthy, regulation of banks etc... If you look at the actual movement and the actual protestors, you see more or less a 50/50 of people carrying messages, and people trying to draw attention. The problem is the media likes to focus purely on the attention grabbers, and cut out the people with a message, and then make the statement "It seems like they don't have a message to give".

    10. Re:Something not quite right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.

      Not exactly.

      The company that built the adjoining building wanted to make it taller, which violated certain city codes. In order to get a variance, they had to agree to provide and maintain a public space. In essence, create a public park.

      The actual deed to the land belongs to the company, but there is language saying that the company can never prevent public access. The reason the deed was kept with the company instead of the city is to help enforce the covenant that it would be the company that does all of the maintenance of the park.

      If you care to look it up, there have been good articles about this in the Wall St Journal and New York Times.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Something not quite right by apcullen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just watched the news conference. I'm wondering what the anonymous coward is smoking? The mayor explicitly said that reporters were kept out of the park "for their own protection". Isn't that interruption of news coverage? How is preventing reporters from filming the various arrests that went on not interruption of news coverage? How is taking people's tents and destroying them in any way legal? And they mayor said that there "may be" some kind of court order from some judge somewhere-- no details at all were provided (maybe they're still shopping around for a judge who can be bought?) -- that might prevent people from returning to the park.

    12. Re:Something not quite right by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their issue is the wealthy are not taxed enough, banks aren't regulated enough, and lobbying tends to keep the powerful powerful and the poor poor. Protesting is not lobbying, and it's either intellectually lazy or dishonest to say it is.

    13. Re:Something not quite right by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also the owners of the park have received tens of millions of dollars of public funds. It is effectively a public park. Like most things the rich think they own, we actually bought it for them.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    14. Re:Something not quite right by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

      No. It specifically lists tents and sleeping bags. You can still bring signs, bullhorns, pamphlets, and other things that actual peaceful protestors-- not entitled squatters-- bring to a protest.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. Another good stream here by x14n · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ustream.tv/TheOther99

    Major media helicopters have been forced out of the air by NYPD. Lots of fresh news on twitter:
    https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23occupywallstreet

    NYPD Police scanner here:
    http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?action=wp&feedId=8905

    NYPD switchboard isn't taking any more calls:
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/contact_information.shtml

  3. repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this is right and legal and just, why wait until 1am to do it? Why? And why bar press? And why the hell didn't you just leave them alone in the first place, ppl would be like: "ppl in the park, protesting, want something" and then "next". But instead, it's sure to backfire. People want to believe the stuff they were taught in elementary school about freedom, etc. *shrugs*

    1. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USSR was up front about the limits it put on freedom. The US understood that most people are ignored so it's OK to let them mouth off until they're actually listened to, at which point you abuse and restrict them.

      The USSR also had job and housing security and good urban worker treatment. The developing system of internal identity checks and consequent restrictions on movement made it hard for all but the system faithful to gain the best positions in these cities, however. As in the USSR.

    2. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USSR was up front about the limits it put on freedom.

      No they weren't, the restrictions were enforced by fear and knocks on the door followed by disappearances. The USSR, much like China today claimed they were open and free. But woe to those who tried to test the limits of that.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    3. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by http · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Was following this until feed gave out. Press were barred because part of the plan is to take all the equipment of all the arrested people and throw it into compacting dump trucks. Concealing this little detail failed, because every other person in NYC has a cell phone that can record video, and their attempts to block everyone on ground level were, shall we say, not fully thought through. Garbage truck drivers don't have the same "us vs. them" mentality of police officers, less discipline, and even less threat assessment training.
      It's an action that is (i) probably going to be extremely effective at preventing quite a lot of people from assembling anywhere again for more than eight hours, and (ii) should make every Libertarian brain go splodey.They're going to be hard pressed to reconcile "Taser the Hippies" and "Personal Property is SACRED" if ever this little detail gets widespread attention.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    4. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by mistiry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was going to mod up, but then finished reading your post....

      I am so tired of this argument, let me make it a little easier for your obviously-limited intellect...

      This 'private property' is required to be open to the PUBLIC, 24/7. An agreement between the developer and the City lays these terms out - the developer was permitted to exceed the maximum height of a structure as defined in CITY ORDINANCES by creating and maintaining A PUBLIC PARK.

      So, you'd firehose everyone away? If that happens, does that mean it is OK to blow the top floors off their building? I mean, if the park is no longer public, they shouldn't be permitted to maintain a building THAT IS TALLER THAN THE VOTERS LAID OUT IN CITY ORDINANCES, should they?

      They (the building owners/developers) are already a special case, and are now trying to infringe on the rights of American citizens. They should have done more research into what opening a 'public place' means before signing on the dotted-line. They were happy to build up taller, funny how unhappy they become when forced to abide by the terms of the agreement that ALLOWED them to build taller.

