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

reply to post by hudsonhawk69

And I imagine that with your large mouth and sizeable ego that you need every one of your friends to "mind" you

Interesting that you placed quotation marks around the word mind, and not friends, as my true and genuine friends do not spend any time at all minding my manners, it is only those who present themselves as my friend, but like Brutus was a friend to Julius Caesar, or Iago was a friend to Othello. For those "friends" I have a prayer I use:

Dear Lord, please keep me strong and fill me with the courage I need to face my enemies, but please, oh please, dear Lord, protect me from my friends.

I'm willing to be wrong but screaming on the streets of Libya started a facinating chain of events... You would have seen it on the news if only you could have had your head removed from so far up your own rectum

Uh-huh. Are you under the impression I have not seen the news of an angry mob brutally killing Gaddafi? Just today the Huffington Post posted a video that allegedly shows Gaddafi being sodomized. Is this what you demand people be impressed with? Do you imagine that Libya will now become a bastion of freedom and respect for unalienable rights? Is this your reasoning?

Live and let die you say? fair comment I concede that I cannot argue with you there...

Uh-huh. I hope you understand that you said this, not I. Let's then make your remark more honest to better reveal who you are:

The stupid should die

These are your words, not mine. This is what you have posted, not me. This is you. This is what you believe, and yet, you seem to know it is inherently evil so you hope to put this meme out by pretending it is someone other than you who has said it. Even the stupid can see through this. Gee, what does that make you?

Yes... And when I no longer live in a classest society I will stop using the phrase. If you do not identify with the down trodden that good for you.

No you won't, because you choose to live in a "classest" society, and tragically you have chosen to take on the mantle of an "underclass".

Let's face it... You really are better than the rest of us.

Let's face it, your tragic envy of others will never make you happy.

OH... MY MISTAKE. Clearly we should continue to support a finanical system that almost brought about global economic colapse

This response is to my argument to end income taxation. Try reading what you quoted of me again.

And I agree. 'bail outs' are necessary but that in no way makes them fair.

Who the hell are you agreeing with? Certainly not me! I never said that bail outs were necessary. They were not, not for the poor, nor for the rich. Bail outs is just another word for plunder.

I do apologise but I don't recall a single instance when the wealthys money was redistributed 'down' to the poor. I do not wish to 'plunder' the wealth of corperate america but perhaps we could start with a little accountability?

If you were even remotely interested in corporations being held accountable, you would speak to my argument of charter revocation, instead of yammering on about how the rich are not taxed enough, and what is taxed not enough given to the poor

So in finishing. I don't know who you are but clearly you are filled with your own self importance. When you are finished plundering your bottom please feel free to rejoin us here for an intelligent conversation.

Whose importance are you filled with? It appears you are as filled with my importance as you claim I am. Ah well, strike another blow to public education and what it produces I suppose.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Because your fantasy is not reality.

Are you under the impression that there other fantasies that are reality? Do you understand the distinction?

Brother, after such a silly remark, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

When a wise man argues with a fool, it is hard to tell the difference between them.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


LOL... Thankyou... Really... I havent laughed this much in ages. You'll have to excuse me but I'm giong to pull out my finger nails with a pair of pliers, somehow it seems more useful than wasting my time arguing with you.

Don't worry when push comes to shove and OWS start a reveloution you are in no danger of being recognised as human and therefore in no immediate physical danger.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Because your fantasy is not reality.

Are you under the impression that there other fantasies that are reality? Do you understand the distinction?

Brother, after such a silly remark, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

When a wise man argues with a fool, it is hard to tell the difference between them.

A fantasy is something that is not real, such as the nonsense you espouse as truth. You are not able to have an intelligent discussion with me or even attempt to refute my facts, so you call me a fool, just like you call the occuppiers morons.

The only thing you are good at is insults and I suprised the moderators have so much tolerance, but then again most people laugh at your comments rather than take them seriously.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Generally, you're confused as you ramble on until your audience is worn out by reading consistent nonsense. Yes, it's still an assumption on my part, but certainly fits the bill in reference to this thread. I'll correct you one last time, so you'll have some direction in your next rounds of debate.

If you were even remotely interested in corporations being held accountable, you would speak to my argument of charter revocation, instead of yammering on about how the rich are not taxed enough, and what is taxed not enough given to the poor

Instead of revoking charters the best solution is to place corporations at the heart of our finance, defense, and insurance debacles into receivership. At such time these "market makers" fall into the hands of public choice. This also prevents the same scam artists from making lateral moves.

Wow the absolutely garbage anyone critical of OWS takes on here is pathetic with friends like those who needs "enemies".

Think Jean posts are some of the most intelligent posts I have ever read on here.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Generally, you're confused as you ramble on until your audience is worn out by reading consistent nonsense. Yes, it's still an assumption on my part, but certainly fits the bill in reference to this thread.

Thankyou... The voice of reason at last.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Are you one of the 99% or the 1%, and if you fall in the 1% everything you post about it will be disregarded if so.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Americanist

 

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

Along with common sense and service to society.

well enlighten us.

