Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Local update, if anyone is paying attention and.or cares:
Yesterday we held "Marry a Corporation Day" outside City Hall. And in typical fashion, Mr. Burns City Manager O'Brien releases the hounds the Worcester Police on those involved - simply for being Occupy Worcester.
Cops run in, tell them to move. They move, cops tell them again to leave. They go into City Hall to try and talk to the City Manager, or at least set up an appt. - cops threaten them with arrest for "trespassing". (Keep in mind, City Hall is still open for business at the time.) Mayor finds out about this, invites them into his office. Others seek out Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-3), and he ends up coming out talking with some of our people too.
Post by daytripperr on Nov 11, 2011 13:05:21 GMT -5
"A new American revolution has begun Not against the forces of a colonial kingdom But a rebellion against an oppressor that has risen among us It is not a foreign invasion we have to fear Rather the threat of a force within our nation That has usurped what was once a dream of having the greatest democracy ever known to man."
We aren't going away. I'm actively recruiting people in the Bible Belt. And I'm slowing getting results.
Let me repeat, we aren't going away.
What exactly is the end game here?
I am pretty sure turning their concerns into a national discussion has been the start, middle, and end game plan since day one. This however is a game they are winning....
Well, if notorious anti-government rapper Immortal Technique says it...
and considered notorious for what reasons?
unlike some rappers today who seem to be ironically profiting from the movement (www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/44606-jay-z-sells-occupy-wall-street-shirts-that-dont-benefit-occupy-wall-street/) immortal technique has been trying to make right in this world of wrong. he used profits from his last album to help fund an orphanage in afghanistan... pretty decent for the tone implied when describing him as "a notorious anti-government rapper."
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2011 13:27:19 GMT -5 by daytripperr - Back to Top
Well, if notorious anti-government rapper Immortal Technique says it...
and considered notorious for what reasons?
unlike some rappers today who seem to be ironically profiting from the movement (www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/44606-jay-z-sells-occupy-wall-street-shirts-that-dont-benefit-occupy-wall-street/) immortal technique has been trying to make right in this world of wrong. he used profits from his last album to help fund an orphanage in afghanistan... pretty decent for the tone implied when describing him as "a notorious anti-government rapper."
What tone was implied? He is a notorious anti-government rapper. Notorious means widely or generally known. So all I said, essentially was, "a rapper known for being anti-government", which is exactly what he is. I never said he wasn't a good person. I actually met him when I was in college and he did a show at my school. Very friendly, cool to talk to and was a smart, insightful guy (he actually was really interested in the Jesuit lifestyle, which makes sense since the Jesuits do a lot of outreach and community work).
Stop being so defensive. This isn't life or death, it's inforoo.
I wouldn't say that people quacked up. Who should have been elected? Would the state of the country be any different? I highly doubt it.
I'm not really sure who would be the right candidate, but all I can tell you is a candidate clearly bought off would be the wrong candidate.
Speech doesn't mean anything if the people cannot hear it! We don't have a free press (outside the net, thankfully). We have a press that is bought and payed for. They are going to make the news. Using your own argument on this, the ones with the money make the news. They aren't going to go against their own interest. Why would they?
The media tried to ignore ows at first, but couldn't due to the huge amount of participation. They cannot continue to ignore the Keystone protests if they are sustained at a level close to last weekend.
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
unlike some rappers today who seem to be ironically profiting from the movement (www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/44606-jay-z-sells-occupy-wall-street-shirts-that-dont-benefit-occupy-wall-street/) immortal technique has been trying to make right in this world of wrong. he used profits from his last album to help fund an orphanage in afghanistan... pretty decent for the tone implied when describing him as "a notorious anti-government rapper."
What tone was implied? He is a notorious anti-government rapper. Notorious means widely or generally known. So all I said, essentially was, "a rapper known for being anti-government", which is exactly what he is. I never said he wasn't a good person. I actually met him when I was in college and he did a show at my school. Very friendly, cool to talk to and was a smart, insightful guy (he actually was really interested in the Jesuit lifestyle, which makes sense since the Jesuits do a lot of outreach and community work).
Stop being so defensive. This isn't life or death, it's inforoo.
actually, notorious means "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed." which has a totally different tone than the one you actually meant.
being confused by your vocabulary does not make me defensive.
actually, notorious means "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed." which has a totally different tone than the one you actually meant.
being confused by your vocabulary does not make me defensive.
