Police turn violent in wall street protests

No Limit said:
It has nothing to do with having more stuff as in personal belongings. It has to do with legally being able to buy politicians. The top 1% has the type of control over our political system that the bottom 99% does not and cannot. The reason is that politicians get elected based on how much money they can generate. Therefore when the top 1% controls most of the money in our economy they are the ones that will have their needs heard, nobody else.
Click to expand...
It does come down to votes in the end. That's our voice- no amount of money takes away the power of your vote.

No Limit said:
Are you okay with that?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with people using their own resources towards free speech. Be it buying a loudspeaker to yell at a protest, or paying for lobbyists.



No Limit said:
So where does the constitution say that you can spend your money as you wish? Where does the constitution say that corporations are individuals? Where does the constitution say that money is speech?
Click to expand...
What the constitution does is specifically outline what the federal government may and may not do. It's very specific in the power that it levies to the federal government. Regulating the way money is spent in anything other than interstate commerce is not within the federal government's constitutional authority.

Anything not referenced in the constitution- the states may legislate regarding that. So yes- you may have more rights in one state than another. Everyone in every state is guaranteed the rights guaranteed in the constitution. However, one state may allow certain things not addressed while another does not.

This has been violated throughout history- for example federal drug laws. That really is a state issue to legislate (although the arguement could be made pushing that it's a first amendement/religious right, but thats a bit silly too)

No Limit said:
If you have such a hardon for the constitution the constitution does say that the federal government has the right to tax individuals and corporations in anyway that it wishes to. So would you be okay with a 99% income tax on any individual or corporation that gives more than $100 to a political candidate or political organization?
Click to expand...
I'd be against it, but it's not unconstitutional. It would not be an illegal/unconstitutional law if passed. That doesn't mean it's not a bad idea, though.
 
It does come down to votes in the end. That's our voice- no amount of money takes away the power of your vote.
Click to expand...
You can't possibly be naive enough to believe that. If it comes down to votes why do corporations spend billions of dollars each year in an attempt to influence politics?

What the constitution does is specifically outline what the federal government may and may not do. It's very specific in the power that it levies to the federal government. Regulating the way money is spent in anything other than interstate commerce is not within the federal government's constitutional authority.

Anything not referenced in the constitution- the states may legislate regarding that. So yes- you may have more rights in one state than another. Everyone in every state is guaranteed the rights guaranteed in the constitution. However, one state may allow certain things not addressed while another does not.

This has been violated throughout history- for example federal drug laws. That really is a state issue to legislate (although the arguement could be made pushing that it's a first amendement/religious right, but thats a bit silly too)
Click to expand...

Buying political ads, spending money on rallies, donating to PACs are all a commerce issue.

I'd be against it, but it's not unconstitutional. It would not be an illegal/unconstitutional law if passed. That doesn't mean it's not a bad idea, though.
Click to expand...

Why is it a bad idea?
 
No Limit said:
You can't possibly be naive enough to believe that. If it comes down to votes why do corporations spend billions of dollars each year in an attempt to influence politics?
Click to expand...
Because it costs money to run ads and post signs, commercials, etc. If you can get your views to reach more people you've got more of a chance of getting their vote. You still may vote for whoever you like. If a socialist spends a billion dollars on ads, it doesn't matter how many I see, I'm still not going to vote for them.



No Limit said:
Buying political ads, spending money on rallies, donating to PACs are all a commerce issue.
Click to expand...


Interstate commerce. Not just commerce in general. Generally this pertains to goods shipped over large distances over state borders.



No Limit said:
Why is it a bad idea?
Click to expand...
Because any tax that high is flat out wrong. 99% tax rate? Keep $1 out of every $100 earned? That's ridiculous. How are people supposed to support their candidate of choice financially then? Some courts may even find it unconstitutional based on the first amendment- infringing on free speech through donation. However that'd be a complex case for the court system to decide. I'd assume it's constitutional based on the 16th amendment.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Because it costs money to run ads and post signs, commercials, etc. If you can get your views to reach more people you've got more of a chance of getting their vote. You still may vote for whoever you like. If a socialist spends a billion dollars on ads, it doesn't matter how many I see, I'm still not going to vote for them.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're telling me I don't have to vote for a candidate if I don't like the cut of their jib... even if they have a lot of advertising?