      Breaking the law by restricting public access doesn't seem so fucking smart now, does it?

  4. Re:good by penguinchris · · Score: 5, Informative

    You suggest:

    Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.

    I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.

    There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.

    Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).

  5. Re:not too surprising by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do what? Politics isn't working very well - there are two parties and both serve the rich. There aren't the numbers or popular support for a revolution, and historically those things tend to turn out rather poorly anyway. The protestors want to do something, but there just isn't much they can.

  6. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've noticed that NYC has had the subtle guise of supporting them but selectively enforcing the law. Taking away the generators when it was *really* cold outside because they were a "fire hazard" was one of the standout things that comes to mind. I don't think anyone in the NYC government thought it would last as long as it already has and that these simple actions would break them.

    Now that they're dismantling the camps, we'll have to wait and see whether or not the city will actually "let them back in" as they've said they will. Personally I doubt it, but the people who are organizing this thing seem to have their heads on straight.

    Honestly, we haven't seen protests on this scale or for this duration since the Vietnam War. The difference is that we're in the age of social media - a time when any citizen can capture National Guard soldiers shooting at unarmed protestors, or police pepper spraying peaceful (but civilly disobedient) people. The city knows that it's walking a very fine line and if they take a misstep they're going to make things far, far worse for them.

    I knew this would happen eventually at NYC - this didn't surprise me at all. What *did* surprise me was closing the airspace to news helicopters and shutting down all but 1 subway line as well as a major bridge. *That* honestly frightens me very much. The amazing thing - and one of the reasons I'm so very appreciative to be in my mid-20s during the digital age - is that despite all traditional news media being cut out there's citizen journalists on the ground now recording video and streaming it live to the Internet.

    I feel a paradoxically equal amount of pride and revulsion at being an American tonight.

  7. Originally, there were some good points made. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The protesters made some good points:

    Chrony Capitalism coupled with inflation really has created a system where money comes out of the void, shoots to the top and by the very existence of that new money being created causes the money other people hold to decline in value.

    Wall Street without a doubt orchestrated the creation of this system.

    HOWEVER Wall Street people are the wrong ones to protest. Companies exist to make money by whatever means legal, and in some cases not legal. The bottom line is companies exist to make money. You invest in whatever company is most capable of doing that.

    The problem lies in chronyism. A company that participates in chronyism isn't doing anything wrong, it's a means to an end in the companies goal of accumulating money. The corrupt government playing ball with chronies on the other hand IS doing something wrong.

    Our government representatives are supposed to represent the people. When they begin to self-serve instead of serve the people they are doing something wrong.

    By protesting Wall Street they're sending the message they don't want anyone to make money. If they were to "occupy the mall" instead and focus all of their energies and talent into figuring out the mechanics of every bribe, kick-back, vote trade, intimidation tactic, threat and dishonest move of every politician in Washington and create something akin to Wikipedia devoted specifically to those ends with as much evidence as possible we would be putting the real problem back in check. Unfortunately our three branch balance of power is out of balance, I blame the executive and legislative branches for pushing it out of balance and I blame the judicial branch for actively endorsing the shift in balance.

    I don't get an actual feeling the OWSers are motived to fix things. I get a sense of "I'm fucking with you because I can" and I get the feeling they're pushing for a fascist communist/socialist shift. As with every large movement it's obviously not an across the board thing, but I do feel that it's the general consensus, and I'm also starting to suspect outside driving forces, in much the same way the Egyptian government had paid pro-government protesters to clash with the grass-roots protesters some time back. With the OWS crowd they wouldn't need more than a couple of key charismatic people placed in each camp.

    In short theres a real problem that needs fixing, but I feel the motive of the protesters is to insert an agenda instead of actually fixing the problem.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  8. Re:4th amendment issue? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No issue. They do not own the land. I spoke with a lady this weekend from the movement and it turned into an argument. Yes, it is public, but there is a reason we have houses. We own them and have no rights under the 4th amendment for property.

    It is publically owned, but the public has to vote to let someone use it. they are not 100% of the public as homeless people can not sleep legally at any public place in Las Vegas or Los Angeles. Same principle.

    You can be searched because you are breaking the law and you do not own the land. I can bet the mayor did get a judges permit anyway to be clean. A tent is not a home or a dwelling so they can do this.

  9. Re:Campers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More importantly, you protest the authority by defying it, not by obediently going where they tell you to go, and ranting there. They lost the moment they were restricted from, you know, actually occupying Wall Street - and headed over to the park, instead of saying "fuck you, we're gonna stay here".

