#OccupyWallstreet

[cybrsage]

The item under discussion is that a poster irrationally claimed that internation laws on warfare applied to domestic non-warfare situation.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Corporations aren't people, they don't have free speech. Problem solved. I honestly don't understand how they came to that fucking conclusion.

Then you get "voluntary contributions" coming, coincidentally, from every employee of a company to a private advertising agency that just happens to be "the voice of the people".

When the jackals write the rules, the Jackals know how to piss from them.

 

[cybrsage]

Bribes are alot more powerful than the right of a citizen to vote.

Irrelevant, since bribes are illegal. A corporation and a union are both US Persons so they gain some rights. Not all the rights a US Citizen has, though. A US Citizen is a subset of the set called US Person.

 

[palehorse]

So wait, if me and a bunch of people form a group, pool our money, and make an advertisement, the government can censor us, because hey, our group isn't a person right?

We have the right to free speech, it doesn't matter if its an individual doing it, or a group.

So, you have no interest in removing corporate and PAC money from our political processes?

That's just... sad.

 

[matt0611]

So, you have no interest in removing corporate and PAC money from our political processes?

That's just... sad.

Stopping corporations from running/funding political ads?
No, I don't. They have just as much a right to make political ads as I do, as unions do, as charities do, etc

I want all individuals and groups to have free speech as is their right.

 

[cybrsage]

So, you have no interest in removing corporate and PAC money from our political processes?

That's just... sad.

Out of curiosity, do you want Unions to also lose this power?

 

[palehorse]

Out of curiosity, do you want Unions to also lose this power?

Absolutely! I personally feel that all corporate, PAC, union, and other SIG money needs to be eliminated from our political processes (campaign funding, monetary/material gifts from lobbyists, etc).

I also completely understand the First Amendment conundrum, so I know that a solution isn't easy.

But, something HAS to be done, or our entire Government will remain corrupted forever...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Absolutely! I personally feel that all corporate, PAC, union, and other SIG money needs to be eliminated from our political processes (campaign funding, monetary/material gifts from lobbyists, etc).

I also completely understand the First Amendment conundrum, so I know that a solution isn't easy.

But, something HAS to be done, or our entire Government will remain corrupted forever...

I suspect there's quite a few people that agree with removing all monies from the political process. I surely do.

 

[cybrsage]

Absolutely! I personally feel that all corporate, PAC, union, and other SIG money needs to be eliminated from our political processes (campaign funding, monetary/material gifts from lobbyists, etc).

I also completely understand the First Amendment conundrum, so I know that a solution isn't easy.

But, something HAS to be done, or our entire Government will remain corrupted forever...

Good, I have run into many who say Corps should be limited but Unions not limited.

 

[airdata]

The item under discussion is that a poster irrationally claimed that internation laws on warfare applied to domestic non-warfare situation.

No. My assertion was that if something is deemed bad enough to be banned during warfare, it's definitely not appropriate for use against peaceful protesters. I don't see how anybody could even attempt to say this isn't correct. War time combatants, extremely dangerous... college students sitting on the ground, not dangerous at all. So... if a weapon is deemed so bad that you can't use it on the most dangerous of opponents, why would it then be ok to use it on the least dangerous of opponents?

Please refer to my post on the last page in which I covered this pretty clearly. The video was specifically talking about UC Davis but also applies to other situations in which police have clearly misused pepper spray.

College kids sitting on the ground are not rioting.

 

[cybrsage]

No. My assertion was that if something is deemed bad enough to be banned during warfare, it's definitely not appropriate for use against peaceful protesters.

Using hand held pepper spray bottles is not banned (most military police units around the globe use them). They are banned from being dropped via airplane like Napalm, etc.

I don't see how anybody could even attempt to say this isn't correct. War time combatants, extremely dangerous... college students sitting on the ground, not dangerous at all. So... if a weapon is deemed so bad that you can't use it on the most dangerous of opponents, why would it then be ok to use it on the least dangerous of opponents?

Because you are doing it wrong.

College kids sitting on the ground are not rioting.

Never claimed they were. A riot control method is not restricted to only being used in a riot.

 

[airdata]

Irrelevant, since bribes are illegal. A corporation and a union are both US Persons so they gain some rights. Not all the rights a US Citizen has, though. A US Citizen is a subset of the set called US Person.

It's not irrelevant if it happens. Lobbying in many cases is bribery. They offer elected officials jobs when they leave office, making huge sums of money to do something they probably aren't even qualified to do.

Lobbyists bribe people all the time... and guess what... THEY WRITE LEGISLATION TOO.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-ceo-the-laws-are-written-by-lobbyists/63908/

"The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists" to protect incumbent interests, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Atlantic editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum. "It's shocking how the system actually works."

This is business as usual. Corporation X takes Senator Y out to play golf, makes job offer, hand job, whatever and then senator Y suddenly has a conflict of interest and is no longer an elected official serving constituents, but simply a corporate puppet.

These people are then obligated to do favors to all of these people for monetary gain. This is wrong. I think you even said a page ago that you disagree w\ this practice.

 

[airdata]

Never claimed they were. A riot control method is not restricted to only being used in a riot.

So the pepper spray handbooks stating when and where they could be used were wrong?

I find it curious how your personal opinion could trump the statements of an expert on the subject matter.

 

[spidey07]

beautifully owned.

