OCCUPYWALLSTREET REINFORCEMENTS!

[Ugly Dougly]

i am all for free expression and non-violent protest, but it seems to me that the end game of the protests should be voter influence. we all agree that there are problems in Washington, but we don't all see things the same way. If the elections next year go against the OWS crowd, as i suspect they might, what then?

As i've said before, the problem IMHO is that the extremes have taken over the parties on both sides, and they can no longer find common ground. Maybe Chelsea and Jenna are good friends .... but their dads were both pro-business moderates. I've read over and over that Washington is not what it once was, that the sides no longer speak, and i believe it.

Cowboy may be happy blaming everyone but the people for problems, but i think we have more to do with our dysfunctional government that most will admit. corporations, banks, unions, religions, &c .... they are all organizations of people, and all deserve a say in the government. the trick is compromise. i know, i know, cowboy and JK have all the facts, and sola is fucking brilliant, and everyone who disagrees with *me* is an idiot, fine. but to me, THAT is the problem.

I think that all that anyone is asking for is a level playing field.

[Ugly Dougly]

Where did the money come from, that the top "1%" is raking in??

Worker productivity has doubled in the past 40 years.

Take home pay hasn't.

The computers and robots took it.

[Elderberry]

There you go again. Take away our constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, which by allowing money to flow to certain spheres of influence, is how those of us who aren't sitting on our fat asses like a bunch of Occutards, get our voices heard. What other laws do you want elimated? Say, it's now OK to discriminate because of sexual orientation? I thought not.

It's not one dollar one vote. Money has nothing to do with freedom of speech and removing it from the electoral process is not eliminating any of our rights nor is it discriminatory. There are several people on the Supreme Court that feel the same way. All we need is one more.

[theCryptofishist]

+1

[littleflower]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

[littleflower]

The trick is not compromise. What, compromise with criminals? Let's see you do that if someone you know or love is victimized by a crime like the kind the Catholic Church or Penn State are infamous for.

nobody is talking about compromising with criminals, dear. you can't blame "Wall Street" for the problems any more than you can blame "the catholic church" or "penn state" .... it's a very, very small percentage of assholes doing the damage. and you can find assholes anywhere.

[ygmir]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

see, that's a really good point.......I can see the MSM (left) and FN (right) both doing "news" stories, to promote their candidates............Somehow, it'd have to be controlled....and, that might be tough, "freedom of the press" and all...........

[Sola Gangsta]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

The trick is not compromise. What, compromise with criminals? Let's see you do that if someone you know or love is victimized by a crime like the kind the Catholic Church or Penn State are infamous for.

nobody is talking about compromising with criminals, dear. you can't blame "Wall Street" for the problems any more than you can blame "the catholic church" or "penn state" .... it's a very, very small percentage of assholes doing the damage. and you can find assholes anywhere.

This is where you are absolutely wrong.

You can, well maybe you won't, but the authorities can and have blamed the catholic church and will rightly pin the blame on penn state and have already prosecuted some on wall street and more will be prosecuted in time. By covering up the actions of that very, very small (dubious that it is that small, especially on wall street) percentage of assholes, they are (catholic church) and will (penn state) be found complicit in the crimes and their cover up. And wall street is as guilty as penn state and the catholic church, and the rest of them will be not (hopefully) be allowed to get away with their crimes. Thinking that those organizations are not to blame really explains the deficit in your thinking on issues being discussed in this thread.

[Sola Gangsta]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ?fb=native

[Sola Gangsta]

shiftshappen.jpg

[thisisthatwhichis]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

All good, but let the press freely dig up shit..... Many times its there. WTF are they thinking they can be supporting one candidate over another?..... kinda removes the separation and independence of the press.....



Getting the lobbyist and corporate money out of politics is mandatory, though...... None of us, unless we are "of the select few" who influence congress stands a chance otherwise.....

