JP Morgan Chase Donates $4.6 Million to NYPD to Deter #occupywallstreet

[Magicman]

http://www.digg.com/news/world_news/jp_morgan_chase_donates_4_6_million_to_nypd_to_det er_occupywallstreet

[teacherone]

http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm

[Carehn]

I wonder if this in any way will influence the services rendered by the bank?

[acptulsa]

So, tell me again how this is not a bribe? The distinction escapes me.

[jkr]

wOw, nice bribe!

that will by plenty of blow and hookers!

maybe even an new 6000 pound escalade...


seriously, we need a collapse under these parasites

[oyarde]

I was not aware tax payer funded agencies were set up to accept donations .......

[HOLLYWOOD]

Bought and Paid For... The Fascist State of America at all levels... local, county, state, federal.

Try bribing a cop out of a traffic ticket and see what happens.

All under an umbrella of "Donations"

Checkout California Highway Patrol's 99-11 foundation

http://www.chp11-99.org/index.htm

[erowe1]

Brilliant by JP Morgan Chase. The police are incurring extra expenses in the vicinity of Wall St. now on account of people protesting them and other banks. And, whereas justice would have the protesters pay the cost of that, JP Morgan Chase is taking care of it, showing themselves to be the exact opposite of the picture the protesters are painting of them as a corporation that feeds at the taxpayers' trough and doesn't pay its fair share.

[specsaregood]

Brilliant by JP Morgan Chase. The police are incurring extra expenses in the vicinity of Wall St. now on account of people protesting them and other banks. And, whereas justice would have the protesters pay the cost of that, JP Morgan Chase is taking care of it, showing themselves to be the exact opposite of the picture the protesters are painting of them as a corporation that feeds at the taxpayers' trough and doesn't pay its fair share.

While I think that is a shrewd comment/observation; the flipside of that implies that you only have freedom of speech or to protest in public areas if you can afford to pay the police to attend the event? Whether you want them there or not?

[pcosmar]

Brilliant by JP Morgan Chase. The police are incurring extra expenses in the vicinity of Wall St. now on account of people protesting them and other banks. And, whereas justice would have the protesters pay the cost of that, JP Morgan Chase is taking care of it, showing themselves to be the exact opposite of the picture the protesters are painting of them as a corporation that feeds at the taxpayers' trough and doesn't pay its fair share.

The police are supposed to be Protecting the Protesters. (Oath to the Constitution, Free assembly).
Protesters have not harmed any bank property.
Again the shows collusion between Banks and Government (enforcers).

You have to do some real intricate mental gymnastics to come to your conclusion.

[erowe1]

The police are supposed to be Protecting the Protesters. (Oath to the Constitution, Free assembly).
Protesters have not harmed any bank property.
Again the shows collusion between Banks and Government (enforcers).

You have to do some real intricate mental gymnastics to come to your conclusion.

I guess the banks can't win then.

If they do pay for the cost of the government services they get, it's bribery. If they don't pay for it, it's theft.

Sure the police should be protecting the protesters, and everyone else there, and they should be doing it at the protesters' expense, not the banks'. Those protesters don't have to be there, and the only reason the police are needed is because they are there. As it is, those protesters are being the ultimate hypocrites. They're castigating "Wall Street" (as though there is such an entity) for robbing the taxpayers. Meanwhile, they're costing the police money while the banks pay for it.

[erowe1]

While I think that is a shrewd comment/observation; the flipside of that implies that you only have freedom of speech or to protest in public areas if you can afford to pay the police to attend the event? Whether you want them there or not?

Groups holding events in public places typically do have to pay something to do that. Don't they? I assume the Revolution March in DC required some kind of permit and fee. Did it not?

This is just a bunch of spoiled kids who are so used to leeching off of everyone else they don't even realize they're doing it. Maybe it should be just the ones getting themselves arrested who should be fined or something. But as I see this move, JP Morgan Chase comes out looking like a real good sport.

[pcosmar]

I guess the banks can't win then.

