Occupy Wall Street

[TX-Beau]

Okay to play your pedantic game I will retract my statement about the military. Now address the issue of posters agreeing with OWS points but disagreeing with ALL of their activities.

I regret that offering an example is lost of your mind.

LOL, sugar you can insult me all you want - it's kind of cute - and I have no idea who these poster are who are:

"...agreeing with OWS points but disagreeing with ALL of their activities..."

I don't even know what you mean by that. Who are they?

BUT that's still NOT the issue. You can try to make it all about personality all you like, but if you don't ever address WHY there are people in the streets, you don't have much to say that relates to the issue.

Of course you retract your accusation about the military - because no one said that. I suspect the right just told you the left hated the military and you didn't bother to check if they'd lied to you, just tossed that in there.

 

[JayHawk]

Honey I have been here longer than you have been stringing coherent sentences together and it is a theme. Feel free to go have a look. there is a search tool for the forums.

But no matter it was retracted to remove that as a hating point for you.

I am those people. I agree that there needs to be corporate money removed from our political system. I agree that there should be a fair tax on all. I agree that regulation should be much more well regulatory and not just pasties of industry. Among other things.

Yet because I don't sit in my arm chair and scream that no one knows why they are there I am somehow different than you sitting in your chair doing nothing? Pulllease.

SO since I dont know why they are in the streets how about doing the WORLD a favor and let us know? I see multiple articles trying to answer that very question so give it a shot snookums.

 

[TX-Beau]

LOL that's your response?

OK

It's not about me, though I appreciate you at least attempting to say somthing that isn't screed and vitriol.

Let's see if we can capitalize on that. Since we agree that there needs to be corporate money removed from our political system.

How might YOU go about doing that?

 

[JayHawk]

Ahh very nice you claim no one will have a discussion and yet you cant answer simple questions about your supported movement.

Interesting tact. Defend your ignorance with denial.

 

[TX-Beau]

I did answer that, we had a conversation about it a couple of nights ago.

Back to the point, how do YOU think we should we should deal with the problem of money in our political system?

 

[JayHawk]

The first thing that needs to occur is public finance of candidates. thereby setting a definitive limit on the spending. there should be a defined number of debates, and town hall meetings where each candidate is given adequate time to express their ideas and policy stances. The media can fund MORE than that as long as equal time is given to each candidate.

Additionally to reduce the over saturation of one or more areas in the US the federal government should set a date for all primaries in every state to occur on the same day. That would also force citizens to take a position on policy vice popularity.

I would also set term limits on Senate to 12 years or two terms and on the house of 12 years or 6 terms. K street could no longer write legislation for introduction into the Congress and while lobbyist are as legal a representation as a union I would take draconian measure to ensure no conflict of interest occurred. Finally contact and office time of our elected representatives should be monitored to the point of recording every conversation. No behind the doors deals we have no transparency about. Like the super committee dealing currently going on where K street has access and we do not have access to what is occurring and what is being discussed.

That is about all I have got. AND STILL you have no opinion except you don't like people who dont agree part and parcel with everything OWS.

So please feel free to refresh my memory because I have said ALLLLLLLLL of what is above before also but apparently your memory is as short as mine

 

[TX-Beau]

The first thing that needs to occur is public finance of candidates. thereby setting a definitive limit on the spending. there should be a defined number of debates, and town hall meetings where each candidate is given adequate time to express their ideas and policy stances. The media can fund MORE than that as long as equal time is given to each candidate.

Additionally to reduce the over saturation of one or more areas in the US the federal government should set a date for all primaries in every state to occur on the same day. That would also force citizens to take a position on policy vice popularity.

I would also set term limits on Senate to 12 years or two terms and on the house of 12 years or 6 terms. K street could no longer write legislation for introduction into the Congress and while lobbyist are as legal a representation as a union I would take draconian measure to ensure no conflict of interest occurred. Finally contact and office time of our elected representatives should be monitored to the point of recording every conversation. No behind the doors deals we have no transparency about. Like the super committee dealing currently going on where K street has access and we do not have access to what is occurring and what is being discussed.

I'm not so sure that exclusive public financing of elections will produce the result we want. Plus there is the constitutional issue to deal with. People SHOULD be able to give to candidates they support, with the caveat that only people are people. Though I suppose that setting a limit for how much CAN be spent might be a good idea. Provided you also require media outlets to provide time pro bono.

The deals between lobbyists and legislators absolutely must be transparent, I agree, they should be a matter of public record - with criminal liability if they aren't, as should all political activity of PACs up to and including where their money is coming from and where how they are spending it.

I'm on the fence about term limits, that could be good, and it could be bad, determined by the shape it takes.

 

[JayHawk]

The only bad that would come is that the system is too complex to understand in a short term. SO therefore they should remove a majority of the odd rules that are self imposed for making law.

I agree that public finance has sticking points. But the pro-bono portion of network time is easy. they would jump at the chance. I dont think that advertising during the events should be restricted. I also think that groups or PACs should be able to advertise but here is the catch: False or incomplete information provided that is determined to change the intent of the data would be prosecution.

SO ads where facts about successful programs can't be warped into derogatory statements about the opposite candidate. Such as the recent push for a oil sands pipeline into the US to our oil port in Texas. The proponents use half of the data to say it will increase jobs. What they don't say is that those jobs are temporary. They also claim the pipeline is for US energy security but they are delivering it to a port for shipment overseas because our price of oil currently doesn't support the price per barrel it would require. But elsewhere they are willing to pay.

