[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by !Marc! So does anyone want to make their case for continuing with the system and leadership status quo we have now?

That is silly. Everyone on the political spectrum wants some sort of change. But to advocate "Chinese" democracy is totally laughable. I am willing to accept that china may be better off today than under Mao but to advocate such an authoritarian system in a first world country is a major step back.

In America we are nowhere near anyone with rational thought claiming that the ends justify the means.

We spent about ten years living on credit cards and home equity and now it's going to take that long to get back.

[!Marc!]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA That is silly. Everyone on the political spectrum wants some sort of change. But to advocate "Chinese" democracy is totally laughable. I am willing to accept that china may be better off today than under Mao but to advocate such an authoritarian system in a first world country is a major step back. In America we are nowhere near anyone with rational thought claiming that the ends justify the means. We spent about ten years living on credit cards and home equity and now it's going to take that long to get back.

Is there any point in enacting any change if all were left with is puppet leaders at the mercy of the banks with little interest in anything but getting themselves re-elected?

I mentioned the chinese as an example of a form of government who are educated to the highest level and operate on the premise that they are doing what is good for their country over a long time period, and do not have to worry about the pressures of reelection.

And they certainly are executing brilliantly regardless of whether we like their system or not.

It would be better to have a discussion based of facts and reality, rather than the typical knee jerk reaction of some as soon as they hear some trigger keywords.

[FFL]

I've been looking forward to The Daily Show getting back from reruns tonight just to see what Stewart would say about OWS. He delivered as usual (with both praise and criticism) in the second segment.

[drewprops]

I just signed up for standard Hulu to watch it, and I hate signing up for stuff.

[Moogs]

Back on track: have you guys been following any of the occupy[insertcityname] accounts on Twitter this week? Seems many of them are still going strong so I give them credit. Seems like there are still a lot of people on the street. And starting to get abused by cops in different places, and treated well in others. Will be interesting to see what happens when it gets cold.

In other news I have concluded there pretty much IS a media blackout, which they can plausibly deny by doing random 2 minutes of mention / commentary throughout the day without actually covering the real story. I have seen not one day's worth of coverage that even remotely approximates the kind of coverage we gave the Arab Spring movements early on. The corporate boardroom influence over television news is on display for all to see. It is in their interest that these stories not be covered substantively, if at all... and no coverage is exactly what we're getting.

One of the idiot bimbos on CNN in the morning was actually smiling broadly and half joking around / laughing as she talked with "Part of the Problem" Rangel the other day about "hahaha, well gosh Congressman what to do about you 9% approval rating, and what about all these protestors?"

"[With a smirk] Well, they're mad as hell and I understand how they feel..."


Sure you understand. You, the guy who has been sucking on the corporate campaign tit and sucking lobbyists hard for 30+ years... yeah you're a real hero, Rangel. Get the fuck out and don't come back.


New OWS slogan: Fire Congress Today, Enact Term Limits Tomorrow.

[kscherer]

What is the purpose of government?

Answer that question correctly and you will have the solution. Answer it wrong and…well…you will not.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by Moogs New OWS American People slogan: Fire Congress Today, Enact Term Limits Tomorrow.

1) Super Committee to take baby steps on debt reduction fails miserably due to intransigence on both sides.
2) The automatic cuts for 2013 go into place. Much finger pointing and propoganda ensues. But hey we're finally saving funds!
3) Congress decides that they have until 2013 to try and overturn the cuts and go back to square one with a big FU to the American public.


Let's all get bumber stickers!

[Moogs]

The only thing that will save this country and regain confidence in our government is a constitutional convention. OWS needs to make this their goal. All change in Wall St. and everywhere else has to start with changes to the rules that govern Congress and Elections.

Amendment 1 - Overturn both SCOTUS rulings pertaining to elections (money is not speech, and corporations are not people with speech rights)

Amendment 2 - Term Limits, no special benefits or pensions. Regular healthcare plan, regular vacation benefits, etc.

Amendment 3 - Publicly financed elections (everyone can donate $1-5 on their W-2), equal distribution of monies among party finalists, equal air time mandated per month during 12 months leading up to election.

Amendment 4 - Transparency in lobbying Act. Lobbyists cannot meet in private with anyone in Congress. All meetings to be publicly visible, all agendas to be publicly posted. All meetings caught out of public eye (golf course, wherever) is an indictable felony for both rep/sen and lobbyist. You want to make your case that something your company needs is important... FINE. Make your case, but you're going to make it before the American people. No more slithering around behind closed doors, no more "strategic advisory" roles for those in Congress.