Well shit, I can't possibly comprehend what the problem is, then.
 
Because it costs money to run ads and post signs, commercials, etc. If you can get your views to reach more people you've got more of a chance of getting their vote. You still may vote for whoever you like. If a socialist spends a billion dollars on ads, it doesn't matter how many I see, I'm still not going to vote for them.
Click to expand...
So you are saying all these corporations that spend billions of dollars are total idiots because this money doesn't actually influence anything. That's what you are actually saying?

Interstate commerce. Not just commerce in general. Generally this pertains to goods shipped over large distances over state borders.
Click to expand...

Goods, services, whatever you want to call it. Buying political ads, sponsoring rallies, printing flyers, all fall under interstate commerce. The political PACs and corporations all do this on a national basis.

Because any tax that high is flat out wrong. 99% tax rate? Keep $1 out of every $100 earned? That's ridiculous. How are people supposed to support their candidate of choice financially then? Some courts may even find it unconstitutional based on the first amendment- infringing on free speech through donation. However that'd be a complex case for the court system to decide. I'd assume it's constitutional based on the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...
But see, you are flipping your argument now. Originally you said we can't limit campaign contributions because to do so would be unconstitutional. If you take such a rigid view of the constitution then fine, you can do that. But if you do that you must also admit it is perfectly constitutional for congress to tax us however they like, including taxing individuals that spend more than $100 on political contributions 99% of their income.

Therefore you can no longer make the argument that the reason limiting political contributions is bad is because it is unconstitutional. What you have to explain to me is why using constitutional methods to get big money out of our politics is a bad thing. Why should 1% of the population have such powerful political power over the remaining 99%?
 
It'll be interesting if we see the same behavior from the police in the up coming federal reserve occupations.
 
CptStern said:
your fault for not living in arizona where rent is $350. tell your dad he's charging you too much
Click to expand...

You're an smug asshole. There are lots of people like him and I who scrape together to keep our heads above water. In my case I went to college and am now working minimum wage and consider myself lucky.
 
leib10 said:
You're an smug asshole. There are lots of people like him and I who scrape together to keep our heads above water. In my case I went to college and am now working minimum wage and consider myself lucky.
Click to expand...

He was referencing RakuraiTenjin who frequently suggests that Arizona housing prices should be the standard by which others are judged and anyone paying more should move to Arizona to work.
 
and just as I knew there is some chavez representators in the ocuppation,a woman who also writes for the newspapers of the venezuelan goverment is participating in the protests

so I feel sorry but I wont support that kind of people while theyr beloved allyes are crushing protesters whit tanks
 
They should burn down wallstreet and cut the heads of target rich aristocrats!
 
No Limit said:
So you are saying all these corporations that spend billions of dollars are total idiots because this money doesn't actually influence anything. That's what you are actually saying?
Click to expand...
No, they're not total idiots. It can get their viewpoint out there for people who are unaware or apathetic (most of the nation)



No Limit said:
Goods, services, whatever you want to call it. Buying political ads, sponsoring rallies, printing flyers, all fall under interstate commerce. The political PACs and corporations all do this on a national basis.
Click to expand...
They would need to pass regulation specifically for the interstate aspects of that, then. It would easily be resolved by simply hiring consulting firms, lawyers, etc from within the state the activity is taking place in. That's actually a good thing because it boosts economies- buying locally.


No Limit said:
But see, you are flipping your argument now. Originally you said we can't limit campaign contributions because to do so would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I never flipped it and still say that. They'd be using the sixteenth amendment if they made it a tax issue. But, like I said, the courts may rule that a tax (backed by the 16th) but targetted based on exercising a first amendment right is unconstitutional. That would be for the courts to set precedent on.
No Limit said:
If you take such a rigid view of the constitution then fine, you can do that. But if you do that you must also admit it is perfectly constitutional for congress to tax us however they like, including taxing individuals that spend more than $100 on political contributions 99% of their income.
Click to expand...
Yes. See above.