I would also require periodic PSA to the effect that news info-tainment is just that and not based in fact. Just to remind America that it is all editorial.

Different thought I know that OWS but along the same lines.

We need news reform. I think the trash spewed out daily in this nation that calls itself news is akin to yellow journalism.

 

[TX-Beau]

I am absolutely with you on media reform - the problems for that can be laid squarely on Clinton.

I am intrigued when I think about media accountability, and I also think there should be obvious disclaimers where things veer into op/ed - and in fact news orgs used to do this.

What I don't know about is how you go about getting it. Without re-establishing some of the regulatory apparatus Clinton demolished, it's not going to happen, and taking regulation further might be problematic.

I think yapping heads must be accountable for the misrepresentations they push, but getting to accountability is going to be an uphill battle without some kind of arbiter watching and listening and that also kind of scares me.

 

[JayHawk]

Yes there are no easy answers.

The problem as I see it that our politicians either construct obstacles for a short sighted gain or deconstruct law for the same reason and then the other side uses the same tools to their advantage.

Take the filibuster. They took an act that required devotion to opposing an idea or you wouldn't stand and talk for hours. Now it is sufficient to simply say you will do it. So we have a filibuster speedy drivethru. Filibuster by McDonalds.

So as I have said the TeaParty I dont agree with a lot of their points and do agree with some.

Same to be said of OWS. Both movements biggest strength is awareness. They are causing a very dispassionate American people to open their fucking eyes and start to think.

 

[TX-Beau]

The first thing that needs to occur is public finance of candidates...

You know, if we had a system where people were free to donate – just people – and the state matched funds for the other candidates, up to a cap beyond which no one could spend. I could get behind that.

Candidates who are completely voter funded could use that as political capital, and you’d still level the playing field for candidates from other parties that wouldn’t need to turn to other sources of funding.

Hmmmm, there’s something in there that’s still bothering me but I can’t isolate it just now.

 

[TX-Beau]

...Take the filibuster. They took an act that required devotion to opposing an idea or you wouldn't stand and talk for hours. Now it is sufficient to simply say you will do it. So we have a filibuster speedy drivethru. Filibuster by McDonalds...

I am so with you on filibuster light. If you feel that strongly we as voters EXPECT you to stand you happy ass up there an babble to prove it.

 

[TX-Beau]

If we all step back and look, neither party really represents most of us anymore. It's why I want to kill the two party system. It just makes sense, that in a country as large and diverse as ours, we need more parties, parties that actually represent our politics, and a lot of them.

the more parties we have, the more we force policy back to the middle - where it belongs.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is funny to see the left wing supporters of the so called 99% claim that only their points are valid points. Only by pissing on yourself in the park can you achieve anything.

More of the same irrational trash.

Did the "whither" thread not say anything to you? You're committing two fallacies right here -- and since you use those two fallacies over and over, you get very antagonistic responses.

Ditch the fallacies, and maybe you can get into some dialog.

 

[JayHawk]

Congratulations. Apparently you don't get it in any thread. Try reading all the post. And while you seem completely set on insulting me as your point in the OWS thread I would suggest you develop a opinion and then argue its merits. I have plenty of ideas and stated positions. Feel free to address them. Just as I have addressed conservative points while disregarding ignorant insults that i know to be untrue. If you disagree with a statement of mine feel free to call it out but also try to have an opinion somewhere other than you oppose Jhawk

 

[TX-Beau]

OH come on Kuli can we not give it a rest?

I am ABSOLUTELY certain you have something interesting to say about the last couple of posts.

Please, share.

 

[TX-Beau]

And back on to the merry go round we go.

 

[JayHawk]

He is hell bent on chastising me because i have called him on duplicity a few times. No matter i will keep asking for civility while slinging shit with the best of the pigs.

 

[Kulindahr]

TX & JH --

How is any of what you're discussing going to get corporate money out of politics? As long as you allow PACs. corporations will donate to them. Term limits and such are, on this topic, just cosmetic.

Here's what's needed:


An amendment to the Constitution defining "person", for political purposes, as an individual human being;

and that only persons as so defined who are either citizens or legal residents have any political rights at all;

and therefore no entity which is not a citizen may exercise any political rights, including engaging in the political process in any way;

excepting coalitions of citizens banded together for the purpose of, and no other purpose than, engaging in political activity.



TX, that takes care of the "person" issue and goes farther, clarifying that political rights belong ONLY to persons -- period. JH, it leaves PACs, but no corporate donations.

In fact for PACs, they should be the way the Founding Fathers wanted for corporations: formed for a brief period only long enough to achieve their aims.

Then a law about gifts from corporations: any politician who accepts a gift from a corporation starting eighteen months before taking office until a year after leaving office. Corporations caught giving such gifts would be fined in stock taken from however many shareholders it took to have a majority of shares. If it were up to me, I'd run a lottery among those in poverty, and give away that stock.

 

[TX-Beau]

I think that pacs are the great fat bellied whore even more than lobbyists, it's where unaccountable money meets unaccountable politics.

I just don't see any constitutional way you can forbid them. Which leaves regulation.