What's funny is, if you weren't so anxious to jump on my defining of a word, you would have read the secondary definition of "notorious", which is literally the exact definition I presented.
And you were just defensive about not being defensive, FYI.
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ignore reason and legal arguments. They vote along party lines and there's no investigation on any members finances, whether it be Republican or Democrat. Their "interpreting" the Constitution is largely fixed. What can you do though,their lifelong posts. Corruption happens.
The fine line of $ and speech is you should not have $ be able to "buy out" speech from others. Meaning 1% wealth shouldn't be marginalizing the voting power of the 99%. First and foremost, constitutional freedom must supercede the dollar.
With the Citizens United Ruling, the government cannot censor any electrical broadcast financed by a corporation or a union. A dangerous development because their is no limit or regulation to what lies could be broadcasted just days before an election. There needs to be a monitor on the flow of information in media. The FCC monitors our moral content, you know to make sure hate speeches and such can't be publicy broadcasted.
This ruling, though, doesn't let the FCC monitor any attempt by a corporation or union to put propaganda on the TV. With money so involved in campaign finance already, the Supreme Court are now letting corporations or unions purchase media influence in elections. So it creates this dangerous possibility of a "manufactured" candidate.
Last Edit: Nov 12, 2011 2:32:19 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Post by daytripperr on Nov 12, 2011 8:47:31 GMT -5
resources regarding the police for occupiers and others concerned with maintaining community safety and law enforcement:
"As police violence intensifies alongside the inequalities it exists to enforce, some communities are mobilizing to defend themselves, while others have yet to understand why this is necessary. In response, we’ve prepared a bulk newsprint version of our poster (www.crimethinc.com/tools/posters.html#police) stressing the structural role the police play in maintaining capitalism.
These are available practically at cost; please order a pile of them to distribute in your neighborhood, school, or occupation or to decorate the walls of your city! Note that they have been added to the Poster Mix Kit as well.
In addition, we’ve prepared a new text for the back of the poster, Seven Myths about the Police (www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/fuckpolice.php). A full pdf of the print version is available there.
We’ve also yet again reprinted our Civilian’s Guide to Direct Action (www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/zines.html#direct), which remains available in bulk as well. This paper offers a step-by-step overview of how to act directly to transform society, rather than bogging down in fruitless efforts to exert influence through bureaucratic channels."
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ignore reason and legal arguments. They vote along party lines and there's no investigation on any members finances, whether it be Republican or Democrat. Their "interpreting" the Constitution is largely fixed. What can you do though,their lifelong posts. Corruption happens.
Well at least its easy to argue against sweeping, unprovable statements that have no backing in any way. They seemed to back up the Citizens with former case law pretty well. Once again I invite you or anyone to write up a compelling argument based in the law against the Citizens decision
The fine line of $ and speech is you should not have $ be able to "buy out" speech from others. Meaning 1% wealth shouldn't be marginalizing the voting power of the 99%. First and foremost, constitutional freedom must supercede the dollar.
With the Citizens United Ruling, the government cannot censor any electrical broadcast financed by a corporation or a union. A dangerous development because their is no limit or regulation to what lies could be broadcasted just days before an election. There needs to be a monitor on the flow of information in media. The FCC monitors our moral content, you know to make sure hate speeches and such can't be publicy broadcasted.
This ruling, though, doesn't let the FCC monitor any attempt by a corporation or union to put propaganda on the TV. With money so involved in campaign finance already, the Supreme Court are now letting corporations or unions purchase media influence in elections. So it creates this dangerous possibility of a "manufactured" candidate.
So because you don't like one possible, hasn't happened yet outcome of free speech we should disallow free speech? Seems kinda 1984ish to me
I have an issue whether lobbying and finance to influence elections really was what the First Amendment had in mind when it came to freedom of assembly.Your ineliable right to free speech is not the same as the purchasing of free speech. Is it really your ineliable right to give as much money as you want to your elected official. The Citizens case seem like a case of free speech by allowing unions and corporations to freely broadcast anything. But who really has the means to broadcast, clear channel, viacom, fox networks, nbc/bloomberg. Only a monied interest can broadcast air space. What if a private group wants to broadcas something that's anti-corporate? What promises can you make that the "gatekeepers' give the same playing ground to that private group?
