I don’t see how preventing lobbying stops people from petitioning the government. I think that whole “petitioning the government” thing is more for actual individual people or groups of citizens rather than powerful corporations bribing politicians to get what they want.; Same for free speech. Until 1976 the SC agreed with me but it’s increasingly become another corporate tool. When was the last time it sided with an individual or a group of citizens instead of a corporation? It’s definitely before Roberts became head of the court. Same thing for freedom of assembly. Who’s stopping Nike top executives marching on Washington or down Fifth Avenue to make their voice heard?
And self-funded elections would be out too. The government funds the whole thing, giving candidates sensible amounts of cash to run a campaign. They have enough to get their message out without every motherfunking commercial being some crappy attack ad for six months a year. Perfect.
Same issue - groups of citizens and corporations are the same thing. The one is a form of the other.
So if the government doesn’t approve of your campaign, you don’t get any money, and you are forbidden from spending your own or receiving contributions from others.
An unelected and mostly anonymous small fraction of 1% of the population is claiming to represent 99% of the rest of us. No thank you.
This small fraction of 1% of the population claim they have the definition of “a more just society”, and think that people that earn more than they do have the exact same definition as they do, and therefore they supposedly know that what they are doing is wrong. This is comic book mentality-thinking in terms of “Good Guys who know and do what is right” vs. “Bad Guys who know what is right but deliberately do bad because, well, they are the Bad Guys.”
“F off”, meaning miffed, shined on, rejected, or as it is now known as “to be Lewis’d”. Come on, you know that.
Regardless of why Lewis was there, he wanted to speak, but the group would not let him. Not because of their scheduled events :rolleyes: , it was due to their “agenda”. You know, the unwritten, magical agenda of the OWS movement. Watch the entire YT video. It’s 10 painful minutes of strangeness, but it’s clearly a snub. Not convinced? Watch the show of magic hands to allow Lewis to speak. Ever see a wilderbeast migration?
The whole repeating of phrases thing reminded me of my daughter’s preschool class.
Oh, and it’s so funny you provide a link to the only “news source” (a no-name blog) that supports your claim that is wasn’t a snub. Face it, Lewis’ statement afterwards was a CYA. He never had any intention of going back to that lovefest and speaking. Plus, it doesnt get any more politically embarassing then to be shunned by a group that combines Sesame Street communcation techniques, with protesting against political/finanical corruption.
Compared to Rachel Maddow, with a girlish giggle, a swan’s neck and a mind iike a steel trap? Piffle! And what of the bonfire of female passion that is Elizabeth Warren?
Nomdplume, don’t take these posters seriously. Your points are well taken and could be turned into law.
Like the American Revolution this is a time when the wealthy will decide how things turn out. Not all of the 1% are greedy bastards who do not care about our country. There is a group called “Patriotic Millionaires” who are on the side of the 99%. http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/%E2%80%9Cpatriotic-millionaires%E2%80%9D/
When it is all said and done those who care about America will prevail, and like the Tories after the American Revolution, they will either leave or assimilate to the changes. When Britain raised taxes to extreme levels many wealthy left the country, only to miss it in a few years, and return to pay their tax.
Oh, come on, Czarcasm. We’ve got it down cold that the 1 percent is robbing the country blind. Generally, comic book thinking does not involve charts and graphs and so forth. This much wealth disparity hasn’t been seen since the fricking Guilded Age!
While you are correct that John Lewis was not told to fuck off, he was treated rudely. And when one of the protestors tried to apologize to him, the speaker raised his voice in order to drown him out.
But imagine this for a second. Imagine the EXACT same scene transpiring, but the people gathering were Tea Partiers. How do you think not allowing JL to speak would have been spun by the media then. Heck, how would it have been spun by you?
Except when you actually think about them. Take closing corporate loopholes. Now I think that’s a great idea, and would do so immediately. But that would necessitate doing something else to reduce the cost of doing business, like a substantial/drastic reduction in the corporate tax rate—or else they will move and we’ll lose even more jobs. Do you think this crowd would be in favor of cutting the corporate rate to 15 or 20%? Good luck with that.
And thank goodness he threw in the part about them being “your sons your daughters, your siblings, your parents and your friends.” Yeesh.
Start with Mr. Lewis stopping by a Tea Party event on the presumption that he would be welcome. You think that likely? And, of course, we have Mr Lewis himself, who says you are full of beans.
“We” do? I don’t recall any nation-wide poll asking us what do or do not know about economics, or what we do or do not want from Wall Street(as if Wall Street were this single group-mind entity). 99% of the wealth is supposedly held by 1% of the populace(close to 4 million people), and who among them speaks for me depends on who is doing the talking, because they are individuals with different ideas on how this country and its finances should be run. Other the other side we have an unelected group that, at best, consist of 1/100th of one percent of the populace, who claims to represent 99% of the populace, who claims to speak with one voice, and who claims to agree on what exactly the problems are and how to solve them. I do believe I’m being generous with the “1/100th of 1 percent” figure, because if you took away all the protesters whose personal causes have nothing to do with the concerns of Wall Street the number would be much lower.
Ah, yes, the old “we can’t do anything corporations dislike or they will move or just raise prices or something” line. Clearly, we need to think up something that corporations will dislike that they can’t do anything about. Me, I’m making a conscious effort to spend more money with local businesses and so forth, even if it means higher prices. Thinking globally, acting locally.
I don’t think groups of citizens and corporations are the same thing, especially when it comes to transactional lobbying to buy the policies and regulations/oversight you want.
And public-funded elections work just fine in other countries. Maybe you can tweak it for America and allow a system where a hundred dollar maximum donations can be given to candidates, but you’d be able to come up with some kind of system which isn’t able to be entirely bought by the country’s biggest corporations/individuals.
