Hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Again - we agree - at least to a point. I don't think corporations, pac's, unions or anything (or anyone) else that can't walk into a voting booth and "pull a lever" should be able to give one dime to a politician - or run a political ad.

The problem is - its not just wall street. You going to be willing to bust the unions who put millions of dollars into the hands of politicians when the money came from members who may not support the person? You going to be willing to tell every PAC that exists that they have to shut down?

And lets not forget -taking the money out of wall street will impact us ALL in a very negative way - wny not just put a dividing wall between wall street, unions , PAC's etc? Because the POLITICIANS won't allow it.

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." - John Paul Stevens writing the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now, with the arrival of the OWS and Tea Party, you have the real differences. Socialism or a return to constitutional governance. Yes - that is a generalization on both - but its still fairly accurate.

The opposite of plutocracy is socialism now. Interesting. And completely inaccurate.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

"Always" Hah. And you "always" mischaracterize and strawman the other person's argument. But I stand by my opinion that anyone against getting Wall Street money out of Congress and bringing back real capitalism and ending corporate welfare is deserving of being called a much nastier name than "rube."

Ok maybe "always" is an exaggeration but in this thread alone you have called those who you disagree with you rubes, idiots, malicious, ludicrous, butthurt, yahoos and a joke.

Heck your first comment about that Coulter article I posted was "the mangled blood coughs of a rhetorical emphysemic on her last bits of lung". I had to press you for you to give a decent answer that wasn't filled with personal insult and invective.

Not to mention the fact that your side constantly refers to "the rich" like they were united in their beliefs and practices. That's not a mischaracterization of them? Saying "they" are all out to steal your money, that's not a strawman?

Whatever. You just keep alienating potential supporters. We'll see what nastier names you can call us when your movement fails.

[soopaman2]

I just wish for non partisan press. MSNBC is for Paul krugman far left Liberals/ Fox is for Karl Rove far right repubs. CNN is a dog with its tongue hanging out its mouth trying to keep up. (Forget Bloomberg news, Owned by the mayor of New York City, a wall Street Billionairre...Great mayor though)

All love to vilify them... As if they fear them...

It's why people put so much energy into discrediting them, and people put so much energy into defending them.

Love them or hate them, they are a force to be at least listened to and taken seriously, Rather than being made fun of.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - kind of makes sense, does it not?

A plutocracy is rule by the wealthy and powerful - in this case - big business.

Socialism is a lack of big business - where the State owns everything - and of course the "people" make up the State.

So yes - they are polar opposites as one is antithetical to the other.

Also, in case you didn't catch my earlier comment - I am in full agreement with the dissenters on Citizens United vs FEC. It was a horrible decision, and I don't mind calling out the "conservative" justices on it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

We'll see what nastier names you can call us when your movement fails.

I'll ask you why you hate democracy and capitalism so much and wish to see them fail.

Originally Posted by soopaman2

(Forget Bloomberg news, Owned by the mayor of New York City, a wall Street Billionairre...Great mayor though)

Actually they do a pretty good job balancing their op-eds on both sides.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

AVG - the thing is "they" do own it - and "they" isn't the democrats any more than its the republicans. BOTH sides have shafted us. This bailout crap started with Bush.

The two parties simply move at different speeds. Now, with the arrival of the OWS and Tea Party, you have the real differences. Socialism or a return to constitutional governance.

Yes - that is a generalization on both - but its still fairly accurate.

However, Biden admitted this is the Obama economy. At what point, after TARP, bailouts and stimulus packages does one realize it is a Obama economy? I fully understand both have put the thumb screws to us. I see it daily. OWS/Tea Party are very similar. Socialism does not look to fly presently. Constitutional governance looks to be the only viable means to stability?

[CaptainHaplo]

Well AVG - I think the constitution is a pretty nifty way to go. I man heck, it worked for a while, then the government decided to start ignoring it. Look where that got us.

If your lost in the woods because you left the trail, then you see the trail again - its probably a good idea to get back on it....

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'll ask you why you hate democracy and capitalism so much and wish to see them fail.

Demanding that someone else pay your bills is hardly democracy or capitalism.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Demanding that someone else pay your bills is hardly democracy or capitalism.

Agree!

Now tell that to Wall Street and GM. (they don't listen anyways)

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well AVG - I think the constitution is a pretty nifty way to go. I man heck, it worked for a while, then the government decided to start ignoring it. Look where that got us.

If your lost in the woods because you left the trail, then you see the trail again - its probably a good idea to get back on it....

You think it is a nifty way to go and so did those the had written it. I agree the Constitution has, for a lack of a better sentence, been used to wipe their butts. Throw in some amendments created by poor "interpretation" of what the originators intended and viola...mayhem. Who is it, Ron Paul, as the man with Constitutional knowledge like no other that are running?

I hope there was popcorn dropped when the trail disappeared under foot.

[AVGWarhawk]

Demanding that someone else pay your bills is hardly democracy or capitalism.

Is the correct name entitlements?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Heck your first comment about that Coulter article I posted was "the mangled blood coughs of a rhetorical emphysemic on her last bits of lung". I had to press you for you to give a decent answer that wasn't filled with personal insult and invective.

But personal insult and invective are Coulter's stock-in-trade. She brings out the worst in people, even good folks like Mookie.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well AVG - I think the constitution is a pretty nifty way to go. I man heck, it worked for a while, then the government decided to start ignoring it.

Which was about five minutes after the first Congress met.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Who is it, Ron Paul, as the man with Constitutional knowledge like no other that are running?

Actually - the man with the best Constitutional knowledge that is running is Newt Gingrich. Few people know it - but he has a PH.D in History. While his own education did not focus on US history, his long friendship and work with Dr. William Forstchen has furthered his understanding immensely. Newt is a history buff, he loves it, and I have had the pleasure of hearing him and Dr. Forstchen discuss early American history.

Now, just because he knows it, doesn't mean he is a constitutionalist. I make no claim that he is, nor a claim that he is not. But he knows it overall better than any presidential candidate running - on either side of the coin.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - the man with the best Constitutional knowledge that is running is Newt Gingrich. Few people know it - but he has a PH.D in History. While his own education did not focus on US history, his long friendship and work with Dr. William Forstchen has furthered his understanding immensely. Newt is a history buff, he loves it, and I have had the pleasure of hearing him and Dr. Forstchen discuss early American history.

Now, just because he knows it, doesn't mean he is a constitutionalist. I make no claim that he is, nor a claim that he is not. But he knows it overall better than any presidential candidate running - on either side of the coin.

Newt is actually a brilliant man. I respect him alot.

He just seems to have a trail of filth behind him. Sadly.
He is more moderate than most Republicans and will never get the "hardliner vote" Being a softer tpye the repub bosses would never throw weight behind him, like they are with our favorite polygamist.