It is funny you bring up 1984 cuz my theory of a manufactured candidate does sound Orwellian. But what if, a collection of corporations wanted to put a company man in office. Let's say ALEC brokers a deal with major broadcast corporations to say back our guy.This candidate already has their campaign finance banking, now he has an unlimited media bankroll, and now that $ has played a key role in this process. Who can guarantee this candidate is even truthful. Everything can be a lie to.cater votes and our main source of.inquiry, the journalist of our news media, will be under the pressure by those media corps giants. Look at the situation with Murdoch and News Corp, phone taps, intimadation. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
You obviously think I am worrying about something that hasn't happened yet. But that is the job of Supreme Court, to have foresight. To acknowledge how our Constitution can be interpreted in the future. Just look at Jefferson's era when they outlawed a national bank because they felt it would give finance institutions too much influence in govt. What on Earth were they talking about?
I have an issue whether lobbying and finance to influence elections really was what the First Amendment had in mind when it came to freedom of assembly.Your ineliable right to free speech is not the same as the purchasing of free speech. Is it really your ineliable right to give as much money as you want to your elected official. The Citizens case seem like a case of free speech by allowing unions and corporations to freely broadcast anything. But who really has the means to broadcast, clear channel, viacom, fox networks, nbc/bloomberg. Only a monied interest can broadcast air space. What if a private group wants to broadcas something that's anti-corporate? What promises can you make that the "gatekeepers' give the same playing ground to that private group?
Gatekeeper response:
Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office.
You keep dancing around the issue, but $ = speech. And the law Citizens overturned had a chilling effect on speech. That is downright, obviously unconstitutional and, to me at least, pretty un-American.
I'll let someone way smarter than me explain this.
@SCOTUS said:
Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.
It is funny you bring up 1984 cuz my theory of a manufactured candidate does sound Orwellian. But what if, a collection of corporations wanted to put a company man in office. Let's say ALEC brokers a deal with major broadcast corporations to say back our guy.This candidate already has their campaign finance banking, now he has an unlimited media bankroll, and now that $ has played a key role in this process. Who can guarantee this candidate is even truthful. Everything can be a lie to.cater votes and our main source of.inquiry, the journalist of our news media, will be under the pressure by those media corps giants. Look at the situation with Murdoch and News Corp, phone taps, intimadation. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
Yeah in no way are you reaching right now. A decision to not limit free speech is going to be the difference between President Murdoch and a free society.
You obviously think I am worrying about something that hasn't happened yet. But that is the job of Supreme Court, to have foresight. To acknowledge how our Constitution can be interpreted in the future. Just look at Jefferson's era when they outlawed a national bank because they felt it would give finance institutions too much influence in govt. What on Earth were they talking about?
Huh? From wikipedia: "The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816, five years after the First Bank of the United States lost its own charter."
The crux of the matter is did the law violate the First Amendment. It did. The SCOTUS made the right decision based on our Constitution and existing case law. You can argue about the effects of the decision, and I might disagree, but neither of our opinions on the effects really matter because the law clearly unconstitutional, so the SCOTUS obviously did the right thing.
I have an issue whether lobbying and finance to influence elections really was what the First Amendment had in mind when it came to freedom of assembly.Your ineliable right to free speech is not the same as the purchasing of free speech. Is it really your ineliable right to give as much money as you want to your elected official. The Citizens case seem like a case of free speech by allowing unions and corporations to freely broadcast anything. But who really has the means to broadcast, clear channel, viacom, fox networks, nbc/bloomberg. Only a monied interest can broadcast air space. What if a private group wants to broadcas something that's anti-corporate? What promises can you make that the "gatekeepers' give the same playing ground to that private group?
Gatekeeper response:
You keep dancing around the issue, but $ = speech. And the law Citizens overturned had a chilling effect on speech. That is downright, obviously unconstitutional and, to me at least, pretty un-American.
Where do you get the idea that money is protected by your free speech rights?! The First Amendment allows you the right to peacefully form an assembly, to practice freedom of religion, to freedom of expression, freedom of press, and the right to petition. There's no reference of money. Money is currency. It is a measure of capital. It is not a Constitutional right.
Yeah in no way are you reaching right now. A decision to not limit free speech is going to be the difference between President Murdoch and a free society.
I was putting a hypothetical situation of how this decision could negatively effect a free society. I'm just putting a scenario of how a rich and powerful jerkstore could abuse the decision. Is it really reaching? So you're telling me, throughout history, there has never been aristocracy trying to hold back lower classes? Or an industrialist who overworked and exploited labor classes? When I criticized the decision, I wasn't worried about the honest and good people but protecting ourselves from the deceitful and bad ones.
