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

reply to post by Americanist

Your challenges are in essence patting yourself on the back for no good reason... You can read alright, but where you get your common sense is anyone's guess.

The so called "common sense" you refer to is certainly common but hardly sensible. Common sense, and certainly the kind Thomas Paine advocated is not at all common these days.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Americanist

 

Congratulations that made absolutely no sense and pertains in absolutely no way to Masonry. Nice try though!

Position, rank, status, etc., etc. What foot you began the journey on had it not been your left...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Your challenges are in essence patting yourself on the back for no good reason... You can read alright, but where you get your common sense is anyone's guess.

The so called "common sense" you refer to is certainly common but hardly sensible. Common sense, and certainly the kind Thomas Paine advocated is not at all common these days.

Perhaps you picked up on Paine in my profile...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

It is always good to have a conversation with you, my friend.

In terms of the "complete rejection" of the very closed and ridiculously regulated market we have today, I would have been much more impressed if a whole bunch of people took their business licenses and burned them and under the law of estoppel, revoked any and all signatures on government contracts where they were fraudulently led to believe that they had some sort of legal obligation to ask the state permission to exist.

Their rejection had more to do with the corruption that comes from the collusion of the economic force and government force of a nation, rather than preaching for a free market. I just argue on the side of a paradigm that comes after that tidbit for a free market rather than government bureaucracy regulating things. Also when a movement is infiltrated and taken over you can expect nonsense to fume out of it.

Not corporations, mind you, they should be regulated, their very nature demands it, but private sole proprietorships or partnerships where no charter for existence actually exists outside of the dubious licensing schemes they went into agreement with.

Do you believe a corporation should hold the legal status of being comparative to a living, breathing individual human being though?

That would be an impressive start and much closer to the Boston Tea Party these pretentious defenders of "OWS" keep comparing themselves to.

Even if Anonymous was still relevant in OWS planning outside of idiots wearing Guy Fawkes masks something that intricate wouldn't have occurred most likely, unfortunately.

reply to post by Americanist

Perhaps you picked up on Paine in my profile...

Talk about patting oneself on the back! I have never paid any attention to your profile, just the content of your posts. I certainly hope you are not attempting to present yourself as a Thomas Paine "common sense" advocate. You are no where near that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Perhaps you picked up on Paine in my profile...

Talk about patting oneself on the back! I have never paid any attention to your profile, just the content of your posts. I certainly hope you are not attempting to present yourself as a Thomas Paine "common sense" advocate. You are no where near that.

Here you are jumping the gun to attack... While reading left to right you'll notice the word "perhaps." Thomas Paine is my namesake along with being quoted in my profile for everyone to view.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

Wait, what?I must be misunderstanding you. Where does that declaration advocate lobbying? All I saw was one demand that lobbying be outlawed.

You definitely misread that. I said that the "declaration" claimed to be advocates of democracy, but lobbying is a democratic principle.

Personally I think lobbying should be outlawed. It gives corporations too much power... It is political bribery... " We are prepared to give you a generous campaign contribution... Just as long as you vote this way on such and such bill"

Again, corporations are chartered entities whose existence is by permission. Banning lobbying is akin to cutting of noses to spite faces. If you want to reign in corporatism do it effectively and avoid looking for solutions that require everyone suffer for that solution. Such a strategy is not the best solution.

It distracts politicians from the needs and wants of the people. That is why I would like to see it outlawed

Here is the problem. A just government is formed to protect the rights of individuals. Anything outside of that is not a just government. Governments are not parents and We the People are foolish to look to government to handling our needs and wants.

In terms of limiting Representatives, this is not at all unconstitutional, and certainly not unlawful. I hold the same opinion as you do regarding politicians, which begs the question, are we in the few, and most adore them and this is why they keep reelecting them?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I give you a star because I should have known better to leave it so open as "how would it be accomplished"...

I know very well how legislation comes about; and I gather you had a good idea that I did too.

reply to post by SpectreDC

Do you believe a corporation should hold the legal status of being comparative to a living, breathing individual human being though?

No, I absolutely do not! The problem is that Congress had defined them as such, not once, but twice! This needs to be repealed as soon as possible, but how do we do this when the vast majority of people are so willing to believe it was the SCOTUS who did this, and will stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs, "la la la I can't hear you la la la"?