Which "Nature's Laws" NEED to be instituted?

Sure.

We should better organize equality for starters.

Now tell me,

How do we do THAT ?

Equality is defined as WHAT ?

and what would be the 2nd thing ?

How does Nature equalize anything ?

Survival of the fittest ?

edit on Oct-24-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

1. Do you consider yourself a thinker?
2. www.merriam-webster.com...
3. Enacting Truth
4. Have you heard of ELE?
5. Surpassed by technology at present

Don't know what ELE is.

Don't know which technologies are surpassed.

Enacting truth makes sense. But how?
Through "Legislation"?

Nature equalizing water by the way water seeks its' own level?

Is there a better way to get 50 people from point A to point B?

Do they walk.

Does one bus take them.

Or does two buses each take half of them?


Sorry for the sarcasm before, I had to find out if you are genuine.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The lack of a recognisable goal or target is what gives the movement strength at this stage.There are alot of morons about and we want them all to feel welcome and we want to utilize them.Goals would just exclude people and give the detractors something they could attack.I dont think your criticism is valid at all.It is just a regurgitated criticism being put out by the desperate,worried mainstream media.Morons can be used to our advantage and we have to appeal to them and we are.We can tell them that this thing isnt about saving whales after the revolution. They wont mind,whales will be better off after the revolution anyway just like everything else will be.Why dont you focus on what is right with the movement instead of what you think is wrong with it?

Originally posted by neo96


Think Jean posts are some of the most intelligent posts I have ever read on here.

edit on 25-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Yes, Jean Paul is brilliant and due more respect then he has received under this topic,

It would be nice if people would listen to the point he has made, they might learn something.

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Take note in one of those threads how the O.P. accuses me of being an "anarchist" and even believes that I am a part of this so called "movement" simply because I stood up for the rule of law and the right to peaceably assemble. I have been accused of being an "anarchist" a "fat cat Republican" a "corporatist" and all other sorts of name calling. If you genuinely believe I am anti-rights simply because I exercised my own right to speak freely, then pray tell what do you believe rights are?

There has been a reason that you and I always were well received by each other Jean Paul. This simple truth, in which you have exhibited that your stances are for rule of Law, Just Law and adherence to Constitutional Republican government are qualities that many today lack.

Here is a story from what many considered to be on of the many catalysts that eventually led to the American Revolution.

On March 5th, 1770 in Boston, MA; British troops "occupied" Boston to enforce the Townshed Acts. Tensions were high. The People were furious as taxes upon taxes were being piled upon them in form of punishment and disobedience to the Crown. The troops were charged with keeping the peace.

As we all know -- facts of that day are deeply biased; especially by Paul Revere's engraving. The point being, a staunch defender of Liberty and Freedom, of rule of Law; John Adams took the opportunity to defend the "His Majesty's Troops"

Here we have one of the most vocal persons calling for declaring independence from the Crown; defending in a court of Law, troops charged of murdering fellow citizens.

I find it no stretch that your stances here and elsewhere JPZ are that of someone who believes in the rule of Law and that regardless of a person's loyalties, their background, station in life; you will be right there defending them in their greatest time of need, when Rights and Law have been violated.

Originally posted by Americanist
Instead of revoking charters the best solution is to place corporations at the heart of our finance, defense, and insurance debacles into receivership. At such time these "market makers" fall into the hands of public choice. This also prevents the same scam artists from making lateral moves.

And by which possible Constitutionally enumerated powers would such actions take place? Is this what OWS is advocating?

Who would be the receiver? The Government? That would be called Fascism...true Fascism; not the silly thrown around kind that we see.

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer."
-- and --
"...fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners."

This is what you are advocating? We are half way there as it is, but you want to push us over the edge?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


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.

First of all...it was the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act which the court reviewed. BCFRA.

Strange you forgot that part...or was it a second glaring and relevant error, the first being the ommission of an actual OP, amidst a an OP declaring an entire movement "Morons"?

Secondly, while you seem to make the case that the supreme court simply ruled in the obvious way in overturning critical portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, it was a 5 to 4 ruling, with 4 Supreme Court Justices and a majority of Americans disagreeing with erroneous interpretation of "free speech".

A small excerpt of the 90 page dissenting opinion by the SCOTUS:

The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its "identity" as a corporation.

While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose.

The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.

Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process.

Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

The majority's approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907.

We have unanimously concluded that this "reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,"

The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990).

Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

Slice it any way you like it, but corporations are not people. They are legal entities bound to a profit motive which at times clonflicts with the general health, happiness and welfare of a nation. Thier shareholders and board members often include foriegn nationals. Their ownership is often multi-national. It is electioneering on a scale we have not seen before in the history of the United States. If corporations have "personhood" then we might as well bring the logic to it's natural conclusion and elect Walmart or BP Oil as Commander and Chief of the United States.

Originally posted by Indigo5
First of all...it was the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act which the court reviewed. BCFRA.

Strange you forgot that part...or was it a second glaring and relevant error, the first being the ommission of an actual OP, amidst a an OP declaring an entire movement "Morons"?

