• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

#OccupyWallstreet

Page 147 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-police-pepper-spray-students_n_1102728.html
Favorite quote:
UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza defended her officers' actions to KCRA. She argued that it just wasn't safe for students to camp on the quad. "It's not safe for multiple reasons," Spicuzza said.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I can name at least one.

Edit: Letter to chancellor worth a read:
http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/
 
Last edited:
Londo_Jowo said:
Oh please, lefties act like Union money is peanuts. They could piss into the wind, claim it was a hurricane, and expect the government to give them money for their suffering.
Click to expand...

Union money may not be peanuts but if you are saying that it is a significant amount compared to what corporations can muster.... man all I got to say is that whatever you're using to alter your sense of reality must be some really good stuff...
 
Published November 19, 2011

| FoxNews.com

A new study shows about half the lawmakers in Congress are millionaires, and that their net worth has risen steadily since 2008 despite the financial crash.

The analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found that 250 members of Congress have an estimated net worth of at least $1 million. Though some members of Congress have tried to cozy up to the Occupy Wall Street protests and their message of representing 99 percent of America, assets of more than $1 million would easily put those lawmakers in the top 1 percent.

And as it turns out, wealth knows no party.

According to the report, 37 Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans are worth more than $1 million. In the House, 110 Republicans and 73 Democrats enjoy the same status.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...millionaire-status-study-shows/#ixzz1eApS1rQW
 
HendrixFan said:
How is labor not a business interest? You guys are reaching.
Click to expand...
As I said, they (unions, NRA, etc) could successfully argue that they represent "individuals' interests," rather than "business interests" -- therefore making themselves exempt.

The language just needs to be made more specific.
 
palehorse said:
As I said, they (unions, NRA, etc) could successfully argue that they represent "individuals' interests," rather than "business interests" -- therefore making themselves exempt.

The language just needs to be made more specific.
Click to expand...

More specific makes for more loopholes. Labor, the noun, only exists as a business interest. Unions represent labor in terms of wages and benefits. Which only exist as a business interest. Labor unions use their muscle only in business matters (usually counterproductive at that).

Now the NRA (National Rifle Association) doesn't push for business interests so they would be exempt from the legislation. As they should be.
 
HendrixFan said:
More specific makes for more loopholes. Labor, the noun, only exists as a business interest. Unions represent labor in terms of wages and benefits. Which only exist as a business interest. Labor unions use their muscle only in business matters (usually counterproductive at that).
Click to expand...
I believe you're wrong.

Now the NRA (National Rifle Association) doesn't push for business interests so they would be exempt from the legislation. As they should be.
Click to expand...
NO entity should be exempt if your goal is to get rid of all SIG money in politics -- which should be the goal, correct?

The only allowable donations should be those of individual persons, and then those should be severely limited/regulated in both amount and venue.

Lobbying itself should be limited to face-to-face meetings and written submissions wherein NO money changes hands, no material gifts are given/received, and no bribery of any sort should be allowable (promises of high paying jobs, etc). All such meetings and submissions should be recorded and closely monitored for improprieties. Any politician caught accepting such things, and any entity/individual caught offering such things, should be severely punished under Federal law -- high fines, Federal imprisonment, and expulsion from Government service, even for first offenses.

Doing anything less is f'n pointless...
 
PeshakJang said:
I'm looking right at it. The facts support what I stated. Unions are some of the largest, if not the largest contributors in every time period, in every aspect.
Click to expand...

Drank the Koolaid, huh? Or are you just trying to convince others to drink it?

The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.

An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.
Click to expand...

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Your own source, once again.
 
palehorse said:
NO entity should be exempt if your goal is to get rid of all SIG money in politics -- which should be the goal, correct?
Click to expand...

I don't think any business group should be able to influence politics though money. The notion that money is speech is stupid, I certainly can't walk up to a prostitute and offer her money and just call it speech.

Of course, sending a message to politicians and creating a group for like minded people to push that message certainly falls under speech. The NRA is non profit. They should be able to push their agenda, but monetary donations or support should be prohibited.

This proposal fails to address non profit groups, but that is small potatoes in the world of campaign finance reform.
 
HendrixFan said:
Now the NRA (National Rifle Association) doesn't push for business interests so they would be exempt from the legislation. As they should be.
Click to expand...

