• 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.

What do these fools @ Occupy Wallstreet want?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
FoBoT said:
i don't believe you, no one can post after their head assplodes
smilie_explode.gif
Click to expand...
LOL, the key is not to spend too much time there. But I did get a headache.
 
astroidea said:
I just posted a clear plan. Read it.
Click to expand...

it is going to be difficult to get people from both a conservative and liberal backgrounds to come together to get it done

basically you need some liberal hippies and some ron paul pot heads and some redneck tea partiers along with a chunk of soccer moms and their retired/SS/medicare parents , maybe a dash of blue collar union guys, to all agree on this one idea for a constitutional amendment.

AND it can't have any language that favors one of those groups over another, the way legislation in the congress usually ends up (i.e. pork barrel favoritism, sweet heart deals for some at the expense of others, nebraska/lousianna in obamacare, etc etc)
 
Howard said:
Better OWS than the Tea Party, I think. Or at least, better both of them than just either one.
Click to expand...

ding
see, the establishment wants the sheeples to think a certain way. us vs. them

OWS vs Tea Party

when in reality there are commonalities

think Statist vs Anti-Statists

you gotta think different, not just Republican vs Democrat. R vs D means the status quo, nothing will change, look at things Obama has done that his supporters hate, things that maintain the status quo

when the right segments of US citizens realize they need to help each other and not fight each other, then the constitutional conventions will be able to succeed
 
astroidea said:
I just posted a clear plan. Read it.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/
Click to expand...

Seems a momentus task. I dont know enough political science or law to judge. I fear that if you simply make it illegal for a corporation to fund a politician they will find a way to continue the process with dumby organizations, PAC's and 20page lists of "private" donors.
But it may be a start.

I have often said we need to find some way to force every politician to use the same amount of funds. Probably from public money. The hard part is determining who gets the funds. We need some kind of elimination process. Single elimination starting at various levels. We need to eliminate the possibility of "buying a seat".
 
So a war has been going on in the middle east for a decade and no protests but a bunch of pussies don't have shit handed to them on a silver platter now they start crying.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
So a war has been going on in the middle east for a decade and no protests but a bunch of pussies don't have shit handed to them on a silver platter now they start crying.
Click to expand...

I don't follow politics but I'd take a stab in the dark that ppl have protested on the war.
 
FoBoT said:
it is going to be difficult to get people from both a conservative and liberal backgrounds to come together to get it done

basically you need some liberal hippies and some ron paul pot heads and some redneck tea partiers along with a chunk of soccer moms and their retired/SS/medicare parents , maybe a dash of blue collar union guys, to all agree on this one idea for a constitutional amendment.

AND it can't have any language that favors one of those groups over another, the way legislation in the congress usually ends up (i.e. pork barrel favoritism, sweet heart deals for some at the expense of others, nebraska/lousianna in obamacare, etc etc)
Click to expand...

On the other hand, this measure is supported by liberal hippies, ron paul pot heads, redneck tea partiers, along with the soccer moms, SS/medicare patients, basically EVERYONE that's not in on it.

Did you read the amendment btw? It's pretty clear cut and straightforward. I don't see how it's biased to any group.

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.
 
mattpegher said:
Seems a momentus task. I dont know enough political science or law to judge. I fear that if you simply make it illegal for a corporation to fund a politician they will find a way to continue the process with dumby organizations, PAC's and 20page lists of "private" donors.
But it may be a start.

I have often said we need to find some way to force every politician to use the same amount of funds. Probably from public money. The hard part is determining who gets the funds. We need some kind of elimination process. Single elimination starting at various levels. We need to eliminate the possibility of "buying a seat".
Click to expand...

Agreed, it will be a momentus task. And there is a momentus movement to back it up. This will not end until something is done about the absurd corruption. It has gone on for too long. People are paying drastic consequences for it now, and they're demanding change.
 
astroidea said:
All elections must be publicly financed.
Click to expand...

as an Anti-Statist i can't agree with using tax payer money for such a use. i don't see a need to finance elections beyond the counties need for voting machines and poll workers etc
 
Last edited:
FoBoT said:
as an Anti-Statist i can't agree with using tax payer money for such a use. i don't see a need to finance elections beyond the counties need for voting machines and poll workers etc
Click to expand...

Elections are costly as campaigning is costly. You can't have effective elections if candidates do not have the resources to get their message across.

The billions of dollars saved from oil subsidies and bank bailouts would easily fund public elections.
 
astroidea said:
Elections are costly as campaigning is costly. You can't have effective elections if candidates do not have the resources to get their message across.
Click to expand...

with internet and media , i don't believe costly elections are useful

keeping billion dollar campaigns in place is effectively maintaining the status quo, just shifting who the puppet masters are

put the onus on the voter to find out about who they are voting for
 
FoBoT said:
with internet and media , i don't believe costly elections are useful

keeping billion dollar campaigns in place is effectively maintaining the status quo, just shifting who the puppet masters are

put the onus on the voter to find out about who they are voting for
Click to expand...

It would be great if campaign funding is no longer a factor in a candidate's success. However, if just internet and media were sufficient, then why do current campaign funds make such a large impact on whether a candidate is successful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top