Secondly, while you seem to make the case that the supreme court simply ruled in the obvious way in overturning critical portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, it was a 5 to 4 ruling, with 4 Supreme Court Justices and a majority of Americans disagreeing with erroneous interpretation of "free speech".

While JPZ can defend himself, I too hold that the 5-4 decision was correct. The judicial review sought by Citizen United was not against the whole of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, but only specific sections. Those being Section 441b, 201 and 311.

In that case, the Supreme Court held 441b unconstitutional but found no unconstitutional acts in regards to 201 and 301. While the dissenting opinion holds much weight, some in the dissent argued that 201 and 311 held some aspects that needed further review also.

The majority's opinion on 441b was that Congress infringed upon the First Amendment by picking and choosing who gets to present political speech. Congress is expressly prohibited from doing so. Dissenting arguments are valid though as they point out many factors such as "original intent" and "founder's reasoning" in regards just who gets such "free speech" rights.

The problem with the dissenting opinions is, the Constitution expresses that the Right to Free Speech will not be infringed upon and Congress shall make no law. Regardless of who that Free Speech is deriving from. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to limit an entity, they would have expressly given that power to Congress to do so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

I have read the ruling more than once, perhaps you could help me out and cite the passage where the majority distinguished between a US Corporation and a Multi-National in the context of personhood and suggested they would rule otherwise?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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?

I suspect the obvious. A Corporation that is 55% owned by US investors is no more a "person" than a corporation that is 45% owned by US investors, only potentially more damaging.

The distinction is not in ownership, it is that they are NOT PEOPLE.

A corporation's principle duty is to profit it's investors.

Or as Justice Ginsburg stated

"A corporation, however, "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights,"

Or as Justice Kagan noted

"An individual can be the wealthiest person in the world but few of us - maybe some - but few of us are only our economic interests. We have beliefs, we have convictions; we have likes and dislikes. Corporations engage the political process in an entirely different way and this is what makes them so much more damaging."

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

The majority's opinion on 441b was that Congress infringed upon the First Amendment by picking and choosing who gets to present political speech. Congress is expressly prohibited from doing so. Dissenting arguments are valid though as they point out many factors such as "original intent" and "founder's reasoning" in regards just who gets such "free speech" rights.

The problem with the dissenting opinions is, the Constitution expresses that the Right to Free Speech will not be infringed upon and Congress shall make no law. Regardless of who that Free Speech is deriving from. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to limit an entity, they would have expressly given that power to Congress to do so.

I think our principle disagreement is in definitions. A corporation is not a "who" it is a "what".

A corporation is a legal construct for the purpose of economic gain. That is not a person.

A corporation is not obligated to it's shareholders happiness, health or general welfare, it is only obligated to deliver it's shareholders' economic profits.

"what" not "who".

Assigning "personhood" to an "entity" with an exclusive profit motive and the financial resources of thousands or millions of individual shareholders who have a diverse set of opinions and political views and even varied citizenship, only united in their interest in profit ...distills our nations political discourse down to pure financial interests.

It offends democracy at it's core.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I have read the ruling more than once, perhaps you could help me out and cite the passage where the majority distinguished between a US Corporation and a Multi-National in the context of personhood and suggested they would rule otherwise?

Again, I know JPZ will defend his comments but I will point out that if you read the ruling, you would understand the following:

In regards to Section 441b, the Court had conflicting precedence. In Buckley the Court upheld and recognized that corporations are extended First Amendment protections. The same court also upheld limitations of direct contribution by corporations to candidates. They did not though, uphold the expenditure limitations placed upon corporations.

In Bellotti the Court reaffirmed that there is no governmental interest in regards to the First Amendment to allow the ban of political speech because of someones association with a corporation or their corporate identity.

Precedence was bypassed in the Austin court when restrictions were placed.

Thus in Citizen United v. FEC, the court was presented with:

...conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifications support §441b’s restrictions.

In their Opinion, they state:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.

The reasoning is because that falls under Section 441e, not 441b; the section in question. They specifically point out,

Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders.

441e still stands as United States law. 441e deals with "contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”

So the question is to you, where in Citizen United v FEC did the Supreme Court strike down legislation and law in regards to foreign corporations or those corporations in which the majority of their shareholders are foreign and their contributions ban? I will answer it for you, they haven't.

Here is the code:

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or

That still stands and the Court stayed away from ruling on it because it was not in question. I am beginning to think you didn't read the Opinion but rather someone's interpretation and distortion of facts of what is in the Opinion.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Assigning "personhood" to an "entity" with an exclusive profit motive and the financial resources of thousands or millions of individual shareholders who have a diverse set of opinions and political views and even varied citizenship, only united in their interest in profit ...distills our nations political discourse down to pure financial interests.

I will agree that assigning "personhood" to corporations is a huge blight upon the Constitutional Republic, but assign the blame where it needs be, Congress. It is Congress who has defined "personhood" twice, not the Supreme Court nor the Citizen United case.