    Of course, this means being tear gassed, beaten up, arrested, and possibly paying a fine or even serving time. That's what civil disobedience is about. And that can actually change things, especially when people around become concerned about why their fellow countrymen are willing to go through such hardship. That's how it worked in Egypt and Tunisia.

  10. It don't matter what he paints himself with by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is the 1%. The king and his court are hardly going to be advocating for the foundation of a republic are they?

    Remember this next time you watch TV or any other media. How many of the people you see in media are making minimum wage or even an average wage.

    For that matter, how many here on slashdot do a real days work? Hint, it is 10:30 in holland as I post this. Do you think a factory worker has the same luxury?

    I am not the 1%, I am somewhere in the middle but I came from the bottom and know just how much you can expect from the 1% in caring even the tiniest bit about anyone else. Bloomberg can paint himself with a donkey or an elephant, in reality he is filthy rich and cares only for himself.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It don't matter what he paints himself with by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to mention there is a good reason for the hatred directed at the 1%. What we have in the USA is a system so corrupted by money the ones at the top literally have a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where it is damned near impossible for them NOT to become ever richer and more powerful.

      You have their lobbyists directly writing the tax laws so you get situations like GE that got several billion BACK instead of paying taxes, even while they were offshoring good jobs to India as fast as they could close the plants (we lost 21,000 FACTORIES in just the last decade folks, anybody think that level of gutting is sustainable?) and corps like Google get to pay a pittance compared to profits thanks to the Double dutch and Irish tax scam, aka the Irish whip, you have those at the top able to use Wall street like Las Vegas and then if they lose are able to get the house in the form of the government give them the money (your money) back in the form of "too big to fail", budgets are written with the "help" of those who are getting the money, hell I could go on all day.

      The American people say they want an end to the wars and they ignore you, say they don't want kids lives ruined by being thrown in prison for pot and they ignore you, say we don't want to send billions overseas in the form of government handouts when so many of our people are hurting and they ignore you, write petitions spelling out clearly what we want and they ignore you, tell them we want the top 1% to actually pay their fair share instead of getting more tax dodges codified and they ignore you, say we want the money being handed to illegals stopped and our border secured and they ignore you.

      Wise men once stood up against taxation without representation and fought and gained a nation for themselves. Well what do you think you have now folks? When even Colbert makes jokes about how you "need to stop smoking wacky tobaccky and give that money to a super packy" so you can bribe your own elected officials just like the corporations do, well what the hell is the difference between us and any third world banana republic? your vote certainly don't mean shit as they simply replace one bribed crook with another, thanks to the ownership of the MSM by only 7 multinationals your protests won't be heard or will be made to look like fools, so what is the difference?

      It is THIS that the OWS movement is about although frankly i don't think it will work. i think the only way to fix a truly corrupted system is to replace and when the 1% have gutted this country enough and we are looking at Germany 32 levels of unemployment while the right wing guts every safety net they can we'll be looking at our very own Arab Spring. Well it was nice while it lasted but nothing lasts forever and the elite 1% have taken a big old shit in the punchbowl that is democracy, no point in trying to dip around it, time to throw it out and start again.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  11. No it wasn't by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither was nazi germany all that bad, as long as you weren't on the list. That is why such regimes can continue to exist, because the majority isn't on the list and it is very unhuman (but very human) to risk getting on a list for someone else who is on a list.

    That is why real heroes, like the people of Urk (fairly strict christians who had no real love or hate for jews but disliked people telling them what to do with a passion) are so fucking rare. It takes balls of steels to risk your safety for someone else. The fast majority did not. Ich habe es nicht gewust really means, I spend all my time looking the other way so it wouldn't happen to me.

    And the US has been caught out many many times recently and in the past in making people disappear. Check all the foreign detainment camps operated by the CIA. It is not even a secret anymore, except by those like you who choose to look the other way.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  12. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, all their lives people told these kids "go to university, get a degree or the only job you'll get is flipping burgers."
    So they went to university, spent a fortune and got in debt, studied and passed. Then they finished and tried to find work.
    Now you call them "entitled" because they don't want to flip burgers.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  13. Occupying *is* peaceful protest by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Occupying *is* peaceful protest

    It's called a sit-in. Just like in Greensboro North Carolina and Jackson Mississippi in the 1960's civil rights movement which resulted in desegregation of lunch counters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

    Government has just gotten better at sweeping protesters under the rug and stifling media coverage by designating areas away from the target of the protests as "free speech zones".

    It's a backhanded way of doing it, but it's pretty clear that what's going on is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

    I find it ironic that the Tea Party is portrayed as "Right Wing" and the Occupy movement is portrayed as "Left Wing" when both groups have the same goal of throwing corrupt scoundrels out of public office.

