OWS- what happens next?

[Atreides]

I should add that the third agenda item -- preventing members of Congress from being invested in companies they legislate -- is a lot more complicated an issue than it sounds.

There is no business enterprise in this country untouched by Congress, so that means members of Congress cannot be invested in any company. That might sound like a great idea, but I kind of wonder about that. Does that mean that all elected members of Congress must put all their assets into a blind trust? I don't see the problem for the rich, long-term ones, but I kind of wonder if this is going to have the effect of discouraging less wealthy people from running in the first place because of the headache. Can you have a regular bank account, because after all, Congress regulates banks too.

I guess I lean more towards full disclosure as a remedy rather than a flat prohibition.

What are the personal expenses of being a congressman? Do they have to pay out of pocket for their air fares to commute back to their home states? Because a $174,000 salary plus all the benefits is pretty good. And if someone doesn't want to run for Congress because they'd be unable to manage their investments during that period, I'd rather not have them run for Congress. You're not running for Congress to maximize your wealth, or to spend your time there managing your investments. You're running for Congress to govern the United States of America.

[Jaxom 1974]

Jax, if you have some time, I'd like you to

. There's some really great discussion by the panelists on the "endgame" you're referring to: one of the things I took away from it was the ways in which these social movements historically don't do end goals, and instead provide a space in which those with the political ambitions can meet and speak openly. Their importance is in their capacity as a meeting place for people of like minds, from which other movements can spring. There's some examples of this traded between two of the academic panelists that are particularly fascinating.

Coco, I'm at work and cannot really watch that now...was that from a particular news network? In the few seconds I brought up, I didn't recognize anything of it. "Cross Talk"?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So yesterday was an awful day not only for the Occupy movement, but also American civil rights in general.

I was pretty depressed, that is, until I saw this on Occupy Philadelphia's Facebook page. 50 or so people were arrested in the eviction, and in jail:

That, my friends, is incredibly powerful.

That, my friends, is some really shitty math.

You've got 50 protesters and a bunch of jailbirds chanting "we are the 99%." Really? I knew our incarceration rates were high, but I didn't know they were that high.

No matter how many times they claim to represent 99% of the country, the numbers never seem to back them up. And if you think counting jailbirds is going to help broaden the appeal of the movement, I think you don't understand the rest of the country very well. If anything, this is just more evidence of how the movement is increasingly marginalizing itself. It went from having some potential back in September of being a left-wing populist counterpoint to the tea parties, to being just another wearying example of the typical left-wing radicalism that has never had broad appeal in this country.

At this point, they're not even preaching to the choir. They're just preaching to themselves.

[Brienne the Beauty]

No matter how many times they claim to represent 99% of the country, the numbers never seem to back them up.

It's a name. The Tea Party is not about throwing tea parties. The Democrats are not the only believers in democracy in the USA. Get it?

The meaning of the name "99%" is a reaction against the Right's constant "class war" wittering. The Right want the poor and the middle classes at each other's throats, each blaming the other and missing the fact that the rich ("the 1%") caused the economic crisis, and that it's not "class war" to want to address this problem. They are saying that the poor and middle classes are all in this together, and should work together to solve it instead wasting energy on the pointless sniping about "welfare queens" or "hipsters" that the Right would prefer.

They are not bloody well saying that 99% of the country are behind them, and you know it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So aligning ourselves with these "jailbirds" (by the by, I see what you did there: since most of our incarcerated are black, you would refer to them as birds;

You know, just fuck off Coco. I'm not a racist, I've never uttered a damn racist word on this board, and that accusation is simply insulting. The term "jailbird" is a commonly used reference to anyone in jail. It's perjorative, but there is absolutely no racial connotation. I've got no desire to converse with someone who is going to play the race card on me like you just did, so you're on ignore from now on.

And again, fuck off.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

They are saying that the poor and middle classes are all in this together, and should work together to solve it instead wasting energy on the pointless sniping about "welfare queens" or "hipsters" that the Right would prefer.

