99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

Dang! I accidentally pressed enter before entering my O.P. Dear Lord, talk about inserting a foot in a mouth. Okay, so this moron will be back with an O.P. about all those morons in just a minute.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Dang! I accidentally pressed enter before entering my O.P. Dear Lord, talk about inserting a foot in a mouth. Okay, so this moron will be back with an O.P. about all those morons in just a minute.

edit on 23-10-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

Coming off a bit rude here I think although fairly certain you are in the 1% minority and no one else sees it that way. Opps...I accidentally hit enter. Kidding you of course since I HAVE done the same thing myself but on a more serious note ...meant to include this too:

Its Official! Not a Conspiracy- PROOF That The Elite Control The Global Economy

But while Occupy Wall Street protestors may be slightly exaggerating in calling themselves the 99 per cent, a recent study conducted by the Swiss Institute of Technology in Zurich shows that they aren’t too far off the mark. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Surely you are not going to apply a glittering generalization for all 99% Jean Paul, you are a smart fella! For every jackass vid of a protestor, there are just as many of well spoken folks. Part of the problem or solution comes to mind, and generalizing an entire group is problematic, imo.

ETA: I just realized that you may be pointing out how the media is unjustly and inaccurately portraying the protesters. I will edit my post accordingly. Pardon mua for assuming

OP makes ironic mistake with ironic thread title..

The irony...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I gave you a star because that is what special kids get.

The PTB are in full-court press trying to co-opt this whole "movement". The mainstream corporate dinosaur media is playing ball and just showing either morons or hardcore commies. Obama is trying to jump onto the ship n steer it for his re-election campaign, just as that Sony movie will come out in a convenient timed fashion.

We have got to remember that this is dominated by sheep, not by people who have taken the red pill.

I'm amused that this thread is already rolling with absolutely no post to discuss..

Who really knows what the OP is going to be about? maybe he's just baiting you in here with the topic..

I have just read over this:

The99PercentDeclaration

WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT:

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.

They do not take too long, however to offer up this as one of their redress of grievances.

2. Rejection of the Citizens United Case. The immediate abrogation, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic holding in the "Citizens United" case proclaimed by the United States Supreme Court. This heinous decision equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions to politicians with the exercise of protected free speech. We, the People, demand that this institutional bribery and corruption never again be deemed protected free speech.

First of all, these morons apparently think a Constitutional Amendment can be legislated immediately. This, underscored by their own assertion that the Citizen's United ruling is "antidemocratic" (The U.S. Constitution is "antidemocratic"), reveals profound ignorance and only illustrates how prescient our Founders were in eschewing democracy.

Secondly, the Citizen's United ruling is grossly misrepresented by this "99% declaration", and worst of all, the ruling made by the SCOTUS in the matter of Citizen's United was a reinforcement of the very First Amendment the "99%" rely upon to assert their right to a redress of grievances.

These people claiming to represent 99% of We the People want to rebuke The Supreme Court for using the First Amendment as their legal reasoning in why they struck down a portion of the BiPartisan Finance Reform Act. They did so because Congress was forbidden from making any "law" abridging speech and this is precisely what BPFRA did. It was unconstitutional for Congress to pass this legislation and the SCOTUS correctly corrected that problem upon judicial review.

Even further, all rulings are very narrow in their scope, and the Citizen's United ruling had nothing at all to do with asserting that money equated free speech, nor did the SCOTUS magically turn corporations into "persons"...Congress had all ready done this in both the U.S.C. and the U.C.C.

The profound ignorance this 99% document reveals about our Constitutional republic, the principles of Constitutionalism, and the protection of rights is extremely disturbing.

It is not enough to have your heart in the right place! It is not enough to have a good heart. An ignorant fool with a good heart is still an ignorant fool.

That said, and in fairness to this movement, I'm the ignorant fool who pressed enter way to damn soon. Jeez Louise!

reply to post by newcovenant


You must mean functioning at 1% mental capacity... On top of that a tad bit jittery with the hands.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Even you might agree the Citizen's United ruling is legal maneuvering to further enhance pay to play in DC as well as across the political spectrum.

As far as a free speech...

The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

Where is liability found with corporate entities?

reply to post by Americanist

Where is liability found with corporate entities?

It is called charter revocation. Corporations are chartered entities which are granted permission to exist. The federal government does not generally grant charters of incorporation, and this is done by the states. Most corporations have been chartered in the State of Delaware. They charter there because Delaware has written legislation making it appealing to a corporatist to charter in that State. Mostly in the form of tax relief.

It is the Attorney General of each state who has been given the authority to revoke a corporate charter. In Delaware, that Attorney General is presently Beau Biden (son of Joseph Biden), and I have written several letters to this clown asking for some answers on why corporations such as Monsanto are allowed to continue with their corporate malfeasance. To this day I have never received one reply from that guy.

If the so called "Occupy" movement really wants to see some changes in corporatism, then occupy Delaware, and demand Beau Biden answer for his seeming indifference and callous disregard for the harm corporations chartered in his state have caused.

Before anyone starts to call the protesters morons or anything like that because of this thread, you must understand that the99percentdeclaration website has nothing to do with OWS.