    I think that characterization has more owed to Sarah Palin seeing a parade and running to get her baton and march in front of it as if she were leading. Ironically, her doing that has protected the Tea Party somewhat under the political shield of a former vice presidential candidate, which has required that they be taken seriously.

    You would think that some other savvy politician would take the same approach for the Occupy movement to advance their agenda, as Palin did.
      with the Tea Party.

    -- Terry

  14. Re:Waste of Time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

    I'm pretty sure that's not true.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. #occupy impressions by Fished · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had the opportunity of visiting occupy wall st. a couple of weeks ago for a couple of hours. I don't claim that this makes me some sort of deep expert, but I did get to see it and formed a few impressions.

    First impressions were of Manhattan, which I had never visited before. Frankly, my impressions were that the place is a police state. I visited areas of Manhattan far away from #occupy, and there's pretty much a copy on ever street corner. There are also signs everywhere about how you are under video surveillance by the police. When I took the Staten Island Ferry into Battery Park, it was escorted by a literal gun boat. Now, I'm a Southern Boy, and I found myself thinking ... "okay, if I were in Beijing or even London, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is America! What the hell is going on in this place?" It seems to me that New Yorkers have traded there "eternal liberties" for "termporary safety", and they need to take them back.

    So, I more or less wandered into #occupy without even knowing that that was where I was heading. Everyone could certainly tell that this old, fat, tired, bald guy with bad clothes was from out of town, but everybody was very courteous to me and eager to tell me about their particular issue(s). Emphasis on their particular and the (s), because there was not one, unified issue driving the place unless it was the feeling that "those in power aren't listening to us." I was approached by people whose primary concern was corporate power, tax reform, fracking, and gay rights in the hour or so I was there.

    If I thought the police presence in Manhattan was over the top, around Zuchotti park it was completely over the top. I'm talking cops every ten feet, a portable observation tower with people-tracking radar ... you name it. But, here's the thing. So, near the kitchen, there's a sign that says, "X00 people have been arrested since #occupy began. There will be a meeting to discuss legal strategy at 8:00PM." And, 10 feet from the sign, and 20 feet from a cop, there's a couple of guys smoking pot right in front of God and everybody. Good old southern country boy that I am, all I can think is, "we at least closed the barn door when we did that!" I also wondered, were those umpteen-hundred protesters arrested being persecuted for "sticking it to the man", or were they arrested for smoking pot in front of a cop? Probably impossible to sort out.

    So, I hung around for a while, sang a few Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie songs, grabbed a half-dozen copies of the "Occupy Wall Street Times", and left." All in all, an interesting experience, and the Occupy Wall Street Times might be worth something someday if this turns out to be the start of an "Arab Spring" kind of movement in the US (although I doubt it.)

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  16. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Inequality isn't going away just because you're tired of the protesters. If you want the protesters to go away, work with them to end inequality. If all you want is for them to shut up and go away, well that's what the 1% want too.

    If you actually have some suggestions on how to better address inequality, everyone would love to hear them.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. You know I hear that a lot. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Oh they've made their point! They've said what they want!" Really? Because I've looked. I've seen the "official manifesto" posted here: http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ and it is a rambling read of various supposed evils of companies that make them out simultaneously to be complete idiots and extremely malicious villains, but no actual list of demands. To "Clarify" things there is a picture that looks to be straight out of Mad Max Magazine.

    Or then on the official site there's this list: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/. Talk about some of the most stupid, unrealistic demands ever. They want to reduce the workday to 6 hours, yet lower the retirement age to 55 (hint: more work is required to retire since people live longer)? They want a moratorium on foreclosures and layoffs so, you know, nobody needs to actually pay their mortgage, and companies can't get rid of workers even if they must. Then we get some real good ones that show that they've never read the Constitution: "Ban the private ownership of land." "Immediate debt forgiveness for all." "Ban private gun ownership."

    So where is this list of very reasonable demands they have? I am not saying find me one guy, I'm saying something from the movement itself. Because I've gone to the official places, and all I'm finding it idiocy.

  18. Re:Waste of Time by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry, 50.1% was intended to be an obvious hip-shot from memory. To get research based about it:

    In 2000, 52.1% of voting U.S. Americans voted against George W. Bush.

    In 2004, only 49.3% of voting U.S. Americans voted against him.

    So, I can see how George W. Bush's actions from 2000 to 2004, in total, could be argued to have won over 2.8% of voting U.S. Americans, although there are mitigating effects such as those people who are pre-disposed to vote for/against a sitting president (I believe the balance still favors for), and the variation in his opposing candidates, which I would characterize as creepy in 2000 vs. un-likeable in 2004.

    My point is, not all U.S. Americans are abrasive ignorant jerks - only about half of us.