No Limit said:
Therefore you can no longer make the argument that the reason limiting political contributions is bad is because it is unconstitutional. What you have to explain to me is why using constitutional methods to get big money out of our politics is a bad thing. Why should 1% of the population have such powerful political power over the remaining 99%?
Click to expand...
Directly putting a legal limit on the amount one can donate would be unconstitutional. A heavy tax levied still allows for one to donate however much they please. Laws that make it criminal or civil violation to donate over a certain amount are unconstitutional.

I know you say in practicality it's the same, but it's very important to follow the rules of the constitution to the letter or it loses its value, regardless of if the people are on the left or right. I've come to realize that by the time I became an adult.


Eejit said:
He was referencing RakuraiTenjin who frequently suggests that Arizona housing prices should be the standard by which others are judged and anyone paying more should move to Arizona to work.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I say. I say if someone cannot afford the cost of living where they're at, then perhaps it makes good sense to move to a location (within reason- same nation etc) where the cost of living is dramatically lower. That could mean biting the bullet and moving to a different neighborhood, or even a different city.
 
No, they're not total idiots. It can get their viewpoint out there for people who are unaware or apathetic (most of the nation)
Click to expand...
Exactly. So with this money the top 1% has the type of control over our political system the other 99% does not. And you think that's perfectly okay in a democracy?

They would need to pass regulation specifically for the interstate aspects of that, then. It would easily be resolved by simply hiring consulting firms, lawyers, etc from within the state the activity is taking place in. That's actually a good thing because it boosts economies- buying locally.
Click to expand...
As medical marijuana laws clearly show the federal government has the final say. And the supreme court has sided with the federal government on this time and time again saying that it is constitutional.

Directly putting a legal limit on the amount one can donate would be unconstitutional. A heavy tax levied still allows for one to donate however much they please. Laws that make it criminal or civil violation to donate over a certain amount are unconstitutional.

I know you say in practicality it's the same, but it's very important to follow the rules of the constitution to the letter or it loses its value, regardless of if the people are on the left or right. I've come to realize that by the time I became an adult.
Click to expand...

Just as the healthcare law does the government has decided that they can tax you based on certain actions you take. So no, it wouldn't allow you to donate as much as you please since as soon as you went over $100 the government would take 99% of your income. We will know next summer if this is in fact constitutional when the supreme court decides on it.

So whether you do it through taxes or the commerce clause your choice, there are plenty of ways to do this. And instead of arguing about the process I am really curious to know why you think the top 1% should have such political power. As you just admitted spending billions of dollars on political campaigns will influence elections. Why would anyone that says they are for democracy where each person should have equal say be okay with that?

leib10 said:
You're an smug asshole. There are lots of people like him and I who scrape together to keep our heads above water. In my case I went to college and am now working minimum wage and consider myself lucky.
Click to expand...

Eventhough what you say about there being people like this everywhere and there not being anything wrong with that is true, unozero himself said that if you work at McDonald's or some other minimum wage job you are a total loser. Which is really ironic since he just revealed in this thread that he himself works a minimum wage job (or something close to it) and that he lives at home with his parents.

I never understood people like him. He is economically ****ed but somehow actually believes that the system as is works perfectly well and anyone that has a problem with it is a dirty hippie.
 
I'm in agreement with the fact that lower wages should have increased at the same rate as higher wages (gotta love balance)... however

holy crap Occupy Pittsburgh has some idiots in its crowd. Today they made a big ruckus about how they entered a bank and shut it down.

Timeline of events:
1. Five people walk in the bank, one is videotaping
2. They try to open bank accounts
3. They don't give their real names
4. They're asked to show id to open the accounts
5. Since they gave fake names they don't have id's
6. The bank is like "wtf" and calls the cops (after which the Occupy Pgh people just left -- they didn't get arrested or harassed or anything, but they made a big deal about how the bank has *all this power* to call the cops)

What was the point -- that people trying to fake an identity can't get a bank account? That the bank can call the cops if people come in doing shady crap like trying to open fake bank accounts? OH NO.
It's hard to associate yourself with a movement, even if it has some substance to it, when idiots like this are getting cheered on. I'm not saying they should get arrested or anything; just that they should at least attempt to use maybe just a smidge of brainpower before they act.
 