If they do pay for the cost of the government services they get, it's bribery. If they don't pay for it, it's theft.

Sure the police should be protecting the protesters, and everyone else there, and they should be doing it at the protesters' expense, not the banks'. Those protesters don't have to be there, and the only reason the police are needed is because they are there. As it is, those protesters are being the ultimate hypocrites. They're castigating "Wall Street" (as though there is such an entity) for robbing the taxpayers. Meanwhile, they're costing the police money while the banks pay for it.

No they are not. The protesters have a RIGHT to be there. They had harmed no one. It was a peaceful assembly that required NO POLICE whatsoever. The assaults by police and the increasing numbers of police are a reaction to the Constitutional right of Freedom of assembly.
I have no sympathy for those that are stripping this country of wealth. That are destroying the Economy. Bankrupting the Nation.
Wall Street is the Center of the Banking Industry. The Federal Reserve has Bailed out Wall Street and passed the cost on to everone without consent.
Wall Street is an appropriate place to protest their actions.


I guess the banks can't win then.


Yet to be seen. I certainly hope NOT.

[erowe1]

It was a peaceful assembly that required NO POLICE whatsoever.

I really doubt that, and I don't accept that they have a right to be there.

Now JP Morgan Chase, i.e. the people who paid for the building they're in and continue paying property taxes for it, they have a right to be there.

[moostraks]

I really doubt that, and I don't accept that they have a right to be there.

Now JP Morgan Chase, i.e. the people who paid for the building they're in and continue paying property taxes for it, they have a right to be there.

so only people who have received permission from gov't should be allowed to protest and then only if they pay security guards to attend? even if they are peaceful protesters? Don't the public right of way and sidewalks belong to the public and haven't they been paid for by the citizens?

[specsaregood]

Groups holding events in public places typically do have to pay something to do that. Don't they? I assume the Revolution March in DC required some kind of permit and fee. Did it not?

Should they have to? Is this an official "group"?



This is just a bunch of spoiled kids who are so used to leeching off of everyone else they don't even realize they're doing it.
I don't even see how that is relevent.



Maybe it should be just the ones getting themselves arrested who should be fined or something.
Wow, talk about creating an incentive to wrongfully arrest people. Hell, maybe we should pay cops based on commission for how many they arrest.


But as I see this move, JP Morgan Chase comes out looking like a real good sport.
They may at that, especially if they are able to "donate" to their friends in the media.

[erowe1]

so only people who have received permission from gov't should be allowed to protest and then only if they pay security guards to attend? even if they are peaceful protesters? Don't the public right of way and sidewalks belong to the public and haven't they been paid for by the citizens?

It's not the protesting that's the issue. It's the use of public property for it. People can protest in their yards all they want. But they can't go out and block traffic and then use the excuse, "It should be ok for me to block traffic since I was protesting while I did it."

[erowe1]

Should they have to? Is this an official "group"?

Isn't it?

[specsaregood]

Isn't it?
I hadn't heard that. There should be some paperwork somewhere if so.

[HOLLYWOOD]

As more and more protesters have been arriving... the NYPD/City of New York has been pushing the people futher back and fenxing off more public area.

On way to minimize the crowd sizes and distance the protesters from Wall st.


Frankly, the protesters should be on Capital Hill protesting the political prostitutes in the Congressional Buildings and White House... They're the ones that empowered the Banks, Wall St., and Corporations with all sorts of Bailouts, Tax Code Revisions, FEDERAL RESERVE candy, etc.

It's the government that caused this and hasn't allowed failure to clean house... Failure is the Best Regulation.

[pcosmar]

Isn't it?

No it isn't.
It is a random collection of many citizens that are angry with many things.
They were encouraged to join together with others by anonymous internet postings.
Their is no one leader nor is there a single ideology. There are many "groups" represented, but it is not "organized" at all. or if so, only by the loosest definition of organized.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5xRaQnHGA0

[erowe1]

As more and more protesters have been arriving... the NYPD/City of New York has been pushing the people futher back and fenxing off more public area.