Hootler Hairdo wrote [/quote]The crux of the matter is did the law violate the First Amendment. It did. The SCOTUS made the right decision based on our Constitution and existing case law. You can argue about the effects of the decision, and I might disagree, but neither of our opinions on the effects really matter because the law clearly unconstitutional, so the SCOTUS obviously did the right thing. [/quote]
You say the decision violated the law. I say it is not covered by the law. Considering a corporation is defined as "an artificial person", and a PAC is not a person but conveniently defined as "not a corporation".
The rights in the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE. Since corporations and PACS are not people, they do not get the same First Amendment rights.
On a separate note.People seemed to be a bit on my case about my grammar. I'm not butthurt over this but give me a break on inalienable, good lord I'm not perfect. I'd like to think I am but I'm not. The thing I do have misgivings about was framing it like a question but not putting a questionmark. But come on people, make the inference yourselves or do I have to spoonfeed it to you? So Juggs, spare me the grammar lesson before I tell you to get a bib and I start talking real slow for ya.
Last Edit: Nov 14, 2011 4:26:21 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Sorry to drop such a bomb of a post and then go AWOL. The recall is gearing up here, and, well, you know me. I did have a couple people message me about that post during my silence, so here goes with the responses.
so basically the kdogg(/ows?) demands are unless every single liberal itch you've ever had gets scratched you will continue to protest?
No. I will let you keep your guns and I like balanced budgets. I left out some parts of that rant, because its co-author was one Mr. Jack Daniel and it was getting late. If wanting metric conversion is a "liberal itch," are you going to tell me we're among the least liberal nations in the world? I would beg to differ with you there.
Let me explain it to you this way: If the midpoint of contemporary American politics were to meet me halfway on the political compass, we would be pretty damn close to the 0,0 point where the axes merge. And I'd be fine with that.
The fact that our politics have been trending towards Authoritarian Right during The Decline is not a coincidence in my book.
Those founding fathers spread their word via letters, op-eds in newspapers, literally standing in the middle of a town and screaming, and riding horses from town to town. Now one person presses a few buttons and millions of people can read what they write.
Let me assure you that "literally standing in the middle of a town and screaming" is a tactic still alive and well to this day.
Honestly, when I asked "well, what's the message here?" at OWS, if they handed me a pamphlet with this on it, or even pieces of this, I would have left feeling a LOT better about the people down there.
What can I say? Maybe we just do some things better in Wisconsin...
it might be a bit ridiculous to want to impose your political beliefs, which would result in a complete upheaval of the way our system has worked since the nation has started. and if you dont get your way completely say thats not good enough
Here's the thing, kid... when you say "our system has worked" YOU ARE DEAD FUCKING WRONG. The results it has produced speak for themselves. In Lincoln's day, corporations had set time limits on their charters, could not have their members sitting on other boards, could not have ownership stakes in other corporations... with all that in mind, for you to say that the current approach to corporations is the way things have always been is flat-out incorrect.
You're not going to convince me of much of anything unless you convince me that the status quo has served us well. Good luck with that. Do you agree with such a position yourself? From a college graduate with a political science degree living with his parents to a current political science student working his way up, I can't help but ask... do you feel your future has been any less sold out from under you than I feel mine was?
advocating a different political system seems stupid.
Advocating for the current political system seems stupid. You kept saying we shouldn't wish to replace the current political system... are you telling me that we have the best political system possible? I would moderate your stance on this or STFU and start defending the way things are as the best possible practice of representative democracy. Like I said, we can do better. Do you agree with me on this or not? If you don't want to agree with me on this, exactly what kind of American are you?
educated, passionate people with real solutions that reflect what the majority want will always outweigh $
Funny how the candidate with the most money wins 94% of the time... I am an educated, passionate person who in many respects reflects what the majority wants - and I know I don't outweigh money in American politics. You want a simple rule of thumb for that? Compare the dollars spent on a political race to the number of constituents eligible to vote in that race. Take Scott Walker, for example. He spent $10.75M on his gubernatorial campaign - in a state where there are only 5.6M citizens. We don't have people bitching in the streets about being The 99% because they feel it's the majority that is in control here...
Not me. I went to Iowa & New Hampshire as a campaign volunteer for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. I believe he had the best résumé of anyone who sought the job in my lifetime, and to this day I believe he would have been a better president than any candidate in that race regardless of party.
here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
You must not have read my part about Clarence Thomas' closeness to wealthy conservative donors tainting judicial impartiality. This isn't chump change, this is hundreds of thousands of conservative campaign contributor dollars he was trying to avoid disclosing. If he's not bought and paid for, why does he attend the biannual Koch brothers strategy enclaves? Can you trust a supposed-to-be impartial justice to be impartial when he takes part in a partisan event like that? I know I can't. As Mark Twain said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." There's your rationale for ignoring reason and legal arguments right there. Tell me why Thomas deserves to remain on the bench while his predecessor Abe Fortas resigned for pretty much the same thing, please.
EDIT: Better way to phrase that answer: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Where do you get the idea that money is protected by your free speech rights?! The First Amendment allows you the right to peacefully form an assembly, to practice freedom of religion, to freedom of expression, freedom of press, and the right to petition. There's no reference of money. Money is currency. It is a measure of capital. It is not a Constitutional right.
I didn't think boiling it down to $ = speech would be so hard for you to grasp or maybe you're just purposely twisting it to make some argument that is not close to what Citizens was talking about. $ is not a Constitutional right obviously.
In its amicus curiae brief in Randall, the ACLU, like the justices in Buckley, offers up a legal argument that uses “speak” and “money” as if the words were interchangeable: “Above all else,” the ACLU brief (pdf) states, “the Court concluded in Buckley that ‘the First Amendment simply cannot tolerate [the] restriction upon the freedom of a candidate to speak without legislative limit on behalf of his own candidacy' whether the source of his money is personal wealth or funds raised from legal contributions.”
You say the decision violated the law. I say it is not covered by the law. Considering a corporation is defined as "an artificial person", and a PAC is not a person but conveniently defined as "not a corporation".
Not what I said. The law violated the Constitution and the valid, existing case law. The Citizens decision overturned the law. This is how the SCOTUS works. A PAC does not fit under the legal definition for corporation. Nowhere in the decision or The rights in the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE. Since corporations and PACS are not people, they do not get the same First Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong here but nowhere in the Citizens opinion or in my posts has the term "artificial person" been used. Not sure where you're getting that from.
Here's the thing, kid... when you say "our system has worked" YOU ARE DEAD FUCKING WRONG. The results it has produced speak for themselves. In Lincoln's day, corporations had set time limits on their charters, could not have their members sitting on other boards, could not have ownership stakes in other corporations... with all that in mind, for you to say that the current approach to corporations is the way things have always been is flat-out incorrect.
You're not going to convince me of much of anything unless you convince me that the status quo has served us well. Good luck with that. Do you agree with such a position yourself? From a college graduate with a political science degree living with his parents to a current political science student working his way up, I can't help but ask... do you feel your future has been any less sold out from under you than I feel mine was?
Advocating for the current political system seems stupid. You kept saying we shouldn't wish to replace the current political system... are you telling me that we have the best political system possible? I would moderate your stance on this or STFU and start defending the way things are as the best possible practice of representative democracy. Like I said, we can do better. Do you agree with me on this or not? If you don't want to agree with me on this, exactly what kind of American are you?
It seems to me most of this is addressing my dismissal of you saying we should change the system, so if you think I've wronged you by missing something yell at me. I think our system is well set up to protect the rights of all citizens. I think our system forces our politicians to be accountable to the people if the people actually involved. Wisconsin is a perfect example of this. Politicians are always fearful of public opinion. I'm not saying we have the best possible system, but I think we have a pretty darn good one, and to say that we need an overhaul is ridiculous. To ignore the implications a complete system overhaul would have on all of our institutions is plain stupid, not saying you're doing this because we haven't really talked too much about this.
Funny how the candidate with the most money wins 94% of the time... I am an educated, passionate person who in many respects reflects what the majority wants - and I know I don't outweigh money in American politics. You want a simple rule of thumb for that? Compare the dollars spent on a political race to the number of constituents eligible to vote in that race.
How much of that 94% is in the uncontested or virtually uncontested. Wisconsin IS proving that educated, passionate people will be heard in politics and will be able to enact the change they want in their office holders. If the whole of the electorate was as motivated as you, our country would be better off and the degree to which the speech of a few could influence the whole would be significantly lesser.
Take Scott Walker, for example. He spent $10.75M on his gubernatorial campaign - in a state where there are only 5.6M citizens. We don't have people bitching in the streets about being The 99% because they feel it's the majority that is in control here...