Proof.

occupywallst.org...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But it's a start no?
"morons" by the way, comes across a little partisan-ish, as in bullying, but to each their own
You present a great point that perhaps many are unaware of, and in fairness, who knows how they would react to this. They may actually react constructively, with some resolution. Or, they could defy and push for a modification in the system. Some want to shut the whole thing down, but the point is there is a spectrum of people, and the movement is too multi-faceted to call 99% stupid, aka moron

a very stupid person

I am sure there are many there who could even hold a good debate with you JP.

Originally posted by herecomesthesun
Before anyone starts to call the protesters morons or anything like that because of this thread, you must understand that the99percentdeclaration website has nothing to do with OWS.

Proof.

occupywallst.org...

One of the many criticism - and a valid one - regarding this "OWS" movement is the lack of any recognizable goal or target. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to organize better than was done and actually create such a declaration that fairly represented the movement to avoid problems like this.

That said, and again, in fairness to the movement, perhaps it would have been a good idea that I drafted an O.P. before pressing enter, so who am I to really take them to task?

It is good that someone is distancing themselves from that Declaration I posted a link to, but who is it that is doing the distancing, and how much is that representative of "OWS".

I was offered an opportunity to trash this mistake thread and start anew by one of the alert moderators...a Super Moderator no less. I decided to let the thread stand as it is for many reasons. I suspect the next time I call someone or others morons, I will think twice about that and what consequences it may bring, but also, there is a difference in my hasty mistake and all the confusion within the "OWS" movement, the most obvious being I have chosen not to distance myself from my own stupidity.

I have the luxury of accepting responsibility for my stupidity because I am only speaking for myself and not deigning to speak for a crowd, group, or humanity. My mistake in this thread only allowed JPZ an opportunity to experience some of that humanity...in the form of humility. Oh Dear Lord, the humility of it all.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Where is liability found with corporate entities?

It is called charter revocation. Corporations are chartered entities which are granted permission to exist. The federal government does not generally grant charters of incorporation, and this is done by the states. Most corporations have been chartered in the State of Delaware. They charter there because Delaware has written legislation making it appealing to a corporatist to charter in that State. Mostly in the form of tax relief.

It is the Attorney General of each state who has been given the authority to revoke a corporate charter. In Delaware, that Attorney General is presently Beau Biden (son of Joseph Biden), and I have written several letters to this clown asking for some answers on why corporations such as Monsanto are allowed to continue with their corporate malfeasance. To this day I have never received one reply from that guy.

If the so called "Occupy" movement really wants to see some changes in corporatism, then occupy Delaware, and demand Beau Biden answer for his seeming indifference and callous disregard for the harm corporations chartered in his state have caused.

AKA Delaware Trust... It's been around considerably longer than the current AG. I was hoping you'd catch on.

Now with multi-national corporations the question becomes: Could money feasibly pour in from around the World?

What if you were a Nation mingling in business, and required fresh water for over a billion and half people. Think you might line the pockets of political figures who could orchestrate a siphon off the Great Lakes? One example of course...

reply to post by Americanist

Now with multi-national corporations the question becomes: Could money feasibly pour in from around the World?

Anyone who has ever bothered to take the time to read the United Citizen's ruling would know full well that the SCOTUS told Congress had they limited their legislation to foreign corporations they would not have struck it down.

Now, why doesn't the media want you to know that, I wonder? More importantly, why are politicians - including Obama - clamoring for some sort of Amendment or rebuke of the SCOTUS decision instead of just taking their advice and drafting legislation that limits what a foreign corporation can do politically in this country?

Who's street? our street. WE ARE THE 99%. That does not seem to be doing anything useful The only thing they are protesting is sleeping in a public park.

BUT. I would not call them morons.

Your thread title alone is a turn off.
I can't imagine you will have a decent argument if you are going to use fox news/o'reilly tactics rather than intellectual arguments to make your point. I guess there will be some hateful people that are swayed by stuff like that. Nice work with the OP.

Is this thread some kind of joke or what

JPZ is going from one thread to another CONSTANTLY putting down OWS and for different reasons each time.....

Are you part of the 1% JPZ? Nevermind, I do NOT expect an honest answer from you.

Either "the protesters do not know what they are talking about, they are communists, they are hippies, they are drug addicts, they are lazy, they should protest the government, vote ron paul and end the FED...blah, blah"

Dude at least 3,000 people are excercising their freedom of speech in the purest form, rather than the sleazy corporations that vote with money each four years, just because some treasonous supreme court judges said it was ok.

I expect nothing less from you JPZ. Fox News must be proud of you! Did they offer you a bonus yet?

reply to post by mkultracanuck


Don't make the mistake of believing that completely.
There are a lot of awake people making there way down to these protests and shaking the others awake.
It is actually too big to be entirely coopted and there is no person that embodies the ideas enough to be a spokesperson. A large percentage of OWS are anti administration, anti big business conflict of interest with congress, and anti Obama.

So of course people that think some of their ideas might strike a little chord (socialists, obama, dems) will be out in full force, they wont be able to take this one over like the tea party was.