On way to minimize the crowd sizes and distance the protesters from Wall st.


Frankly, the protesters should be on Capital Hill protesting the political prostitutes in the Congressional Buildings and White House... They're the ones that empowered the Banks, Wall St., and Corporations with all sorts of Bailouts, Tax Code Revisions, FEDERAL RESERVE candy, etc.

It's the government that caused this and hasn't allowed failure to clean house... Failure is the Best Regulation.

Exactly. Protesting at Wall Street is like holding a protest against entitlement spending at a nursing home.

[moostraks]

It's not the protesting that's the issue. It's the use of public property for it. People can protest in their yards all they want. But they can't go out and block traffic and then use the excuse, "It should be ok for me to block traffic since I was protesting while I did it."

so there is no right to assemble? or should that be limited to the largest private owned property of the assemblers? does this mean the homeless are not entitled to this right, therefore it is no longer a right but a privilege?

[erowe1]

it is not "organized" at all

We had people coming on this website well over a month ago promoting this. They had their own website detailing the plans. It looked pretty organized to me.

[specsaregood]

This is just a bunch of spoiled kids who are so used to leeching off of everyone else they don't even realize they're doing it.

Who are the leechers? These so-called "spoiled brats" didn't create our national debt. They didn't start these costly wars. They didn't create all these federal departments. They didn't create social security, medicare, prescription drug benefits. They didn't create the welfare state. No, their parents and grandparents did it. And who paid for it? It sure doesn't seem like they paid for it, otherwise our national debt wouldnt be in the trillions. They put it on the backs of these "leeches"; they sold these kids into slavery.

If anybody is the leech it is the generations before these "leeches". The ones going to these tea party rallies in their "free" hoveround chairs paid for by the future slave earnings of these "leeches".

[erowe1]

so there is no right to assemble? or should that be limited to the largest private owned property of the assemblers? does this mean the homeless are not entitled to this right, therefore it is no longer a right but a privilege?

The right to assemble doesn't mean you have the right to assemble anywhere you want. Using public property for a purpose other than its intended use IS a privilege, not a right. Do you think the second amendment means you're allowed to block traffic on public streets, just as long as you're holding a gun while you do it?

[pcosmar]

Exactly. Protesting at Wall Street is like holding a protest against entitlement spending at a nursing home.

Where does "The Creature from Jekyll Island" live?

[silverhandorder]

I am surprised that we still have a right to assemble. Public property is funny because you don't own it. Everyone owns it. So if you are the minority (usually that is what protesters are) the public has every right to remove you. I am not saying I agree with this but this is the implication of having public streets.

Now as far as bribes go it is a clear bribe. But I don't see how if I was a banker that I wouldn't repay police for protecting me. So again the anger is severely misplaced. I think the population as enablers and if these teenagers should be mad at anyone it should be the voters that sold them out.

[erowe1]

Who are the leechers?

The ones who are expecting taxpayers to pay for the extra costs they're making the police incur and acting like that's their right.

Lucky for the taxpayers, a bank is bailing them out.

[pcosmar]

Lucky for the taxpayers, a bank is bailing them out.

Ironic. The taxpayer has bailed out the same. And the bank as part and parcel of the Federal Reserve are the Tax collectors as well.

[erowe1]

Ironic. The taxpayer has bailed out the same.

You're not supposed to spoil the punch line like that.

[pcosmar]

You're not supposed to spoil the punch line like that.

Sorry, a constantly moving target needs to be lead a little.

[erowe1]

Sorry, a constantly moving target needs to be lead a little.

It's my fault. I have this dry sense of humor and I refuse to call attention to my own jokes. Then I get mad at myself when people don't notice them.

[specsaregood]

The ones who are expecting taxpayers to pay for the extra costs they're making the police incur and acting like that's their right.
Lucky for the taxpayers, a bank is bailing them out.

