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

reply to post by ownbestenemy

My guess, as in any contentious debate; moderation and logic hold no bearing. How can you be for X if you are not for Y. While I tend to think in black and white terms; as the world does operate on such; many believe that if you are fighting against them on one subject, it must mean you are an enemy through and through.

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

~F. Scott Fitzgerald~

Of course, Fitzgerald was an infamous sycophant of the rich, and one only need read The Great Gatsby to know this, so those who hate the rich so much can take this quote or leave it. Even so, it seems to hold relevance in this thread.

Here is a fun hypothetical

OWS decides to produce and promote a video of bankers; or politicians; of people that have show great greed and misgivings.

Do you think they would fight tooth and nail to protect that piece and proclaim the First Amendment protection of the Freedom of Speech?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Here is a fun hypothetical

OWS decides to produce and promote a video of bankers; or politicians; of people that have show great greed and misgivings.

Do you think they would fight tooth and nail to protect that piece and proclaim the First Amendment protection of the Freedom of Speech?

edit on 27-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Greed not green...geesh

Of course they would! It is not their rights that they are so disgusted with, it is yours that they hate.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Isn't it sad. That those who protect, who fight and who defend the very right to speak freely are vilified by the so called "99%" for defending that very right?

As I just saw in a different thread, regarding "homeless" -- the 99%s, have decided who are homeless and who are "professional homeless"....

Oh well....as I always say: It is one thing to be be a pawn, it is another to be a pawn thinking you are not...

reply to post by ownbestenemy

As I just saw in a different thread, regarding "homeless" -- the 99%s, have decided who are homeless and who are "professional homeless"....

While the preening pretentious peacocks that permeate the "OWS" movement smugly pat themselves on the back and point to the so called "1%" they consider to be the problem, there are homeless people across the nation just trying to figure out how to get through the damn day.

Here in Los Angeles, the police are not so preoccupied with this "occupy" movement that they will not stop to take a moment here and there to coerce and threaten homeless with extortion. I live near a huge land grant of a park donated to the city for the express purpose of being a public park, and I have found myself lately, compelled to defend homeless people sleeping during the day in this park, but police insisting that what they are doing is "illegal camping".

While those who "march" on Wall Street proudly declare they fight for freedom, I find myself quietly and oh so carefully risking my own freedom in order to come to the defense of a few disenfranchised. The police have tried to get me to "mind my own business" while they criminally extort and coerce people clearly down and out, but I cannot reasonably sit by and watch such thuggery without coming to the defense of freedom and rights.

So far, I have managed to avoid losing my own freedom in passionately fighting for someones right to sleep outdoors, but I am astounded at the level of insanity of the police who will insist that there is no right to sleep outdoors. I have come to learn of a few cases where the City of Los Angeles was shamed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals, one of them, in the matter of Jones v Los Angeles, where the city attorneys, attempted to deny homeless people the LAPD trampled upon the right to sue for a redress of grievances.

What was there argument, you ask? I am glad you asked, my friend. The city attorneys argument was that the homeless in this matter had no standing because they failed to rely upon the law of necessity initially. What was the 9th Circuits reply, you ask? I am glad you asked. There reply was that if the city was aware of these homeless peoples right to assert the law of necessity, then why did they arrest them to begin with?

When I explain this to police officers who quite clearly think they are just doing their job, they just look at me blankly, not sure what to say. Ultimately they walk away, making sure to make it clear to the homeless that they are doing them a favor by not citing them for "illegal camping", and sure to give a stern warning that if they "catch" these homeless sleeping in a park again....

Ha ha ha ha. Police officers desperately trying to save face, pretending that they alone have the supremacy of benign tyranny, and that this time they will let those vicious criminals we call homeless who have committed the unspeakable crime of sleeping outdoors in a public park know that it is their kindness alone that has kept them out of jail.