Yeah, the biggest problem with this movement is that, while it seems well intentioned with lots of people trying to do the right thing, it has attracted tons of shitty people making it all look bad. How are people supposed to take it seriously when you've got people doing that sort of stuff, or shitting in inappropriate places like on the sides of cop cars.
 
Any movement has wackos in it, though. Almost every opinion has complete idiots that adhere to it. If you focus on that, you basically can't hold any viewpoint without being ashamed.
 
Yeah, I was thinking about that after I posted. I just feel like this one has a higher proportion of people who don't know or can't express what they want in specific terms, in comparison to other social movements -- civil rights, women's rights, gay rights. The animal rights movement is often ridiculed for being full of "wackos", but at least they can tell you what they want. Even the anti-scientology protests had clearer and more concrete goals (trying to keep noobs from joining scientology, removing their tax-free status).

I know those movements were full of factions but at least they were either unified enough with a specific goal set or they had someone who could get stuff done (MLK). Maybe that'll happen for OWS, but I don't see it at the moment. Even the name Occupy Wall Street is pretty vague -- or worse, the whole 99% thing. What is this, the 99% rights movement? You shouldn't have to wikipedia the name of the movement to figure out what exactly (or should I say, inexactly) they want.
 
The funny thing I find about people claiming a fault with this movement because the message isn't clear enough is that this never seemed to be a problem with the Tea Party. People including myself, attacked them for alot of things, but not having a clear message was never one of the attacks. Yet their message was no more organized than the OWS message is. They had people showing up wanting Obama's birth certificate, others wanted to end medicare/social security while others had posters that said "Obama keep your hands off my Social Security!!!!". Yet here everyone is demanding a clearer message, as if the fact the top 1% is raping the bottom 99% isn't clear enough.

I obviously wasn't around in the 60s as I'm sure most here haven't (maybe Stern can shed some light). But I'm willing to bet the civil rights movement was just as disorganized as any other protests were. Yes, while you had MLK on one hand you had the Black Panthers on the other. Hell, even the rally where MLK gave his famous "I Have A Dream" speech was just as much about jobs as it was about civil rights.
 
Yeah, I know the civil rights movement was split into factions and some of the student groups didn't like MLK for being too soft, but that's what was so great about MLK... that he disocciated his part of the movement from extremism and was willing to work with government leaders to accomplish tangible goals instead of just yelling/whining about it.

"The fact the top 1% is raping the bottom 99%" isn't a clear message at all. It's a highly-enthusiastic but vague complaint. Nothing is going to get done unless they specify concrete, legislatable (yeah I made up a word) demands.

As for the Tea Party... I don't get on their case for being stupid because I don't agree with them and would love for them to act as stupid as possible. Besides, everyone (except Tea Partiers themselves) knows that movement is idiotic. Some people are harping on OWS's lack of focus not to ridicule it, but for its own good -- because it has a somewhat legitimate basis, but is unlikely to succeed unless people pull their shit together.

For the record, I'm like this for every movement I'd like to support but would rather not be associated with. It's like we've bred a freakish culture of whiny anti-intellectual Americans, on both the right and left. (American students happen to be ranked low for actual knowledge, yet highest in self-esteem, compared to other countries. That is frightening -- we're stupid but are fully convinced that we're not?) I'm an environmental engineer, and I still can't get fully on board with the environmental movement. Actually, no one I know in Environmental Engineering associates themselves with the activists. I was at an EPA conference and learned about a Yale climate change survey showing that non-scientists who are most concerned about the issue, also happen to be the least knowledgeable(they think it's related to or partially caused by the ozone hole, which is completely wrong). Half that conference was centered on how to better communicate scientific facts to people, but sometimes I wonder if the problem is just that our society has raised a bunch of highly-opinionated idiots who are "cool" enough to go all activist on an issue but too lazy to put in the effort to learn about it.
 
I don't understand the "lack of focus" argument. OWS protestors are being berated because they are pissed off about too many legitimate things.

