We (OWS) Get To Stay!

Then by all means: arrest and put on trial the politicians who committed the theft. *shrug* Even go after any group that received the stolen goods... but going after anyone who has money simply because they might be able to buy stolen goods is silly.

 

If "reasonable reform" included banning books (as the solicitor general admitted during Citizens United), then I guess you're for it and I'm against it.

Just so we're clear.

 

In some places that is not an option. Example big city where there are less yards than people. Another is the majority of america where people cannot afford to have someone else do their yard work for them and do it themselves to save on money or the house is abandoned or taken by the bank.

I am not sure who you are refering too, but if anyone is doing that I would agree with you. I would disagree that they should never complain since not every employer is decent to their employees. An employer cannot make a profit without decent employees either. The employer should be grateful for hard working employees, also.

An employee is only an employee as long has they produce more for the company than they recieve from the company.

 

Just so we're clear I am not for banning books either... I am for banning private monies from public officials, public officials campaigns, and political parties, it's bribery, not "speech". Surely you realize the difference between directly financing a candidate/party and publishing a book? I guess not?

That said someone wants to make a movie sure, write a book okay. I would like commercials for candidate or party to be publicly funded, or pro bono for broadcast stations as a part of maintaining their FCC license. I am new forming this thought, but the thrust is the conflict of interests that private money puts public officials in, and how it's messed up our fine nation.

 

No, it's not necessarily bribery, otherwise it would be illegal...

 

Wasn't being literal re: LEGAL definition of bribery, but without lots of technical logic twisting, and intellectual dishonesty that's pretty much what it is.

 

*shrug* Maybe in an ideal world... honestly, you can't think of any co-workers or employees who are the exception to your statement? I've met a few in my time.

You're making excuses. You understand the principle: look around at something that needs doing, offer to do it. If you genuinely and literally cannot do anything that any neighbor of yours might value... well. At that point, you really have no reason to feel entitled to a job.

No doubt, and I think most employers (who tend to be employees themselves) are grateful when they find an employee who meets their needs.

The difference though is how the employer and the employee handle the situation where either becomes dissatisfied with what is supposed to be a mutually beneficial relationship. The former seems much more adult about the situation and is more prone to let the relationship end and find a new partner who is a better match. The latter tends to complain, cling, and insist that the other value things he doesn't and provide things he's not wiling to. Ever dated anyone like that? It sucks.

 

There is always an exception. I was not arguing an absolute. I was discusing something of high probability.

I am not making excuses. I simply cannot afford to hire someone to pull my weeds and nor can any of my neighbors. Times are tuff. The essential items we all need keep going up in price and so is our taxes. I am not sure how my tax is going up when every tax hike gets voted down but the government seems to find a way.

Many employers have witnessed my hard work and rewarded me for it. I like working for a small business owner becuase I find that I get treated as I deserve.

Big corporations are much different. They pay me the same as everyone else and treat me the same regardless of how hard I work. If I have an issue I cannot discuss it personally with my employer, I have to go to my boss who cannot help me because his or her hands are tied by the somone way up in the ladder who they cannot talk too either.[/quote]

I agree it is more common now a days. I hope to teach my kids differntly and give them a hard work ethic and a lot of skills to make it through life. I understand your concerns and agree with many of them but I am not sure what this has to do with the OWS.

 

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what the Citizens United case was about. I guess you got the dumbed down Think Progress version.

It was over a movie that the makers wanted to show on Direct TV but were not allowed to. That's clearly a First Amendment issue.

Not that it matters since you've already said you are on the side of the banners. I just like knowing where you are coming from.

 

Where have I done that? I simply called for an amendment making elections publicly funded, I fail to see how that is "going after anyone who has money." It is actually a way of addressing the problems in this country, some caused largely by people with money, without "going after" those people!!

 

AHEM!!! I am not talking about the Citizens United case, I am talking about the notion that PRIVATE MONEY needs to be out of PUBLIC SERVICE, and the election of PUBLIC SERVANTS all together... open your mind sir and stop trying to focus on merely one judicial error and expand your process.

I actually disagree with Citizens United case this way... people should be able to make any movies they want, and distribute them in most traditional manners.

 

He has no argument, so red herrings are all he is left with!!

 

Better check the NY weather forecast. Maybe GOD wants you gone.

 

You'll forgive me if I didn't get that impression from your previous posts. When I wrote this:

You replied with this:

So I guess I'm not really sure where you are coming from if you are walking away from your previous pro banning position.

Look I'm all for cleaning up special interests and corruption, but not at the cost of the Constitution. Trampling on that is no go area for me.

 

I just don't see anywhere where I suggested banning movies... the entire time I've been talking about keeping corporate and private interests out of the direct financing of the political machine.

Making movies and writing books even of a political nature is not the direct financial support of candidates, campaigns, and/or parties. I guess you may have been confused by my countering the notion that money = speech? I just don't see it like that, you may have extended my thought to include the denouncement of the entire Citizens United ruling. Private money (corporate, or individual) making movies fine. Private money giving lots of money to politicians, campaigns, and/or parties not fine. Private money writing/distributing a book, fine. Private money generating commercials/multi media/mailers etc. directly supporting, or slamming a given candidate, not fine.

Money is not speech IMO, I would like it to be removed as much as possible from the election process, legislative process, political party process, a pipe dream to be sure, but if the idea doesn't get mentioned the chance is even less than if it does.