"Professional homeless"? Like in credentialed homeless? Are these the incorporated homeless who have asked the state for permission to be homeless, as opposed to the homeless that do it by right? How absurd can we get with this? I wonder if these "OWS" people actually believe that there are homeless people out their fighting for their right to be homeless as opposed to simply just fighting to survive another day in L.A.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Isn't it sad. That those who protect, who fight and who defend the very right to speak freely are vilified by the so called "99%" for defending that very right?

As I just saw in a different thread, regarding "homeless" -- the 99%s, have decided who are homeless and who are "professional homeless"....

Oh well....as I always say: It is one thing to be be a pawn, it is another to be a pawn thinking you are not...

edit on 27-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Convicts were being routed to their camp straight out of prison... Directed there by the prison itself. Quite a different issue involving reckless endangerment.

OWS -- Tea Party -- [Insert Named Group Here] have shown to serve one thing and one thing only; subjugate and control anyone who is not for them or who do not believe in their view of things.

Screw em all.....Americanist et. al can continue this defense all they want. I have spent many hours defending freedom; defending our Natural Rights and yet these clowns are so caught up in their little "movement" and their self-righteous ideologues that they cannot see clearly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hard to deny the fact professional moochers exist... Along with drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
OWS -- Tea Party -- [Insert Named Group Here] have shown to serve one thing and one thing only; subjugate and control anyone who is not for them or who do not believe in their view of things.

Screw em all.....Americanist et. al can continue this defense all they want. I have spent many hours defending freedom; defending our Natural Rights and yet these clowns are so caught up in their little "movement" and their self-righteous ideologues that they cannot see clearly.

Inform us of the next time you invite a convicted rapist over for dinner and a movie with the wife and kids.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hard to deny the fact professional moochers exist... Along with drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes.

It is even harder to deny that even the wretched have rights, and one of those rights is the fundamental right to sleep, even if it is outdoors and in a public park. But thanks for clarifying your arbitrary and capricious view on rights and who has them.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hard to deny the fact professional moochers exist... Along with drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes.

It is even harder to deny that even the wretched have rights, and one of those rights is the fundamental right to sleep, even if it is outdoors and in a public park. But thanks for clarifying your arbitrary and capricious view on rights and who has them.

You seem to narrow it down for me, so I don't have to do much, but sit back and enjoy the show... I might even turn pro at this!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hard to deny the fact professional moochers exist... Along with drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes.

It is even harder to deny that even the wretched have rights, and one of those rights is the fundamental right to sleep, even if it is outdoors and in a public park. But thanks for clarifying your arbitrary and capricious view on rights and who has them.

Are you still blowing your own horn. You must be full of more hot air than I thought. I don't see many posts from your 'friends' on this thread. Only a petulant child making noise and expressing his anger that no one is listening to him. It's O.K I understand that you are overwhelmed by your own insignificance.
It's no wonder that you don't like the OWS movement... People always resist the things that they don't understand.

Originally posted by Americanist
Inform us of the next time you invite a convicted rapist over for dinner and a movie with the wife and kids.

Clearly you have the intelligence that mankind has sought. Americanist; accept this apology for I did not recognize it before!

Use of such vernacular and grace! I am in complete awe and astonishment because of it! I will have to decline your humble invitation.

My wife cannot make it as she thoroughly enjoys my company in that aspect (I hope you understand) and my kids....well; lets say you might want to get yourself checked out if you wanna involve my children.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hard to deny the fact professional moochers exist... Along with drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes.

Ah! And you are the savior that will decide who they are? You will classify and compartmentalize them for us?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

ownbestenemy... I am humbled by you posting prowess

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

ownbestenemy... I am humbled by you posting prowess

As yours as well. But you must forgive me when I don't use some silly emoticon to exhibit my "extreme" smile towards it.

Now that the first volley has been shot, do you wish to engage in discussion or debate or just make hit and run comments?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It's complex issue and there are truths to be realised on both sides of the arguement. I don't know which way the way forward is or what that will look like... I just know that things need to change. I think that if we can start with the realisation that the current political and financial structures are not serving society as well as they could or perhaps not as well as we may like them to... Then perhaps we have a starting point upon which we can build a brighter future.