Ironic. The taxpayer has bailed out the same. And the bank as part and parcel of the Federal Reserve are the Tax collectors as well.

Ok, so the taxpayer is bailed out by the banks who is return bailed out by the taxpayers. All I want to know is, who takes home all that interest paid on those bailouts?

[moostraks]

The right to assemble doesn't mean you have the right to assemble anywhere you want. Using public property for a purpose other than its intended use IS a privilege, not a right. Do you think the second amendment means you're allowed to block traffic on public streets, just as long as you're holding a gun while you do it?

sidewalks are for people, roadways are for cars. If they are on the sidewalks fair game to peacefully protest and that includes being so thick on the sidewalks passage is difficult, if they are impeding traffic those should be told to remove themselves to the pedestrian area.

[moostraks]

Ok, so the taxpayer is bailed out by the banks who is return bailed out by the taxpayers. All I want to know is, who takes home all that interest paid on those bailouts?

no doubt...the irony seems to be lost that they are using ill gotten gains.

[erowe1]

sidewalks are for people, roadways are for cars. If they are on the sidewalks fair game to peacefully protest and that includes being so thick on the sidewalks passage is difficult, if they are impeding traffic those should be told to remove themselves to the pedestrian area.

First of all, as I understand it, people have been arrested for blocking traffic on the streets and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Second of all, I don't know what laws NYC has about what can go on on its sidewalks, but if they do have laws designating them as being there for the primary purpose of foot traffic and prohibiting people from blocking them from being used that way, there's nothing wrong with laws like that.

[brushfire]

"Boss Hog" to the rescue...

[pcosmar]

I expect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Boston_Massacre_high-res.jpg/510px-Boston_Massacre_high-res.jpg

Whether this follows or not, is still in question.

http://www.ng.mil/resources/photo_gallery/heritage/images/standyourground.jpg

[moostraks]

First of all, as I understand it, people have been arrested for blocking traffic on the streets and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Second of all, I don't know what laws NYC has about what can go on on its sidewalks, but if they do have laws designating them as being there for the primary purpose of foot traffic and prohibiting people from blocking them from being used that way, there's nothing wrong with laws like that.

Well the laws would be pertinent to whether or not they are obeying re:sidewalk. So where may the homeless go to assemble?

[CaptainAmerica]

definitely sounds like bribery/coercion

[Brian4Liberty]

As more and more protesters have been arriving... the NYPD/City of New York has been pushing the people futher back and fenxing off more public area.

On way to minimize the crowd sizes and distance the protesters from Wall st.


Frankly, the protesters should be on Capital Hill protesting the political prostitutes in the Congressional Buildings and White House... They're the ones that empowered the Banks, Wall St., and Corporations with all sorts of Bailouts, Tax Code Revisions, FEDERAL RESERVE candy, etc.

It's the government that caused this and hasn't allowed failure to clean house... Failure is the Best Regulation.

Both places should be protested. (That being said, I am against protests that block traffic. Talk about targeting the wrong people...)


definitely sounds like bribery/coercion

Absolutely.

[Chieppa1]

Twitter is also censors the #occupywallstreet hash tag from trending in US. Why I wonder? Oh because J.P. invested hundreds of millions in Twitter.

[wowrevolution]

The banks can't win, period. No one wants them win, no one wants to see the banking system vindicated. Everyone wants to see a single outcome, the banking charters revoked, all assets seized, all those who run them put behind bars, and all power restored to the Congress and to We the People. If the people who run the banks want to escape this fate, they should surrender the power they have greedily sought to accumulate and follow the example of true great leaders like Washington, step down and go back to the farm to enjoy a quiet retirement.

The more they try to cling to power, the worse they look. It's not about money, it is about power. Bankers that have powers that exceed the President and can cling to it decade after decade while escaping any accountability, should not be allowed sway in our system.

Our nation was established with rules that governed corporations and the duration of corporate charters. It is time we return to the Founding principles and revoke these corporate charters and restore Colonial Script.