Reaching out to the Occupy People

[occupied]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

So corporations would not be allowed to support social programs? There would not be such a thing as being a good corporate citizen? No corporate gay friendly policies. No corporate foundations or charities. What liberals want is corporate personhood, but only in very select areas. They can't oppose any liberal ideals, but can support all liberal ideals.

If corporations cannot support political candidates neither should unions.

There is a difference between supporting a candidate and having undue influence over that candidate.

 

[occupied]

If a corporation was an actual person and he lived next door you would hate his guts. Playing his stadium sized stereo system in the middle of the night and dumping his garbage over your fence.

Corporations do live next door to people and they do play the stereo in the middle of the night and throw garbage over the fence. Then they get sued. If they weren't legal personages they couldn't be sued. You would be required to identify the one person turning up the stereo and thowing the garbage and be limited to that person only.

No, your corporate neighbor already bought the cops and judges, no remedy there.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a corporation was an actual person and he lived next door you would hate his guts. Playing his stadium sized stereo system in the middle of the night and dumping his garbage over your fence.

Corporations do live next door to people and they do play the stereo in the middle of the night and throw garbage over the fence. Then they get sued. If they weren't legal personages they couldn't be sued. You would be required to identify the one person turning up the stereo and thowing the garbage and be limited to that person only.

No, your corporate neighbor already bought the cops and judges, no remedy there.

Is that better or worse than liberals who own the cops and judges? Eliminating impartial justice has been a liberal goal for decades.

Instead of a corporate neighbor who kept the stero at max and threw garbage around, suppose it was an occupy site with 24/7 drum circles and shitting on your front lawn. Stopping that would be a denial of free speech wouldn't it? Who can you complain to? Not the police. They won't clear the space. You might be able to clean up the garbage the corporation throws, try pepper spraying occupiers keeping you from going to work.

 

[occupied]

Corporations do live next door to people and they do play the stereo in the middle of the night and throw garbage over the fence. Then they get sued. If they weren't legal personages they couldn't be sued. You would be required to identify the one person turning up the stereo and thowing the garbage and be limited to that person only.

No, your corporate neighbor already bought the cops and judges, no remedy there.

Is that better or worse than liberals who own the cops and judges? Eliminating impartial justice has been a liberal goal for decades.

Instead of a corporate neighbor who kept the stero at max and threw garbage around, suppose it was an occupy site with 24/7 drum circles and shitting on your front lawn. Stopping that would be a denial of free speech wouldn't it? Who can you complain to? Not the police. They won't clear the space. You might be able to clean up the garbage the corporation throws, try pepper spraying occupiers keeping you from going to work.

Pretty crappy comparison as private property rights trump 1st amendment rights.

 

[saveliberty]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

So corporations would not be allowed to support social programs? There would not be such a thing as being a good corporate citizen? No corporate gay friendly policies. No corporate foundations or charities. What liberals want is corporate personhood, but only in very select areas. They can't oppose any liberal ideals, but can support all liberal ideals.

If corporations cannot support political candidates neither should unions.

I agree about unions. I did say individual candidates now didn't I? Yep, so social programs would still be a go.

 

[Moonglow]

This fellow and those of you are trying to reach out to the occupy crowd?
Well your doing it all wrong.

 

[HUGGY]

This fellow and those of you are trying to reach out to the occupy crowd?
Well your doing it all wrong.

Ya..ya need to reach out with S and G lyrics.

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed
In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said,
"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"And whispered in the sounds of silence

These guys communicate with graffiti.

 

[occupied]

This fellow and those of you are trying to reach out to the occupy crowd?
Well your doing it all wrong.

The right always reaches out with fixed bayonets and no desire for understanding.

 

[Katzndogz]

This fellow and those of you are trying to reach out to the occupy crowd?
Well your doing it all wrong.

The right always reaches out with fixed bayonets and no desire for understanding.

I have to agree with that for myself personally. I can't answer for the entire right, but I have no desire whatsoever to understand the motivation of the thief, whether its a mugger in an alley or a man in suit here from the government.

I heard the perfect description of OWS this morning. It's Wayne's World living in the basement of the Golden Girls.

 

[occupied]

This fellow and those of you are trying to reach out to the occupy crowd?
Well your doing it all wrong.

The right always reaches out with fixed bayonets and no desire for understanding.

I have to agree with that for myself personally. I can't answer for the entire right, but I have no desire whatsoever to understand the motivation of the thief, whether its a mugger in an alley or a man in suit here from the government.

I heard the perfect description of OWS this morning. It's Wayne's World living in the basement of the Golden Girls.

There is no perfect glib definition for such a diverse group of people with differing and often contradictory goals. Democracy is messy, fascism is clean and simple.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reaching out to the Occupy People

Don't beg, Teabaggers.....it's bad-form.

You're not significant-enough to reach-out to anyone.

Regroup & begin your pilgrimage (back) to NASCAR.

 

[occupied]

Reaching out to the Occupy People

Don't beg, Teabaggers.....it's bad-form.

You're not significant-enough to reach-out to anyone.

Regroup & begin your pilgrimage (back) to NASCAR.

That looks like my last family reunion, being a liberal in the south sucks balls.

 

[miami_thomas]

Corporations are writing the laws. I can understand people not trusting the government but I cringe at how many people have a child like faith in the private sector. An underregulated Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. If you don't acknowledge the potential for private sector abuse and disaster then there's no reason to take you seriously.

I don't need you to take me serious. That disaster was caused by government regulating homes for everyone. You have power against corporations you have no power against government.

