Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[IDB87]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/us/california-occupy-los-angeles/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We need an official Occutard theme song. Choose from:

1) Turn Out The Lights, The Party's Over

2) Another One Bites The Dust

Let's think outside the box.

Why can't we use both?

 

[000063]

They are wastes of human DNA. In fact, killing an Anarchist isn't even murder because subhumans don't count.

So that's a "yes", then. Got it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like they're "occupying" Congressional offices: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/us/dc-capitol-protest/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

A couple of my favs:

"For far too long, Congress has been catering to the 1% instead of representing the 99%," the movement says on its website, 99indc.org. Protesters will push Congress to renew unemployment insurance and will focus on "other important budget and tax measures," the website says.

"Now more than ever, Congress needs to see us and hear us."

By "us" and "99%", they claim to speak for everyone but the very richest among us. Yet they come no where close to speaking for me. Still as arrogant as ever.

About a dozen people were conducting what they called a sit-in outside the office of House Speaker John Boehner. One of them, John Reat from Ohio -- the state Boehner represents -- told CNN, "I've been unemployed for 24 months, and that's why I'm here. "

Perhaps he saw a job listing on Mr Boehner's website?

"And we're not leaving until we talk to the speaker, or they close the building, whichever comes first."

I know where I'm putting my money!

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not looking forward to dealing with these protests for the rest of the week. Thinking of staying home.

 

[Piggy]

I hope they abandon their current course, which is gutting the 1st Amendment.

They're literally using the 1st Amendment to demand dismantling the 1st Amendment... if they actually create an official OWS advocacy group their right to free speech would be taken away by the very Constitutional amendment they demand.

Can you clarify that?

Language from OWSers and Constitution would make it clearer for me.

 

[WildCat]

Can you clarify that?

Language from OWSers and Constitution would make it clearer for me.

This has been cited by bookitty as a great success of OWS: http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

 

[Piggy]

This has been cited by bookitty as a great success of OWS: http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

And....

 

[WildCat]

And....

You don't see what a draconian measure that is? How on earth can you differentiate freedom of speech from freedom of the press? Does this bill mean anyone (even corporations) can print (on paper) anything they want, but cannot broadcast (TV, radio, web) anything they want? Is a blog press or speech?

Hugo Chavez would love this amendment!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hugo Chavez would love this amendment!

As would Mr. Adolf Hitler.

 

[Piggy]

You don't see what a draconian measure that is? How on earth can you differentiate freedom of speech from freedom of the press? Does this bill mean anyone (even corporations) can print (on paper) anything they want, but cannot broadcast (TV, radio, web) anything they want? Is a blog press or speech?

I don't see this issue the same way you do, but yeah, you're right.

If you say absolutely that BoR doesn't apply to corporations, except for freedom of the press which must naturally adhere to them, then even something like a quarterly report would have no freedom of speech protection.

If people work within corporations and sometimes must make statements on behalf of those corporations, then removing corporate speech from 1st Amendment protection has the necessary consequence of removing the right from natural persons.

I still don't see how you get to protection of cash contributions to political campaigns, but that's a different topic.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like the 'tards are fighting extra hard for working people today by providing them with an extra day of vacation! Unpaid, of course, but it's the thought that counts!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy-ports/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

Good job Occutards!!! Keep fighting for us!!!

 

[Checkmite]

Looks like the 'tards are fighting extra hard for working people today by providing them with an extra day of vacation! Unpaid, of course, but it's the thought that counts!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy-ports/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

Good job Occutards!!! Keep fighting for us!!!

I love how the union has publicly announced it really doesn't want them there, and OWS's response is basically "you're just saying that!"

 

[Ziggurat]

I still don't see how you get to protection of cash contributions to political campaigns, but that's a different topic.

Wildcat isn't talking about contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns, and the problems with the proposal he linked to aren't because of any limitations on such donations. So Wildcat didn't "get to" that topic at all. That's not what's at stake here. Even the proposal itself merely "affirms" that limitations on campaign donations are constitutional, but that's already the case, so its inclusion in the proposal serves as nothing but a distraction, to make a horrifically anti-freedom amendment seem more palatable.

 

[Piggy]

Wildcat isn't talking about contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns, and the problems with the proposal he linked to aren't because of any limitations on such donations. So Wildcat didn't "get to" that topic at all. That's not what's at stake here. Even the proposal itself merely "affirms" that limitations on campaign donations are constitutional, but that's already the case, so its inclusion in the proposal serves as nothing but a distraction, to make a horrifically anti-freedom amendment seem more palatable.

I'm not involved in the discussion about CU. That's a different matter.

 

[Alt+F4]

By "us" and "99%", they claim to speak for everyone but the very richest among us. Yet they come no where close to speaking for me. Still as arrogant as ever.

They don't speak for me either or anyone I know.

 

[AlBell]

They don't speak for me either or anyone I know.

ditto.