I view it more as I owned his ass. It was easy and quick and took less than a minute to point out the socialist, communist and anti-capitalism messages. Quick, stabbing, ownage.

If one continues to believe they aren't a strong driver of this, then one is truly blind or seeing the movement for what they wish it to be and not what it really is. Read the signs, listen to their demands, listen to what they say - it is ever so obvious.

And I'll cut OWS supporters right off - no, you can't say "oh, but that's a small percentage and therefore doesn't matter" The list of demands I posted should squash that right in the bud, that point is void when the demands read like the communist manifesto.

Reparations! Free education for all (including college)! No foreclosure! End private property! Forgive all student loan!

All through this thread I have provided proof after proof after positive proof of who they really are and what they really want.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Because a corporation isn't a citizen of this country, they can "live" forever, they aren't bound by the same laws real people are (they can have civil punishment for killing people but not criminal). The people within the group have the right to speech, but the group itself is simply a group. Corporations can't vote can they? They can't marry right? They can't adopt? There are plenty of things that corporations cannot do that people can, legally speaking. "Speech" is the only one corporations care about, but it isn't even speech, it is the notion that money is speech. The whole notion that corporations are people is dumb.

The whole "corporations are people argument" is a complete straw man. That's not even what the court rulings say. They simply say that corporations are entitled to many of same rights as people. This is based on the fact that corporations just groups of people and that many of the rights in the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted to apply to them including the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Ninjahedge]

They simply say that corporations are entitled to many of same rights as people.

How is that not considering them to be people?

They get to cherry-pick what rights they want/need? They do not bear the same responsibilities as an individual?

It is legal semantics. Corporations being allowed these rights has made them harder to legislate. Their money makes them rule, not the "people".

We are a capitalistic democracy run by our own corporations, and it has only been at the expense of the people that changes and restrictions have been implemented to stop this.

If a corporation is willing to chain people IN A BUILDING with no way out during a fire, if it takes Local/State/Federal laws to force this, if it takes the DEATH of hundreds to push the point home, then we are going to be subject to something similar before any restraining acts are made if we do not learn from our past mistakes and act sooner.

 

[Bowfinger]

Later

 

[the DRIZZLE]

They get to cherry-pick what rights they want/need? They do not bear the same responsibilities as an individual?

So you think corporations have no rights at all? Should the government be able seize their property without cause or due process? Do they have the right to a fair trial? Do they have 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure?

It is legal semantics. Corporations being allowed these rights has made them harder to legislate.

That's the point of rights, to restrict the scope of the government's power.

 

[airdata]

Reparations!

Reparations are a joke. Black people have obviously prospered for the most part. Many actually owe their livelihood to their ancestors being enslaved.

Free education for all (including college)!

What percentage are we talking about here?

No foreclosure!

You should look into the institutions in trouble now for fraud surrounding their foreclosure practices.

End private property!

No idea what you're talking about here.

Forgive all student loan!

Not reasonable to forgive them... But student loans have been shown to be a scam. The lenders lend irresponsibly because in the end they get 100% of their money from the government.

Then they push off the debt to the government who will then do things like send a swat team to your home if you don't pay up.

And then by the time alot of these people are finished w\ college after a few more rounds of bail outs and more shenanigans, 80,000 will be the new 40,000.

 

[cybrsage]

So the pepper spray handbooks stating when and where they could be used were wrong?

Pepper spray is not the only riot control method. Stop being silly and acting like it is.

 

[cybrsage]

The whole "corporations are people argument" is a complete straw man. That's not even what the court rulings say.

Correct, they are US Persons.

 

[cybrsage]

It's not irrelevant if it happens. Lobbying in many cases is bribery.

Then prosecute.

 

[spidey07]

Occupy protesters targeting private property to occupy. What do I keep hammering home about their complete disrespect for property rights, which again is one of the founding tenants of communism? Weren't the occupiers who had explosives and plans to destroy property in a vacant house?

Notice they think housing is a right, just like they think a job is a right, healthcare is a right, education is a right...sound familiar? It's in the communist manifesto.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...losed-homes-empty-lots-are-next-occupy-target

‘Occupy’ protesters and housing rights activists are planning to help families resist eviction from foreclosed homes and take control of vacant properties in some 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday, an effort aimed at focusing attention on the ongoing housing crisis and giving the movement a new focus after the dismantling of many of its encampments.

 

[airdata]

Then prosecute.

Why is it so hard to just say "OK, I agree." ?

Those people don't goto jail anyhow. That's one of the reasons people are protesting anyhow... none of these people are behind held accountable for their behavior. We all agree it's wrong. I don't feel like going back 2-3 pages and quote posting you but I'm pretty sure you agreed with taking money out of politics. That includes sleazy steve working for big pharma taking senators to play golf or offering them jobs in exchange for favors. This behavior has been well documented.

We actually had a couple cases of this in the past few pages. I was actually surprised to see the level of civility seem to have spiked in recent pages, save for a few assholes I haven't seen post frequently.

 

[cybrsage]

Why is it so hard to just say "OK, I agree." ?

Agree with what?

You compared something illegal with something legal as a basis for saying corps and unions should not be US Persons. I cannot agree with this because it is silly.

We do agree that bribery is illegal, but that was my assertion and not yours. You shold say you agree with me that bribery is illegal, since I brought it up.