Polishing banker willy there MT? They do not need or deserve your defense of them, as to OWS just wanting "free stuff", there has never been a better tax and consumer base than the American middle class, allowing it to evaporate was retarded, it was rich enough to build interstate highways, find a polio vaccine and put men on the moon. We have a gigantic sink hole where our nation's engine used to sit, they took it and we want it back.

They took nothing. Democrats like you ran the rich out of the country taking thirty jobs with them. In America if you don't succeed you have no one to blame but yourself. Ows is just a ton of people that have never taken responsibility for their own actions. If I needed to accomplish something I would certainly prefer the banker who has a history of accomplishing something over a bunch of crying owsers who have accomplished nothing and over value their own worth. Grow up and move to the real world.

 

[code1211]

With the money they've been siphoning off from the the middle class for the last 30 years.

In this context, define siphoning and give examples.

"Trickle down" tax cuts. Leveraged corporate buyouts. Banking transaction fees. Tax breaks for outsourcers.

I've been engaged in business for about 40 years as union and non-union labor, supervision, management and sales. I've bought and sold things to and from others for that entire period. I know a thing or two about doing business.

I don't understand how any of these things siphon money from me to them.

I'm also not convinced that you understand what the terms you are using mean. Outsourcing can mean anything from hiring the neighbor kid to mow my lawn to relocating my production facility to a more friendly business environment.

Please explain. It might help to concentrate on only one and expand on it.

 

[code1211]

Oh..and money is not speech.

Money is a multi-functional tool. It buys ink, paper, air time. What is your point? Let me guess. People and Organizations that are like minded with you can't do anything wrong, and People and Organizations that are not, can't do anything right. Got Ya.

Naw.

Corporations are not people.
Money is not speech.

Simple.

By definition, a corporation is people.

Without a forum in which to speak, free speech is not heard. Delivering the message is the real key to free speech. Without a delivery system, speech can be free and completely restricted.

Money in this sense is speech.

 

[miami_thomas]

You had to see one of the leaders/spokesperson for OWS NY on the Sean Hannity Show.

When asked if he wanted free education,free housing,free Health Care the response was that he felt all Americans should get these and more free....

And without forethought that someone [The RICH this ASSHOLE despises], already pays for.

With the money they've been siphoning off from the the middle class for the last 30 years.

If you buy something it is not stealing, now the taxes on the rich certainly could be called stealing. Please provide evidence of actual theft.

 

[PredFan]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

Corporations are people. They are all the people who work there, and all of the consumers who buy the product. That isn't a hard concept.

A corporation is not held to the same standards of justice as an individual. It cannot be sentenced to the death penalty for instance.

So what. we are talking about representation in politics.

 

[saveliberty]

With the money they've been siphoning off from the the middle class for the last 30 years.

The middle class received jobs, homes, vehicles, HDTVs, cell phones. Hardly siphoning.

 

[miami_thomas]

Corporations are writing the laws. I can understand people not trusting the government but I cringe at how many people have a child like faith in the private sector. An underregulated Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. If you don't acknowledge the potential for private sector abuse and disaster then there's no reason to take you seriously.

I don't need you to take me serious. That disaster was caused by government regulating homes for everyone. You have power against corporations you have no power against government.

If you are interested in meaningful political dialogue then you do need to be taken seriously. If you're only interesting in parroting talking points then you don't. You have power to CHOOSE government. You have no power to even speak to corporations.

Not once government has complete control. Ask the cubans and Chinese if they can choose the government. Corporations have to follow the law. Government is the law.

 

[code1211]

Corporations are writing the laws. I can understand people not trusting the government but I cringe at how many people have a child like faith in the private sector. An underregulated Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. If you don't acknowledge the potential for private sector abuse and disaster then there's no reason to take you seriously.

To be clear, Wall Street is regulated.

The Housing bubble was caused because the lending industry was not regulated. I recall that when I refined my house to get a lower interest rate in the 90's, it was done in the rented offices of a loan originator, not a bank.

That loan was made and then sold, 3 times before it was paid off, and that is what created the housing bubble.

The loans made created a risk, but that risk was not born by the original lender. The loans were bundled and sold and a large enough percent were bad and became the now famous "Toxic Assets" that TARP was supposed to clear up, but that are still in existence and still a ticking time bomb thanks to the ill directed and probably corrupt Obama administration dupes.

Banking and Wall Street are both pretty regulated. The Loan originators were not in such rigid constraints and the Congress of the USA passed laws to push lenders into lending to this who could not repay and should never have been given the loans in the first place.

Do you want to know who is responsible? I'll tell you. It is the people and the government of the USA. We all had a hand in it and trying to deflect blame to others is pointless and Liberal.

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the mortgage back derivative bonanza from happening.

But let me get this straight. Because of lax regulation, people exploited and got rich off, knowing they were doing something extremely risky (So much so..they hedged their bets by taking out insurance)..it's the "government's fault".

Really?

At what point is it the "Greedy Unethical Bastard's" Fault?

As I recall, "sub-prime" lending was a practice used to put cash in the hands of those who could not afford to get a loan. This practice was mandated by the Congress of the USA. Refusal to make loans to those who could not repay them was against the law of the USA.

Due to this, the greedy unethical bastards rose in the form of the lenders, the realtors, the home buyers, the home sellers, the home owners who took seconds, the legislators and the banks who bought and sol the derivatives.

The blame cannot be shifted away from any particular sector of the society or the economy.

As an individual, I did not leverage the equity of my home to make a profit because it seemed risky to me. Others did not reach that same conclusion. It's too bad.