[Moogs]

The LHC Has been Occupied by a man from the future!

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/man-...ture-49305387/

[kieran]

The Occupy Philly movement was evicted last night from the plaza outside of City Hall where they were camping. Only about 50 people arrested and I haven't seen any reports of violence during the eviction.

I'm just glad it didn't blow up into something like what happened in Oakland.

My question to this is: How exactly do the Occupiers want this to end? What will be a reasonable outcome for them to stop "occupying?"

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Moogs The only thing that will save this country and regain confidence in our government is a constitutional convention. OWS needs to make this their goal. All change in Wall St. and everywhere else has to start with changes to the rules that govern Congress and Elections. Amendment 1 - Overturn both SCOTUS rulings pertaining to elections (money is not speech, and corporations are not people with speech rights) Amendment 2 - Term Limits, no special benefits or pensions. Regular healthcare plan, regular vacation benefits, etc. Amendment 3 - Publicly financed elections (everyone can donate $1-5 on their W-2), equal distribution of monies among party finalists, equal air time mandated per month during 12 months leading up to election. Amendment 4 - Transparency in lobbying Act. Lobbyists cannot meet in private with anyone in Congress. All meetings to be publicly visible, all agendas to be publicly posted. All meetings caught out of public eye (golf course, wherever) is an indictable felony for both rep/sen and lobbyist. You want to make your case that something your company needs is important... FINE. Make your case, but you're going to make it before the American people. No more slithering around behind closed doors, no more "strategic advisory" roles for those in Congress.

+Eleventybillionteen.

The sad thing is, that I honestly think that if you put these conditions to 'the people' (all of them), I'm sure an overwhelming majority would say Yeah Baby! I'd even guess that we would be in the solid 80-90% - until the lobbyists and politicians spout enough lies to confuse the issues or scare-monger people into abandoning common sense. Alas, people don't really get to make the rules anyhow. And good luck ever getting a politician to put forth such sound ideas.

[kscherer]

Yep. No politician is going to get behind any of that. Moogs, although spot on, is asking the fox to guard the henhouse. No politician is going to line up behind this idea, nor is any lobbyist. Ain't gonna happen. Well, not until Americans hold their representatives responsible, which is why I think OWS is barking up the wrong tree. If they really want to get their point across, they would put every last stitch of effort into unseating ALL sitting politicians and campaign to elect a group that would have the courage to pass such an Amendment, regardless of that individuals party affiliation. And, yes, it will require a nation-wide and state-wide effort, as 2/3 of the states (both houses—Senate and House) must agree to even consider an Amendment, and then 3/4 of the states are required to ratify one!

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." - Article V, US Constitution.

In other words, the Founders saw fit to make it very difficult to change our system of government—this in order that we would not go bouncing off the walls, and that individual liberties could not be so easily stripped. But, they also were smart enough to recognize that times change, and so they gave us the Amendment process.

By the way, Moogs, you can get all that nonsense done in One Amendment, with 4 sections. So it could be the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. And it will need to contain some legal-sounding speak so that, 200 years from now, no one on Earth will be able to agree upon its original intent.

[addison]

Originally Posted by kscherer n other words, the Founders saw fit to make it very difficult to change our system of government—this in order that we would not go bouncing off the walls, and that individual liberties could not be so easily stripped. But, they also were smart enough to recognize that times change, and so they gave us the Amendment process.

Yeah, they did make it hard to amend which is why when it became too restrictive politicians just started to ignore it and read whatever they wanted into it. Prohibition was accomplished through a constitutional amendment. Just a generation later it would have been done with an act of Congress which "discovered" a bunch of new powers previously unnoticed. Your new ones will meet the same fate. The US is a giant empire in its late stage which means it's at its most corrupt. It also has a $3.7T budget which means there is a lot of money up for grabs. No amendments or laws will stop that and some of those mentioned are downright silly anyways.

Your idea of voting out all incumbents reminds me of 1992 when Ross Perot mentioned it when he was running for President. The press went ape shit. Most likely because it would have meant a loss of Democratic control, which is all they knew, as well as the loss of the power elite/ruling class which they are members of. They were really afraid of the idea.

[billybobsky]

Ross Perot winning = loss of power from the elite?

Ha! HAHA!

The story is the same: If you run for president and get anywhere you are a member of the elite. And there is nothing wrong with these politicians being elite; I wouldn't want Joe Sixpacks running the country. It's that their ears are held by a different sort of monied interest when it should be held by the public.

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by kieran The Occupy Philly movement was evicted last night from the plaza outside of City Hall where they were camping. Only about 50 people arrested and I haven't seen any reports of violence during the eviction. I'm just glad it didn't blow up into something like what happened in Oakland. My question to this is: How exactly do the Occupiers want this to end? What will be a reasonable outcome for them to stop "occupying?"

Honestly, most of them wanted the press to start reporting on the discouraging shrinking middle class. Mission partially accomplished.

Some want nothing short of revolution. Mission fail.

[addison]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Ross Perot winning = loss of power from the elite? Ha! HAHA! The story is the same: If you run for president and get anywhere you are a member of the elite. And there is nothing wrong with these politicians being elite; I wouldn't want Joe Sixpacks running the country. It's that their ears are held by a different sort of monied interest when it should be held by the public.

I didn't mean Perot winning but the idea of voting out every incumbent out which would represent a loss for the permanent ruling class that has set themselves up in DC. Though I'm sure the new crop would have been bought off in due time.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by AWM Though I'm sure the new crop would have been bought off in due time.

Yep.

Which is why that Amendment Moogs talked about needs to have Section 5) It is illegal to accept a bribe. If you are caught doing so, we the people reserve the right to serve you your own roasted testicles while simultaneously banishing you from the country.

[drewprops]

By the way, where's left to "banish" people? I often wonder about this.


...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by kscherer Yep. Which is why that Amendment Moogs talked about needs to have Section 5) It is illegal to accept a bribe. If you are caught doing so, we the people reserve the right to serve you your own roasted testicles while simultaneously banishing you from the country.

I think that's already illegal, though I doubt that particular punishment is allowed.

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by drewprops By the way, where's left to "banish" people? I often wonder about this. ...

Space or the deep sea.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Space or the deep sea.

Space works.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by drewprops By the way, where's left to "banish" people? I often wonder about this. ...

East Chattanooga. You'd actually stand an honest shot in space or the sea.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Dave I think that's already illegal, though I doubt that particular punishment is allowed.

Actually, receiving a bribe is very much legal. It just isn't called a "bribe". It's called a "campaign donation". And since you can announce your campaign awfully early, you can begin taking bribes almost the moment you are elected and immediately announce your candidacy for the next cycle.

And as far as the legality of my proposed punishment: You are quite correct. Feeding a politician his own roasted nuts would be considered cruel and unusual punishment under our current Constitution. But note that what I propose is a Constitutional Amendment, or a changing of the Constitution () thus permitting:

Amendment 28, Section 5: Permitting a politician's constituents to castrate him/her, roast his/her goods before his/her eyes, and force-feed said goods to said politician. Upon completion of afore mentioned crunchiness, said guilty politician shall be shamelessly shackled to a Chinese container ship to set sale no more than one day after completion of said punishment. Said politician's life shall thereupon be placed into the hands of such good sailing as the captain of said Chinese container ship shall permit. Said politician shall thus remain forever banished from the United States of America and her territories (up to and including the 48 continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, The U.S. Virgin Islands, The U.S. Mariana Islands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Germany, all of Africa and Southeast Asia, France (well, maybe not France), Australia (including any Island within 24,000 miles of the mainland), South America, and all the nations of the world in which the United States bombs shit. Said politician will thus enter only China or Russia, and maybe Canada, but only if said politician refuses to identify him/her self as American.

—

Notice, also, that my addition to Moogs' Amendment allows this punishment only for politicians.

Because they're special!

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 East Chattanooga. You'd actually stand an honest shot in space or the sea.

You are one, cruel dude!

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by kscherer Yep. No politician is going to get behind any of that. Moogs, although spot on, is asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Well what I was suggesting is Occupy, if it had a bit more direction and leadership, and orders of magnitude more people on the street causing problems (think mammoth strikes in 8 or 10 major cities and several smaller ones, without unions being the sole reason or largest component)..... ideally, Occupy could have as its agenda that "super amendment". But you need a big show people power for the politicians to cave. Like 50K people marching on multiple state houses and 100s of thousands marching on Congress itself. The kind of numbers no police force could clear away. IMO, if we made the situation ugly enough, the politicians would cave to us and ignore the lobbyists / tell them to get on board so they didn't completely lose their power structure. Anything in the interest of self-preservation for these dirtbags.

Well, not until Americans hold their representatives responsible, which is why I think OWS is barking up the wrong tree.

Correct. The right tree is in Washington and always has been. Somehow people don't equate greed with Congress, which is baffling to me because Congress is the great enabler of companies being able to run the games they've been running the last 15-20 years. Everything starts with Congress, including problems on Wall St.

In other words, the Founders saw fit to make it very difficult to change our system of government—this in order that we would not go bouncing off the walls, and that individual liberties could not be so easily stripped. But, they also were smart enough to recognize that times change, and so they gave us the Amendment process.

They did make it difficult, and now is exactly the kind of situation that demands long-term change in how Congress itself is governed. No constitution can last forever in its original form. Eventually provisions of it become outdated or people find ways to weasel their way around it, at which point, new rules need to be written in. Rules with teeth.

By the way, Moogs, you can get all that nonsense done in One Amendment, with 4 sections. So it could be the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. And it will need to contain some legal-sounding speak so that, 200 years from now, no one on Earth will be able to agree upon its original intent.

All true. I enumerated them separately because they're somewhat separate issues but you could certain group them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by drewprops I've seen some frighteningly hysterical Monty Python-esque examples of groupthink at an Occupy Atlanta rally (LINK).

I'd heard of this video and seen parts of it, but I don't think I'd sat down and watched it all until now...

I was going to say that it'll be interesting to see if OWS could win any seats in the next election here in the USA, but based on that... It'll 3012 before they'll think about taking the temperature of discussing coming to a consensus about what kind of paper and ink to use to print out their flyers.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moogs All true. I enumerated them separately because they're somewhat separate issues but you could certain group them.

You had it right the first time. While it's true that you could group them into one amendment, lumping a bunch of unrelated stuff together into one bill is part of how we got in so much trouble.

(Much like deficit spending, the problem isn't that it can be done or that it has been done; the problem is that everyone in Washington seems to think it was intended to be an everyday occurrence.)

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Dave You had it right the first time. While it's true that you could group them into one amendment, lumping a bunch of unrelated stuff together into one bill is part of how we got in so much trouble. (Much like deficit spending, the problem isn't that it can be done or that it has been done; the problem is that everyone in Washington seems to think it was intended to be an everyday occurrence.)

This is true. Separating them might also give each individual component a chance to be ratified. If they're grouped together, you have to get 3/4 of the states to vote for all of them. Separated, you might be able to pass some of them, even if you couldn't get support for the full package.

[Moogs]

Yahhhh... that's the ticket.

That's why I listed them separately... so they can't all be dumped together / must be voted on separately. Don't know why I didn't think of that earlier.

...Probably because I was distracted by my wife. Perhaps you know her. Oh Morgan; the good people at Applenova would like to speak with you!

Warning: Mostly NSFW

[Moogs]

Back to serious mode.

The behavior shown below is a disgrace to our Constitution. I'm almost sick to my stomach after watching this.

Why don't we just call cops in big cities what they are: corporate security. These ignorant assholes are walking around the Jefferson Memorial, warning regular citizens that they're going to be arrested for congregating (in small numbers), refusing to enumerate the charge, and throwing people to the ground for ... slow dancing. "Protesting by Dancing" is not a crime you stupid-ass thugs. THINK, cops. THINK. You're like a bunch of God Damned automatons.

Who the FUCK do these people think they are; they're so fucking ignorant they either ignore or don't understand that they are defiling the very document they are sworn to uphold and the very people they are sworn to protect (so long as they're not breaking any non-imaginary laws, or infringing on other people's rights).

Sorry but these people were calm-spoken, non-beligerant, were not hassling tourists or others or impeding them from enjoying the monument. Their crime is, they had the balls to stand up to ignorant police officers. And for that they get this. I get that common sense in most scenarios would dictate not being a wise guy with a police officer, but this is America and people DO have the right to speak their minds (in a non-threatening way) to even police officers. They are not Gods. Enough with the phony 9/11 hero worship this country has been doing for the last 10 years. The cops did their jobs that day and some died tragically. That does not make all cops and first responders "heroes", America. They are just regular, flawed human beings like the rest of us.

This country needs to Wake The F Up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ltTmp8xto