They are not bloody well saying that 99% of the country are behind them, and you know it.

No, not just the poor and middle class. They're including the upper middle class, and anyone not in the top 1% of income. And as you say, their claim is that all of those people -- the 99% -- are in the same boat. And my point is that they are not. There are a great many people outside that top 1% who disagree with the ideas and rhetoric coming out of the self-anointed 99% movement.

You seem to think argumentation, rhetoric, and sloganeering can only go one way. That it is perfectly okay as a matter of rhetoric for them to call themselves "the 99%" (that was what they were chanting, you know), but it is not okay to turn their phrase around on them to point out that they appear to be the "1%" based on their level of support. And that it is pretty ironic and unhelpful to their cause of expanding their movement to be chanting that with a bunch of criminals. My rhetorical use of that 99% phrase is just as legitimate as theirs. And certainly, just as legitimate a rhetorical game as referring to tea partiers as "teabaggers", to giggle at the sexual connotation.

[Shryke]

No. This is the whole misconceptions about Citizens United. The limitations to which you refer (and they cover PACS as well) apply to donations made directly to candidates themselves. Citizens United did not change any of those limits. The amount individuals or groups can give to any candidate's campaign is still strictly limited.

What Citizens United liberalized were the rules relating to speaking out on issues, or commenting on a candidate independent of that candidate's own campaign. The whole reason this case came about was because of some third-party that put together an anti-Hillary Clinton pamphlet that some people wanted to suppress as a violation of campaign laws. Such restrictions also would apply to any third party group that wanted to speak out on why it didn't want Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry, by pointing to his record, statements, etc. The restrictions also could apply to any books that were written that contained something negative about a candidate. I think the dangers to the Republic of prohibiting such communications are greater than the dangers in permitting such communications.

Please, Citizens United was a carefully crafted piece of legislative bait to get this issue before the SCOTUS.

And the whole point, as Colbert continually illustrates in his hilarious bit of performance art, is it basically creates a system where the extremely wealthy and large corporations can fund huge ad campaigns for candidates.

Shit, many of the big Super Pacs have upteenth millions and are funded mostly by a dozen or so individual donors.

[awesome possum]

It's a name. The Tea Party is not about throwing tea parties. The Democrats are not the only believers in democracy in the USA. Get it?

FLoW gets it, but as he's proven repeatedly, since he really has no argument for what OWS is upset about he'll stick to trying to make the issue about the name or the appearance of protesters or the camping out.

[DanteGabriel]

FLoW gets it, but as he's proven repeatedly, since he really has no argument for what OWS is upset about he'll stick to trying to make the issue about the name or the appearance of protesters or the camping out.

Don't forget climbing on his cross about being a persecuted conservative when he needs more distraction.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Don't forget climbing on his cross about being a persecuted conservative when he needs more distraction.

I have no problem getting blasted here for my opinions. That comes with the territory of being one of the few conservatives on an ovewhelmingly liberal board, and I think I've proven my willingness to take those kind of shots.

But accusing me of being a racist -- "since most of our incarcerated are black, you would refer to them as birds..." goes beyond simple disagreement with my views, insulting my intelligence, or whatever, and I have no interest in further discussions with someone who would do that.

[Brienne the Beauty]

But accusing me of being a racist -- "since most of our incarcerated are black, you would refer to them as birds..." goes beyond simple disagreement with my views, insulting my intelligence, or whatever, and I have no interest in further discussions with someone who would do that.

Doesn't make much sense to me TBH, but maybe I'm missing something since I'm not originally from the US.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Coco,

In fairness that's the first time many of us have ever heard a racial connotation put to "jailbird". I seriously doubt FLOW used the term as a deliberately racial pejorative.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

This seems like a good time to close the thread.

Reminder: Try not to get too personal.

[/mod hat]