It all has to start somewhere.

You are correct of course as you know you are. Arguing and fighting like children is a pointless excercise as are my 'hit and run comments'. Unless we can engage in a mature and healthy exchange of ideas than this is all a waste of time.

I haven't been on ATS for very long and health exchanges of ideas seem to have been few and far between. I for one am guilty of enjoying arguing. At times I wonder how many other people come here because they enjoy the challenge of a good argument.

Anyway... let's put all that aside for a moment. The thing that I find most frustrating is the apparent inability of most people the understand or even consider the others point of view.

Some people say that the OWS movement is just a bunch of whining children and in a manner that is true. I say that the OWS movement is about a lot more than just taxing the rich more a giving it to the poor. My point of view however will most likely only win a small portion of credibility for the OWS movement if any at all.

The most insightful post that I have seen on ATS about the OWS debate have supported neither side. They have simply stated that any campaign with a "I'm the 99 %" slogan can only bring division and that the only true way forward is in unity as one.

I guess this means that if the OWS mevement is to achieve anything, than annoying people like me, on both sides of the debate need to shut up and let a healthy exchange of ideas exchanged between mature adults bring understanding. From a position of understanding I believe that we can build a different tomorrow.

Or maybe the old boys are right and all of this will blow over and dissipate just like they it has in the past. Maybe the same cycle is doomed to be repeated over and over again just like they say.

For myself I support change. I guess my political and finanical views are probably more socialist than anything else. I think that the continued threat of global economic collapse has shown capitolism to be in ways unsuitable for the modern world in which we live.

It is most likely that the cure to our unique modern problems will take a form that most of us are yet to realise.

So yes. I do have something to add. I really don't know how helpful or useful it will be. I guess I will know soon enough...

Thanks for asking. It's the voice of reason that needs to be heard here and on this occasion that voice was yours.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


I didn't intend to come off so crass; forgive me. While there are somethings that require a step back -- a breather of sorts -- there are others that need to have a firm stand. Call it principle, call it stubbornness; a stand, regardless of ones views, should be made when conviction is burning to do so.

A large portion of this thread has been the discussion of the First Amendment -- specifically how it was applied and viewed in light of Citizen United v. FEC. As anyone following it, one can see the sharp line drawn by both camps in the interpretation of not only the Supreme Court decision, but also the views upon the First Amendment in a whole.

Interestingly, much of this discussion has transpired solely because JPZ (the OP) accidentally posted without saying anything in his opening post. Be it as it may, the discussion has taken quite a healthy debate and discussion on the overall view of the First Amendment.

From my perspective, I have seen two points of contentions arising from the opposing viewpoint regarding the free speech and how it relates to Citizen United. That case was specifically brought up via the "99% Declaration" that JPZ linked to. Such a document, if that is what it could be called, is not directly tied to the OWS group, but surely tied to the movement.

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.

This is what this portion of the movement is advocating among other things such as Direct Democracy (another point of contention on my part).

Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote in presidential elections.

But there are ideas that I do not find to be in contention with. Ending the perpetual war machine. Reforming or completely abolishing the Federal Reserve. Complete tax overhaul (though mine and their ideas are quite different!)

What is sad is that those who have defending the natural right to speak freely -- especially when it comes to political speech; speech that was a main focal point of the First Amendment, it seems people wish to pick and choose which parts of the First Amendment are relevant, which apply and then they choose who gets those protections.

As you have seen throughout, I am wholly against such. We cannot cherry pick the First Amendment with the clauses we wish to apply. It is a complete Amendment that requires to take it all in.

How can we deny a person, with a corporate identity (who is doing so via protections of the First Amendment and the freedom to associate), to produce speech? Or how can we say that money does not fall under the protections of Free Speech. Specifically, the expenditures to produce speech. Of course, money is money, but cannot that be speech? My choice to spend my money say on donations to a candidate -- or not to a candidate -- is a form of political speech in itself.

Banning and prohibiting such would give a new governmental interest and would open a new door for government to exact its force upon the people by chilling or outright silencing speech by associating it with the money spent. What is interesting is the clamor of OWS is about the Corporations and the Bankers and such and how they control the whole process -- yet willfully or ignorantly do not see that saying you cannot spend money to promote a candidate or highlight an opponents record will just lead to more control by the Bankers and Corporations.

My fight has always been to allow the greatest amount of liberties and the restoration of the path that our forefathers, my ancestors, set upon in freeing the bonds that human's have for so long been shackled in.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Corporations are legal entities with pure economic interests, not people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Why do you keep posting this crap as if I am disagreeing with that remark? Do you honestly believe most people are so stupid that they cannot see through this, or are you just posting sentences like that to appease the stupid?

My guess, as in any contentious debate; moderation and logic hold no bearing. How can you be for X if you are not for Y. While I tend to think in black and white terms; as the world does operate on such; many believe that if you are fighting against them on one subject, it must mean you are an enemy through and through.

But clearly you are your own worst enemy if you cannot distinguish money from free speech.

For example, if "freedom of speech" was a blanket concept, as you imply, then there would be no need for the second amendment which has to do with the freedom to bear arms and the right of a well-structured militia to protect the constitution. It could have been construed as part of the first...............

Freedom of speech has common sense limitations, even if one does not take the literal meaning at face value. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Nevermind you are employing circle logic and the arguement will continue perpetually.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Do you honestly believe most people are so stupid that they cannot see through this, or are you just posting sentences like that to appease the stupid?

“Stupid” would be to assume if you were to belittle people’s statements and bait folks into personal attacks that somehow the weakness of your arguments would not be obvious.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Obviously the founders were specific as to what "entities" they wanted to protect as they afforded the "press" equal mention...I did not see "corporations" or "enterprises of business" specified in the passage we both love.

The Press at that time was an "enterprise of business" and Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac is just one example of that. Sigh

Certainly the Press was an enterprise of business…strange then that the 1st Amendment chose to specify “the press” rather than the exponentially broader term of “Business”? or “Corporation”?

…It would seem obvious to anyone other than someone blindly committed to their view that “Press” was not offered simply as the best example of “Corporations”? Is that the argument you wish to make?

The logical fallacy you are employing is glaringly obvious.

The first amendment specified protecting “the press”, not “Corporate Entities” and for good reason.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The people were neither liable nor sued. The entity Citizens United did. Do you know the hearts and motivations of those attornies representing Citizens United? All of that companies members? The employees that made the film? Compensation played no role for these "people"? They were employees of an entity first and foremost.

Every single official of the FEC, their attorneys, and the four Supreme Court Justices that dissented were compensated. Or, do you imagine they all volunteered their time?

Yes and they represent the government as an entity, not themselves as individuals.

Your claim was that because there were flesh and blood people employed by a corporation in the manufacture of the product, that somehow that product took on the magical form of individual “speech” despite being produced by employees for a corporate entity.

Try this...could one of those employees of the corporation "Citizens United" have suggested a more favorable showing of then candidate Hillary Clinton? And sued the corporation when that view was not permitted?

They did not create that movie as individuals, they created the movie as compensated employees of a corporate entity. I find myself arguing the obvious here and in most of this discussion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

So your right to free speech free of prosecution is dependent on honesty? or outcome?

Ex ante, or ex post? It is a matter of ex ante, not ex post. If you attempt to warn others of a fire in a crowded theater, and this warning results in a panic, I have no doubt there would be overzealous prosecutors who would love to prosecute this action, but they would be hard pressed to show mens rea.

Merda taurorum animas conturbit?

Perhaps no one will notice you spouted the language of what you earlier derided as "priest class lawyer sect of mystical incantations " while at the same time failing to actually answer my question .

Let's assume "criminal mind"

Someone knowingly and falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? May they be prosecuted for reckless endangerment?

A military official sharing classified information with an enemy state?
May they be prosecuted for espionage or treason?

Are there limitations on free speech?