[littleflower]

The trick is not compromise. What, compromise with criminals? Let's see you do that if someone you know or love is victimized by a crime like the kind the Catholic Church or Penn State are infamous for.

nobody is talking about compromising with criminals, dear. you can't blame "Wall Street" for the problems any more than you can blame "the catholic church" or "penn state" .... it's a very, very small percentage of assholes doing the damage. and you can find assholes anywhere.

This is where you are absolutely wrong.

You can, well maybe you won't, but the authorities can and have blamed the catholic church and will rightly pin the blame on penn state and have already prosecuted some on wall street and more will be prosecuted in time. By covering up the actions of that very, very small (dubious that it is that small, especially on wall street) percentage of assholes, they are (catholic church) and will (penn state) be found complicit in the crimes and their cover up. And wall street is as guilty as penn state and the catholic church, and the rest of them will be not (hopefully) be allowed to get away with their crimes. Thinking that those organizations are not to blame really explains the deficit in your thinking on issues being discussed in this thread.

no, JK. a very few are guilty, and a few more guilty of cover up. Thousands, even millions, were completely unaware, and just going on with their lives. you would make them guilty, too? and punish them? or maybe you don't know who i am talking about ..... if you don't see them on the news, they don't exist...? that's how my puppy thinks, too.

[ygmir]

yeah, that press thing is a sticky wicket...........They report news......and, should be free to do so. But, I can still easily see them slanting and omitting things, to favor "their candidate".
And, if they're not narcissistic enough, it'd give them even more power!!
But, freedom of the press is crucial to our existence.
So, how do we let them report, and keep them factual?
I don't know it's possible.
yeah, the "fairness doctrine"......but it has so many loopholes in it.

So, imagine a third party candidate........very much "of the people"......but, the big MSM don't like that person.....they'll find a way to play them bad, and, slant reporting against............

It's icky to think, how, we can't trust our government, the media, or candidates.......

[thisisthatwhichis]

yeah, that press thing is a sticky wicket...........They report news......and, should be free to do so. But, I can still easily see them slanting and omitting things, to favor "their candidate".
And, if they're not narcissistic enough, it'd give them even more power!!
But, freedom of the press is crucial to our existence.
So, how do we let them report, and keep them factual?
I don't know it's possible.
yeah, the "fairness doctrine"......but it has so many loopholes in it.

So, imagine a third party candidate........very much "of the people"......but, the big MSM don't like that person.....they'll find a way to play them bad, and, slant reporting against............

It's icky to think, how, we can't trust our government, the media, or candidates.......

Yea, when they started endorsing candidates, it said a lot for "free press". And it's absolutely the "fourth leg of power" in our government..... As it should be, if taken as the honor and responsibilility empowered......

[ygmir]

yeah, that press thing is a sticky wicket...........They report news......and, should be free to do so. But, I can still easily see them slanting and omitting things, to favor "their candidate".
And, if they're not narcissistic enough, it'd give them even more power!!
But, freedom of the press is crucial to our existence.
So, how do we let them report, and keep them factual?
I don't know it's possible.
yeah, the "fairness doctrine"......but it has so many loopholes in it.

So, imagine a third party candidate........very much "of the people"......but, the big MSM don't like that person.....they'll find a way to play them bad, and, slant reporting against............

It's icky to think, how, we can't trust our government, the media, or candidates.......

Yea, when they started endorsing candidates, it said a lot for "free press". And it's absolutely the "fourth leg of power" in our government..... As it should be, if taken as the honor and responsibilility empowered......

totally agree.........and, if only honor and responsibility meant something to the press, consistently.
and, taking into account, the materials (politicians) they have to work with.....well.......

[Elderberry]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

see, that's a really good point.......I can see the MSM (left) and FN (right) both doing "news" stories, to promote their candidates............Somehow, it'd have to be controlled....and, that might be tough, "freedom of the press" and all...........

That would definitely be illegal (in my vision). They can did up as much dirt as they can find--that would be news. They can report as much as they want--that would be news--covering stump speeches, etc.--also news. But there would be no political advertising other than what might be in the publicly funded budget for each candidate, so the incentive for one news organization to become attached to any candidate would not be near as strong. There also wouldn't be as much dirt being dug up because most of that dirt is being dug by those political pacs that can operate without revealing their contributors and have absolutely no limits to the amount they can spend. That kind of money digs a lot of dirt. And (again in my vision) those organizations would be illegal.