Referring to the monopolizing economic power of banks a certain someone said ""the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."

And

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

I could go on and on about the warnings our founders had about the threat of an "aristocracy of corporations". I am certain they rolled over in their graves after the decision of Citizen's United.

Please tell me you realize the double speak of a supreme court decision, entitled Citizen's United, that took the power that should be in the hands of the average American citizen and handed it, by law, to the "aristocracy of corporations".

Citizens United allowed the rich, from all over the world mind you, to devote any amount of their fortune to influencing elections and getting their man in office while running roughshod over the democratic experiment that is America.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I for one would never take governing advice from a group of people that have not showered in over a month. There is obvious corruption in our government, and they point that out.. but their grungy disgusting presentation of themselves destroys their credibility in the eyes of normal hard working people.

Oh yeah, and advice from a damn elitist mason, now that's much better.
So much for credibility

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm curious, and I'm sorry if this is off topic, but do you support the private funding of elections? And if so, how is it justified? Do you think that it's appropriate for our elected representatives to receive campaigns funds from the very people they were elected to regulate/govern?

At the very least, do you think this is a conflict of interest?

Please don't confuse this with lobbying which I believe is necessary for a democracy. however, I do think the exchange of money, goods, and gifts from lobbyist to representatives should be capped at something like $5000 per year.

From the sounds of things there have been lots of "declarations" with some pretty outrageous demands, but I don't think an official declaration representing the movement being released yet.

in reply to OP, 99% of people who don't own more than a trillion dollars to their name =/

some people have no respect at all.

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.

Thank you.
The second some "movement" claims me without my consent, I immediately want nothing to do with them. I find it especially ridiculous when they claim me while making demands and saying things that are illogical and ignorant. I am most certainly not a part of any "99%" who wants socialistic reform. I am pretty certain that a majority of the claimed "99%" don't want that either.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
From the sounds of things there have been lots of "declarations" with some pretty outrageous demands, but I don't think an official declaration representing the movement being released yet.

When there only needs to be one...

reply to post by megabytz

I could go on and on about the warnings our founders had about the threat of an "aristocracy of corporations". I am certain they rolled over in their graves after the decision of Citizen's United.

Please tell me you realize the double speak of a supreme court decision, entitled Citizen's United, that took the power that should be in the hands of the average American citizen and handed it, by law, to the "aristocracy of corporations".

You are certain the Founders would be rolling in their graves because the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment? Really? Just where does this certainty come from, the Alien and Sedition Acts? A strong supporter of those Alien and Sedition Acts, are you? Wish more people were thrown in prison for speaking their mind, do you?

Please tell me, that when I inform you on a few facts regarding Citizen's United, you will realize that you have allowed your blind rage to unbalance you.


Citizens United is a non-profit organization. Of course, it is:

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit organization in the United States. Its president and chairman is David Bossie.

It is a conservative non-profit! Would you ascribe to non-profit organizations such as Moveon.org, or PETA, the moniker of "aristocracy of corporations"?

Personally, I would ascribe that moniker to ever single one, including organizations such as The Heart and Lung Association, the March of Dimes, The Salvation Army, Red Cross, YMCA, Goodwill Industries, Boys and Girls Club, Habitat for Humanity International, American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, virtually every church in America, every metropolis in every state, every state, and finally the biggest corporation of all; The United States of America, but I suspect this is not what you are referring to when you say "aristocracy of corporations".

More importantly than this, and I cannot stress this enough, The First Amendment expressly forbids Congress from abridging speech, and with the BPFRA, Congress did precisely this. However, instead of recognizing this as a win for Constitutionalism and freedom, you want to be furious because your knee jerked in reaction.

reply to post by brianmg5

I'm curious, and I'm sorry if this is off topic, but do you support the private funding of elections? And if so, how is it justified? Do you think that it's appropriate for our elected representatives to receive campaigns funds from the very people they were elected to regulate/govern?

I am not clear why - and I am assuming you are in support of the public finance of campaign funds - you believe one to be different from the other. If politicians had their campaigns financed by public funds they would still be receiving funds from the very people they were elected to "regulate/govern".