The US government is slowly dissolving the middle class in a plethora of ways, between health care, corporate tax breaks, bank bail outs, and careless government spending that will likely lead this recession into a depression. Many people are very upset about that, and they become even more upset when they realize that their magical "vote" doesn't mean jack ****ing shit in the face of lobbyists and political campaigns funded by multi-billion dollar corporations. When the gap between the rich and the poor is so extreme, there is something obviously wrong to the general public. Most of these people may not be political scientists or economists, they may not have direct proposals to fix national problems, but how does that make them unqualified to voice their discontent? Pure discontent with the system without a direct, sole, proposed solution is being interpreted as "whining," which is completely unfair.

The OWS protests seem to be raising awareness about this national discontent for a wide range of legitimate issues. Perhaps what might come of this are politicians who directly reflect these issues, or an actual government response to address them. Not likely, but is it really so bad to be simply pissed off?
 
I've found that most of the "they aren't focused" complaints stem directly from the media's coverage and presentation of OWS. When nearly every headline is talking about how much the protests are "costing" each city, and how it's senseless political chaos, or how they made themselves heard and great job you can go home now that you exercised your rights, it's hard for people that aren't plugged straight into the Internet to view the protests in any other way.
 
It is rather interesting (read: sickening) how most major media sources have covered the OWS protests. I saw this one CNN report where a woman interviewed a guy, and then pointed out how he was using an iPhone. "So you don't like corporations, what about Apple?" Something I would expect from a moron making a YouTube comment, but f*cking CNN? The coverage of OWS has been a total f*cking disgrace to journalism.

And the skewed media coverage has resulted in a general response like this:
2828821360107321820S500x500Q85.jpg

This needs a caption: f*cking f*ck this f*cking moron. f*ck.

By portraying the protesters as incoherent, unfocused, lazy, whiny but privileged hippies, that seems to be the popular opinion to have. This sort of media coverage encourages people to take pride in their hard work and be insulted by the insinuations of the protestors. No matter that it is not at all what any of these protests have actually been about. Total f*cking disgrace.

Actually, now that I'm all riled up, what do you guys use for your news? My homepage is CNN, which I have never really fully respected. Thinking back on that coverage, I have an inclination to never visit them for news again.
 
Yuri said:
Actually, now that I'm all riled up, what do you guys use for your news?
Click to expand...
For American news I'm just subbed to TYT. Take that for what you will. I like them because they promote populist ideas (although I'm sick of the term progressive).

As for my own country, I have no ****ing idea what's going on because our news services are shitsauce.
 
I get a real kick out of hearing people compare teaparty demonstration arrests to occupy wall street arrests.
 
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-of-the-1-.aspx?source=ihpsitas0000001&lidx=4
In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

$34,000.

That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.
Click to expand...
 
Because being in the top 1% of the world means you can't be impoverished by, I don't know, national and international standards of poverty and human rights.

Requisite additional comment about how these let-them-eat-cake capitalists are actually ****ing literally evil.
 
Wow. That article is just ridiculous.
 
It's like an economist's version of my mum telling me to eat my ****ing peas because there are starving kids in the world.
 
I don't know if I would go that far - peas are nutritious and give you energy with which to exercise your personal freedom. More like your mum telling you to eat your high fructose corn syrup.
 
386944_300974139915587_100000090092241_1280676_823080184_n.jpg



till he steps on a landmine and his dreams/legs go up in a cloud of smoke and debris
 
Well I guess the 0.99% put the 98.01% in their place.
 
So Occupy London have just taken over an abandoned UBS office campus.

(Shameless link to my own news organ. Here's The Guardian, unless you don't think we're fair and balanced enough.)

Didn't want to start a new thread, so used this one, but it should be noted that Occupy in Britain has not been met with nearly the same violence from the authorities as in the USA. This latest occupation is no different - it looks to be proceeding peacefully.
 
So I'm writing a 5 page paper about the Occupy protests. More specifically what they are about, who is protesting, why they're protesting, what they hope to accomplish, where they're protesting, etc and if anyone has any good academic, unbiased sources paste em' here. I am not taking a side in the paper on being for/against the protests, simply explaining what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top