I can agree with and support only two of those items:
-- Ban big corporate donations to campaigns and set equal spending limits.
-- End corporate personhood.
Everything else on that list is just garbage...
Tax the rich stems from the known fact that there are huge corporations that pay $0 in taxes, and yet make billions in profits in a time when our country is in a recession.
There are also ignorant people that believe that rich people don't pay enough taxes which in alot of cases isn't true. Alot of 'rich' people pay some 40% of their wages in taxes.
But then you have another category of super rich people who evade taxes, hide money,cook books, take bail outs.. all of that good stuff.
.
I can agree with and support only two of those items:
-- Ban big corporate donations to campaigns and set equal spending limits.
-- End corporate personhood.
Everything else on that list is just garbage; or, in the case of the "instill good morals...", just an unattainable pipedream.
In order to "instill" anything in our elected and appointed officials, you'll have to legislate away their ability to become corrupt. Hoping and wishing that they'll somehow become moral and ethical without laws in place to eliminate their access to vices is just plain dumb...
You might be pleasantly surprised by the high number of conservatives/independents who would agree to just those two items. You'd also be surprised by the reduction in corruption that would result from changing just those two items. Throw in a law that eliminates monetary/material lobbying, along with harsh penalties for anyone who violates any of the above, and we'd be well on our way to a stable and respectable nation again.Great to see we can agree on something. I don't see how anybody can not agree with even those 2 things.
What if you eliminated ALL private campaign contributions from ANY external interest and pubically funded political campaigns to eliminate the influence of lobbying entirely? A prospective candiate gets a particular number of supporting signatures and is granted a common campaign "allowance" funded by the public treasury. Each candidate gets the same money to run, no time away from the job fundraising, cuts lobbyists out of the picture entirely... a campaign funded by the people about issues that matter rather than those they are paid to represent?
What if you eliminated ALL private campaign contributions from ANY external interest and pubically funded political campaigns to eliminate the influence of lobbying entirely? A prospective candiate gets a particular number of supporting signatures and is granted a common campaign "allowance" funded by the public treasury. Each candidate gets the same money to run, no time away from the job fundraising, cuts lobbyists out of the picture entirely... a campaign funded by the people about issues that matter rather than those they are paid to represent?
That's EXACTLY what I hope to see someday.
The problem you'll run into is the existence of PACs that believe it's their First Amendment right to pay for and run as many political TV commercials as they choose, which essentially negates any limits imposed by public campaign funding.
So, in order to limit or eliminate PACs -- which are also the center of most unregulated campaign donations -- you'd have to take a serious chomp out of the First Amendment.
It's a pretty challenging conundrum; but, it would sure be nice to see it solved one day...
Corporations aren't people, they don't have free speech. Problem solved. I honestly don't understand how they came to that fucking conclusion.
Corporations aren't people, they don't have free speech. Problem solved. I honestly don't understand how they came to that fucking conclusion.
You see, what I posted was not an opinion piece, or a lame joke or anything.
I posted a relevant interview with a guy who has much more experience with pepper spray than anybody on the board.
http://www.cwc.gov/cwc_treaty_article_01.html
So, now that I have taken my time to post sources to my previous post, do you have anything else to post?
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
- (a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;
- (b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;
- (c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;
- (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
Yes they are. They are the collective voices of people.
You're either an idiot, or you purposely chose not comprehend anything in that link.
So, in other words, riot control agents can be used to control riots (*gasp!*), but cannot be used as a method of warfare. Imagine that, using something for its intended purpose is lawful!
Following your logic, since herbicides are banned from use in warfare, their intended purpose must also be illegitimate! Fucking farmers! Violating the Geneva convention!
There you go idiot.
So, uhh, Occupy encampments are riots that can be controlled with chemical agents? Really??
Not much of a riot...
Oh Spidey, you make this way too easy. There were 44 pictures with probably 100 or more legible signs. You said there were "a lot" of signs from the communist and socialist parties, and "lots" that were anti-capitalism. I looked at every photo, found none with obvious communist/socialist sponsorship, and exactly two that denounced capitalism.That's because you continue to see this movement for what you wish it to be, what you feel it to be instead of what it really is.While I'm sure that's what YOU see, it's not because that's what's really there. It's a byproduct of your cognitive dissonance, where you only see what you already believe.I see a lot of signs by the socialist and communist parties. Lots of anti-capitalist messages as well.
Are you OK with that and do you support their goals?
I looked through all the pictures at all the signs that were legible. I can't tell for sure which signs may have been sponsored by the "socialist and communist" parties. I don't obsess over them as you do and don't have the Secret Nutter Decoder Ring to translate ordinary thoughts into "yes, but we really know it means ..." I certainly didn't see anything that promoted socialism or communism directly.
I saw exactly two signs that denounced capitalism. In contrast, the vast majority of the signs attacked corruption, greed, politicians in general (of both parties), corporations, billionaires, etc. In short, they matched the same general OWS message that most people expect.
I'm sure you disagree with this, so here's a challenge. Go through each picture, count the number of signs, then write down the specific ones you claim are anti-capitalism. Give us the ratio, give us the examples, and then explain exactly how you can rationalize that this is the primary message of OWS.
One other obvious note from these photos is that the people who parrot the "non-bathing hippies" propaganda are absolutely clueless. They're just repeating what Fox and that ilk have told them to say. Looking at the actual protests, however, it is crystal clear OWS crosses a broad section of Americans, both by age and by social status. (There are also quite a few hotties. Makes me want to get behind them even more.)
Are you STILL going to ignore all the signs and messages from socialists, communists and anti-capitlist? Your ability to deny facts and reality is astounding, it's the mind of a liberal. Are you really that blind?
Oh Spidey, you make this way too easy. There were 44 pictures with probably 100 or more legible signs. You said there were "a lot" of signs from the communist and socialist parties, and "lots" that were anti-capitalism. I looked at every photo, found none with obvious communist/socialist sponsorship, and exactly two that denounced capitalism.
........ And I can only ask, "Are you really that blind?" Are you truly so completely detached from reality that you can only see the 3% of the signs that match your delusions and not the 97% that don't? Do you have any shred of sanity hidden away in a corner somewhere that can look at this objectively and honestly? You need help dude. Seriously.
Yes they are. They are the collective voices of people.
F*cking capital 'B' Bullsh*t.
How so? A corporation is literally a group of people that acts a single entity. I don't understand why they wouldn't have the right to free speech.
Corporations aren't people, they don't have free speech. Problem solved. I honestly don't understand how they came to that fucking conclusion.
Because a corporation isn't a citizen of this country...
Corporations aren't people, they don't have free speech. Problem solved. I honestly don't understand how they came to that fucking conclusion.
You're either an idiot, or you purposely chose not comprehend anything in that link. So, in other words, riot control agents can be used to control riots (*gasp!*), but cannot be used as a method of warfare. Imagine that, using something for its intended purpose is lawful!
Following your logic, since herbicides are banned from use in warfare, their intended purpose must also be illegitimate! Fucking farmers! Violating the Geneva convention!
There you go idiot.
*snap snap*
Pay attention to the conversation we're having, kiddo
They are classified as US Persons, not citizens. They never get the right to vote, for example. Neither do unions.
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.