[theCryptofishist]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

[thisisthatwhichis]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

Actually, I think it was always about selling news stories, which in a way is great, because we get really informed before the next "Chanceller" find it's way to power. When they start endorsing said "Chanceller", it hands over their "leg of power" in the democracy................

[theCryptofishist]

Newspapers have always been able endorse candidates in editorials. The problem is when there isn't rigorous separation between news and op/ed. And of course, it wasn't always rigorous in the past, but there wasn't such consolidation of news outlets, so there was a diversity of voices and information.

[Elderberry]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

Yes, but when campaigns no longer have unlimited amounts of money to spend on TV and other media advertising, the incentive for making money from political reporting wont be there.

[thisisthatwhichis]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

Yes, but when campaigns no longer have unlimited amounts of money to spend on TV and other media advertising, the incentive for making money from political reporting wont be there.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!..... Follow the money!!!!!!

[theCryptofishist]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

Yes, but when campaigns no longer have unlimited amounts of money to spend on TV and other media advertising, the incentive for making money from political reporting wont be there.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!..... Follow the money!!!!!!

Oh absolutely. It's still problematic when Rupert Murdock (who is the only media baron who's name I know currently) decides what candidate he wants to win and makes the news push him, but that's back to the separation of editorial and news.

[ygmir]

At one point the point of news organizations was to report. Now it's to make money.

Okay that's broad, but when corporations began to buy radio and television stations and newspapers and look at them with an eye to maximizing the investment...
And the internet was a swerve.

Yes, but when campaigns no longer have unlimited amounts of money to spend on TV and other media advertising, the incentive for making money from political reporting wont be there.

yeah, because of course, there would be no "behind the scenes" payola, by "unknown supporters" of candidate "F", to any news organization, to play more dirt, OP ED more, or, hide certain news on page 8.

And PAC's could easily still do things.........investigate, whatever, and release the info." Anonymously", if necessary..........
To be naive enough, to think the "big money" behind candidates, won't find a way, or bribe a way, for advantage is unfortunate.

The cynic in me says, big money is big power......big power, finds a way.

[Sola Gangsta]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

see, that's a really good point.......I can see the MSM (left) and FN (right) both doing "news" stories, to promote their candidates............Somehow, it'd have to be controlled....and, that might be tough, "freedom of the press" and all...........

If you equate MSM, meaning Main Stream Media, with the left you have bought into one of the best propaganda campaigns ever perpetrated by the right in all of recorded history.

[ygmir]

i agree with you too, for once, JK. i'd love to see money taken out of politics, it's ridiculous how much is spent on elections. but i'd also include the press and all of their editorializing as well. leave it up to speeches, debates, and candidate statements printed in the press. and no more digging up of idiotic dirt. we've made it so some excellent candidates won't run because they don't want some stupid old crap dug up.

see, that's a really good point.......I can see the MSM (left) and FN (right) both doing "news" stories, to promote their candidates............Somehow, it'd have to be controlled....and, that might be tough, "freedom of the press" and all...........

If you equate MSM, meaning Main Stream Media, with the left you have bought into one of the best propaganda campaigns ever perpetrated by the right in all of recorded history.

how, do you say that, and then turn around and say what you do about FOX?
I see them as two ends of the spectrum......NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, to me, all lean left.

[Sola Gangsta]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 02310.html

[Elderberry]

how, do you say that, and then turn around and say what you do about FOX?
I see them as two ends of the spectrum......NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, to me, all lean left.

See what I mean? Those stations, for the most part are "center" and pretty fair and balanced. (pun intended, but still true.) Now if you said MSNBC--well, I 'might' not argue with you, other than extremes.

[thisisthatwhichis]

The cynic in me says, big money is big power......big power, finds a way

OH Hail The WISE NORDIC MAN!!!!