Of course, the foundation of your question seems to be rooted in the belief that the United States is a democracy. I assume this because of your own language, where apparently you believe that we elect politicians to "regulate" us. Unless, what you think - and many do think this way - that we elect politicians to not to "regulate" us, but "them". At some point, in this absurd regulatory game, many wind up discovering that "us" is "them".

Here is the deal; when we view our system of Constitutional government as being merely a democracy, we are on the downward spiral of an out of control government that believes simply because they were elected to office that they now have the authority to deem what is appropriate and not, and will often rely upon "the will of the voter" to justify their tyranny, and in some regards, they are not wrong. It is the tyranny of the democracy that is every bit as evil as the tyranny of the well oiled few.

Mob mentality has its own psychosis, and let a mob run loose and before you know it they are hanging monkeys!

The republic established by our Constitution, and ever state constitution, was established to protect that single greatest minority that ever existed: The Individual. Regardless of the "will of the voter" if that will is demanding unlawful legislation, then there are those, usually not those elected to office, that are tasked with addressing these unlawful acts. One of these methods is by judicial review.

My biggest frustration with the "OWS" movement and all its varied supporters is that while their anger at corporatism is justified, they are acting as useful idiots for the very people they so revile. The Supreme Court stands in defense of freedom of speech, and because it is a conservative non-profit organization that was the plaintiff in the case, a wildly deceptive left wing media cries that the Supreme Court just "made corporations a person"!

The deception is willful, and very obviously so, because many of these left wing media outlets, before Citizens United, were all ready claiming that the Supreme Court had made corporations a "person", and erroneously pointing to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In this ruling, there was no holding that corporations were a "person" and what was said was merely dicta. Dicta is when a judge will make the distinction that what he is about to say is not what is being held, but merely conjecture on his/her part.

Here is the problem - and no matter how many times I write this, it never fails I have to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it again - it was Congress who defined corporations as a "person", not once (the Uniform Commercial Code), but twice (the United States Code)!

The problem lies in that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about defining corporations as a "person", so we cannot rely upon the SCOTUS to strike these definitions down. Of course, that is my take on it, and perhaps there is some sound legal argument to prove me wrong, and you have no idea how wrong I would love to be on this, but until someone can offer up this sound legal reasoning showing how Congress acted unconstitutionally by defining a corporation as a "person", then I am compelled to believe that the act itself is not unconstitutional.

This doesn't mean that you, I, and every member in this site, as well as all these so called "99%'ers" cannot lobby Congress to repeal this definition, but that just ain't gonna happen as long as this "99%" is so insistent upon being useful idiots. Can you not understand how that "1%" must relish the idea that the vast majority of the people believe that it was SCOTUS that declared corporations a "person"? It's as if someone, through the same tricks of misdirection that any magician would use, pulled a legal rabbit out their magic hat, and the People collectively went: "Oooooh! How did you do that?"

Instead of worrying so much about how much money other people are spending to elect politicians, I would suggest you worry more about your rights and you can protect them from the always inherent rotteness that enters into people when they "cast a longing eye on office".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


First off, why would you wait for someone else to post a challenge when you're more than capable? Secondly, why go paragraph after paragraph displaying disdain for your fellow countrymen? Their act is part solution while you spout names and rant from the couch. Are you too old and decrepit? I'm going to borrow a line now:

"If you need someone to blame, throw a rock in the air you'll hit someone guilty."

Stating obvious facts is the majority of our problem with communication.

Congress gave free reign and the SCOTUS recorded open season.

This Country is incorporated... That continues to be the issue.

Nature's Laws and Principles will need to be instituted...

Along with common sense and service to society.

reply to post by Americanist


Your individual posts in this site have done far more damage to this so called "OWS" movement than any complaints from millions of people regarding them could do. You are quite clearly enamored with George Bush's assertion that "if you are not with us, then you're against us" mentality, and you have not offered up any solutions what-so-ever, and certainly not any answers, just criticisms of those who have criticism for a movement you feel so connected to.

You entered this thread, and quite ironically so, complaining that I have gone from one OWS thread to the next criticizing the movement, willfully ignoring that I have entered threads attacking any attempts by police to abrogate and derogate the rights of these protestors. You have ignored this, because that FACT doesn't serve your agenda.

You could care less about individual rights, this is not your agenda. Whatever it is, it ain't about freedom, sport.