I'd argue Wisconsin is the shining example of how great our democracy can work from your reporting. The difference between Wisconsin and the OWS is y'all think you can actually have pointed, directed work within the system to affect the change the people want to see. The rest of the country wrongly believes they can't change anything. My point is apathy or a self-created lack of political efficacy is the villian in this country, not corporations or private finance in elections.
Not me. I went to Iowa & New Hampshire as a campaign volunteer for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. I believe he had the best résumé of anyone who sought the job in my lifetime, and to this day I believe he would have been a better president than any candidate in that race regardless of party.
Good on you. If more people were like you, we would be better off.
You must not have read my part about Clarence Thomas' closeness to wealthy conservative donors tainting judicial impartiality. This isn't chump change, this is hundreds of thousands of conservative campaign contributor dollars he was trying to avoid disclosing. If he's not bought and paid for, why does he attend the biannual Koch brothers strategy enclaves? Can you trust a supposed-to-be impartial justice to be impartial when he takes part in a partisan event like that? I know I can't. As Mark Twain said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." There's your rationale for ignoring reason and legal arguments right there. Tell me why Thomas deserves to remain on the bench while his predecessor Abe Fortas resigned for pretty much the same thing, please.
One giant ad hom right here. Want to address any of the actual Citizens arguments? He may be the biggest pos of all time, but the decision was correct and perfectly logical.
I wouldn't say that people quacked up. Who should have been elected? Would the state of the country be any different? I highly doubt it.
I'm not really sure who would be the right candidate, but all I can tell you is a candidate clearly bought off would be the wrong candidate
Well, I guess we can all rule out Rick Perry. He'd flip flop if there was a Corn Dog in front of him. Look at his record in Texas.
The media tried to ignore ows at first, but couldn't due to the huge amount of participation. They cannot continue to ignore the Keystone protests if they are sustained at a level close to last weekend.
Now, they just give it 2 minutes segments about the violence. Juggs is right, we will have a hard time making social change because of a small population of those involved. Juggs, I just now feel the irony and I hate you.
I would urge people to actually read about how much the Cccupy movement has helped the homeless. Which is obviously part of the NO NO WORD!!! and sanitary issues. Lowerdeck pointed it out earlier. The cops and even some local shelters have been sending the homeless to Occupy camps.
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.[/quoteHUHHHHH? Wolf, are you trolling me?
what about this is not true?
I was a dingbat. Your link didn't work and "Citizens" didn't registered as "Citizens United" to me. So it seemed like you were contradicting yourself, where you weren't.
Through the looking glass logic.
If money = speech then speech = influince. Power turns us into something other then a democracy. When is the last time a huge protest has changed anything in this country?
Do you remember when the second Iraqi War started and the polls were around 50/50 on doing it? When, because of the internet, lots of people knew for certain they were fudging facts. Not just to the American people. To the quacking U.N. as well.
It wasn't mainstream media pushing the ideas of it's wrongness, it was mostly gathering facts online. The second Iraq War was quacking bullhonkey! And it's accomplished nothing, but it did make a lot of money for the 1%. Free speech! A bought off Congress and a corporate owned press made that war a reality, so quack a simple logical debate. What's better for the future of humanity?
Let them buy and make documentaries. Let them show as much bullhonkey news as they want. They shouldn't have the power to influence our entire system of government.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2011 6:39:52 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I am pretty sure turning their concerns into a national discussion has been the start, middle, and end game plan since day one. This however is a game they are winning....
It's already started in a small way.
I understand that there is some sort of platform taking shape - K-Dogg actually did a pretty good job of pointing out what the goals/aims are a page or two back. But the problem is, it's too much, too late. The whole thing seemed aimless at the beginning, and now it's like a 17-point platform that's too much to handle. It's not a simple, easy-to-digest social cause like "equal voting rights for African Americans" or "gay marriage" or "legalize cannibus."
It's been said in protest and online over and over again. There are no leaders, so the press can't focus on anyone. There is no platform, so it can't be co opted by one party.
Around 650,000 new credit union accounts since the end of Sept, with around 4.5 billion in new deposits. This wasn't just OWS but they obviously added a lot to the cause.
Andthey're not doing themselves any favors by harassing people that might be sympathetic to their cause - for instance, just because someone is wearing a suit and tie to work doesn't mean they're part of the 1% - it just means their company has a dress code.
The individual Occupy pages on Facebook post times for their major meeting. Most of the big cities have live feeds. It's pretty easy to find actually footage of what is going on in the separate camps. This isn't representative the majority of people involved.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2011 5:40:12 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top