Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
daredelvis said:
No, what you said is that, "one of the demands of OWS is repeal of the 1st Amendment".
Click to expand...
And I have proven that claim. Why did you bring up corporate personhood?

daredelvis said:
Having a problem with the Citizens United case is not a call to repeal the 1st Amendment, your claim notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Of course it is.

daredelvis said:
Is what the four dissenting justices called for?

Daredelvis
Click to expand...
Yes, which frankly scares the feces out of me. It should scare you too. Did you know the bill the CU ruling overturned assumed that Congress has the power to regulate the editorial content of newspapers? That's why they specifically exempted news media from the law.
 
daredelvis said:
Being against corporate personhood is not the same as wanting to "repeal the first amendment" (note, I am not endorsing the facebook page with a whole 24 members). Especially since four members of the Supreme Court disagree with the concept. Are you suggesting that those four members of the Court want to repeal the first amendment?

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Citizens United had absolutely nothing to do with "corporate personhood". This isn't even a matter of Wildcat not mentioning it, it's a matter of it not being relevant to the case at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
Citizens United had absolutely nothing to do with "corporate personhood". This isn't even a matter of Wildcat not mentioning it, it's a matter of it not being relevant to the case at all.
Click to expand...
OK, having a problem with the Citizens United ruling is not the same as wanting to "repeal the first amendment",
WildCat said:
Of course it is.
Click to expand...
even in the presence of WildCat's incredible rhetorical tools.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
OK, having a problem with the Citizens United ruling is not the same as wanting to "repeal the first amendment",
Click to expand...
Of course it is silly, if you are against the Citizens United ruling you want Congress to be able to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech. And not just any speech, but political speech.

It really is that simple.
 
WildCat said:
Of course it is silly, if you are against the Citizens United ruling you want Congress to be able to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech. And not just any speech, but political speech.

It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

It really is not. You first must agree that money equals speech, and then agree that any limit on money is a "call to repeal the 1st amendment".

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
It really is not. You first must agree that money equals speech, and then agree that any limit on money is a "call to repeal the 1st amendment".

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

When you cannot use your own money to say what you want to say, then yeah, that's rather obviously a restriction on free speech. And there is no way around that, or Citizens United, WITHOUT repealing the 1st amendment. That is, quite literally, the only possible way that politicians can overturn Citizens United.
 
daredelvis said:
It really is not. You first must agree that money equals speech, and then agree that any limit on money is a "call to repeal the 1st amendment".

Daredelvis
Click to expand...
Speech is speech, it doesn't matter if you shout it on a street corner or pay for a full-page ad in the New York Times.

You're really going to argue that Congress can't abridge the former but can abridge the latter? If your interpretatioon was correct there'd be no freedom of the press since presses cost money to obtain and use. But yet there it is in the Constitution, freedom of the press.

Your argument is ludicrous.
 
WildCat said:
Any rational person rejects Paul's loony ideas.

Now you want to elimnate fractiuonal reserve banking as well as the Fed? I hope you were a fan of BoA's $5 debit card fee, because ending fractional reserve banking means you will pay the bank to hold your money. And that fee will be much more than $5/month.
Click to expand...

We are talking about Ron Paul's views and whether he would give the banks an easy ride. Would the elimination of Fractional reserve banking be a friendly action to the banks?

Name the regulations Paul wants on banks.
Click to expand...

First demonstrate to me that Paul's stance on bank regulation is more significant than the fact that he would have let the TBTF banks fail in 2008 and wants to abolish FRB and the Fed, i.e. the current banking system. Are we talking about the real banking system that exists now, or an imaginary banking system that would exist after a Ron Paul presidency, because I thought we were talking about the former?

Do many other people believe in Ron Paul, banker's friend?
 
Democracy Simulator said:
We are talking about Ron Paul's views and whether he would give the banks an easy ride. Would the elimination of Fractional reserve banking be a friendly action to the banks?
Click to expand...

First demonstrate to me that Paul's stance on bank regulation is more significant than the fact that he would have let the TBTF banks fail in 2008 and wants to abolish FRB and the Fed, i.e. the current banking system. Are we talking about the real banking system that exists now, or an imaginary banking system that would exist after a Ron Paul presidency, because I thought we were talking about the former?

Do many other people believe in Ron Paul, banker's friend?[/quote]
You're right, Ron Paul wants to destroy all banks and in fact our entire financial and economic system. That's why we call them libertards. It's hard to argue policy with lunatics like Ron Paul.

Are you arguing OWS wants to eliminate fractional reserve banking?
 
Last edited:
Man, there's so much lunacy to Ron Paul I forgot about this one!
Ron Paul said:
Fractional reserve banking is a Ponzi scheme whereby banks create money out of thin air through fraudulent book keeping, loaning non-existent money out at interest. It is no different than counterfeiting. In collusion, factional reserve banks counterfeit up to 10 times the amount of money that they actually have deposited, and charge interest on it all. Since money represents labor, fractional reserve bankers are effectively robbing the value of everyone's labor through this fraudulent scam.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
Ziggurat said:
When you cannot use your own money to say what you want to say, then yeah, that's rather obviously a restriction on free speech. And there is no way around that, or Citizens United, WITHOUT repealing the 1st amendment. That is, quite literally, the only possible way that politicians can overturn Citizens United.
Click to expand...

Note that you said you, a corporation is not a you.
 
WildCat said:
"One protester, 32, who gave his name as Daryl W, called his mother. "We're about to be raided I just thought I'd let you know I love you bye," he said."

Did this doofus thinlk he was going to be taken to a FEMA concentration camp and killed or something?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of those calls Daryl's mom gets from him in a typical week. Sandwiched between the "Mom, send money, iluvu, bye..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom