'Occupy' types

[Beemnseven]

Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

I'd vote for Peter Schiff if he ran for office. Never thought about student loans as he talked about them and it makes good sense.

[mlmpetert]

Harsh brah....

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd vote for Peter Schiff if he ran for office. Never thought about student loans as he talked about them and it makes good sense.

Yeah i never thought about student loans in that sense either, definitely makes a good point.

[Lotus]

Several pleas were made above not to stereotype occupy people as a monolith. Yet the stereotypes continue. Sigh.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Several pleas were made above not to stereotype occupy people as a monolith. Yet the stereotypes continue. Sigh.

To be clear about my post on the business potentially being shut down...

I'm referring to the folks occupying parks & living in tents (most often against normal City ordinances) for several weeks, generating trash, violating other City codes that would get normal folks arrested or fined, attending improptu concerts, committing assaults or other crimes, using illegal drugs at these events, all the while being unemployed or a "student" of some sort living off Mommy & Daddy's credit cards. Essentially the "I'm cool counter-culture" crowd SS referenced in his posts.

I am NOT referring to folks who identify with the broad goals of the OWS movement, are working towards crafting concrete proposals to address the issues they want resolved, and are working toward their goals in the normal course of civil debate and lawful action.

[NC_Skins]

http://movetoamend.org/news/boulder-...ate-personhood

“Today’s ‘corporate personhood’ referendum in Boulder, Colorado is the latest message from the American people to state and federal legislators on the need for a Constitutional Amendment,” said Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD). “The Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens’ United ruling burst open the floodgates of corporate spending in our elections, but it also unleashed a wave of public outcry over the need to put individuals, not corporations, in control of our elections. The results from today are just one example that we must take action to protect our treasured democracy.”

Edwards introduced a bill last month for a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the controversial Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Boulder Votes for a Constitutional Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood | Move to Amend

An interesting article and movment. I am coming around to the concept of limitations on the concept of corporate "personhood" - although I think it is not as simple as this movment makes it out to be. The SCOTUS decision granting certain constitutional rights to corporations did not spring out of whole cloth in 2010. Corporate personhood has existed since the Romans and, in the US, the extension to these entities of certain constitutional rights has evolved over time to meet the changing needs of society and the economy. Further, the simple abolition of "personhood" - even for limited aspects - would have far reaching implications. With that said, I get saden1's earlier post about if money = speech, then my voice is barely an inaudible whisper compared to these large legal entities and something about that is just not right.

Here's an interesting article from individuals who are clearly no friend of large corps but who suggest that the abolition of "personhood" is not necessarily a good idea: Abolishing Corporate Personhood: Be Careful What You Ask For. | United States Proxy Exchange

A good read, highlighting some of the complexities of the issue.