You don't think the NRA represents the interests of the merchants of death (firearms manufacturers) in this country?
 
Jhhnn said:
Drank the Koolaid, huh? Or are you just trying to convince others to drink it?

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Your own source, once again.
Click to expand...

And what you linked to reconfirms my assertion.

An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what is the problem you are trying to fix again? Big business donating? Or rich people donating?

I thought the whole complaint was that corporations were being treated like people, and were able to spend all this money? How would that change these individual donations? They are INDIVIDUALS donating, who happen to work for CORPORATIONS. Or do you just want to stop individuals from certain corporations from spending?

Also, as noted in the section that was obviously too complicated for you to read/comprehend, Union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, while Business affiliation is. So basically, every donation that isn't 'Labor' will be listed as 'Business'.

Look at the first links posted. In a majority of cases, the ORGANIZATIONS spend for Democrats, while spending for Republicans/Conservatives is dominated by INDIVIDUALS.

Also from your link, spending listed under 'Business' is somewhat evenly split, while 'Labor' is majority Democrat.

You have yet to show any convincing figures that lay out exactly how much money comes from Corporations directly, as has been the basis for this argument.

Keep going though, this is getting funny 😀
 
If you are even making a valid attempt to stop corruption in government then any money from anyone, from any group, from any business, from any union, from any association, from any damn anything should be illegal. Jhhnn wants to keep bribery by unions legal because it benefits his purposes. Lefties will always find a reason to exempt their own causes.
 
monovillage said:
If you are even making a valid attempt to stop corruption in government then any money from anyone, from any group, from any business, from any union, from any association, from any damn anything should be illegal. Jhhnn wants to keep bribery by unions legal because it benefits his purposes. Lefties will always find a reason to exempt their own causes.
Click to expand...
This.
 
monovillage said:
If you are even making a valid attempt to stop corruption in government then any money from anyone, from any group, from any business, from any union, from any association, from any damn anything should be illegal. Jhhnn wants to keep bribery by unions legal because it benefits his purposes. Lefties will always find a reason to exempt their own causes.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
 
More facts Jhhnn is apparently allergic to

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=F07&cycle=2008

Money from the top 'corporations' in the finance industry in the 2008 race. Majority went to Dems, Majority was donated from INDIVIDUALS, NOT the corporation or PACs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=P&cycle=2008

Money from labor in 2008 race. Overwhelming majority went to Democrats, and was almost 100% from PACs, not individuals.

The top 20 Union PACs spent over $51 million, with almost all of it going to Democrats. The top twenty financial firms spent about $36 million, the majority of which came from individuals, and the majority of which went to Democrats.

So again, tell me how you can define this as 'peanuts' compared to big business donations? These big banks and Wall Street firms, which are apparently the very definition of what you are fighting against, donated less than the top labor unions, and even then with the majority of it going to Democrats, which you claim are the ones to fix this?

You're the definition of a dupe, my friend. You are a literal tool of your blind ideologies, without a shred of intellectual capacity to think for yourself. I've destroyed your argument several times over with facts. You've done nothing but claim those facts don't exist, or that they really represent the complete opposite of what they claim.

Please, though, keep trying.
 
And all money under the magic $200 line should be recorded, if we are still allowing money. I refuse to believe Obama's WORLD wide web anonymous money receiving site only accepted money from US Citizens...when it did not have to record where it got the money it received from the WORLD wide web.

I want that loophole closed so no one else can use it again.
 
palehorse said:
Which part? Eliminating ALL money from the processes, or exempting Unions?
Click to expand...

Or we can simply return to a system of less power in the hands of the federal government, and more in the hands of the States', thereby diminishing the influence that the president or congress play in decisionmaking and leaving it up to those at the local level.

You know... that whole idea the founders had. Crazy I know...
 
So the solution to buying politicians with campaign money is to allow usings to keep buying politicians with campaign money but stop corps form doing it?

And those who say this do not even realize how retarded they sound?


Stop it from everyone. Stop ALL private donations. Use only federal money. Done.
 
I support the people going home and taking a bath. Neither your supported position nor my supported position will get them to actually bathe. The problem is that your supported position gives them more places for them to continue to rape the other non-bathers, so I cannot support it.

The issue isn't their foul smell, nor their strange desire to have that odor, but their warped view that the people on Wall Street write or vote for the laws which everyone follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top