40 thoughts on “Occupy Wall Street”

  1. The OWS-affiliated hackers appear to have already jammed the OWS Exposed website. Why am I not surprised?

  3. Interesting, in 8 days they already have more dirt on OWS than TeaPartyTracker.org has on the Tea Party (oops that site is already gone).

    Could you imagine what the media would say if people were being raped at Tea Party protests? (Hanging effigies, advocating violent revolution, rioting with the police, ect ect ect)

    OWS should thank their friends in the media that the protests are not getting more coverage.

  4. The lack of reading comprehension in the “war on the 1st Amendment” article is amazing. The OWS demand, block-quoted at the top of the article, explicitly addresses BOTH unions and corporations, and explicitly allows for a Constitutional amendment to modify the 1st Amendment. At any rate, since I for one fail to find a clause in the Constitution extending personal rights to associations, whether or not Citizens United was rightly decided is a fair debate.

    Although the Citizens United demand is mixed in with political donations, pretty much everybody understands that if I run an ad saying “Politician X is a fink!” it has the same effect as giving money to X’s opponent to run an ad.

    Regarding free TV time, television stations don’t own their broadcast channels. That’s owned by all Americans, and allocated to users per rules voted on by Congress and administered by the FCC. I suppose that long-standing principle could be included in the amendment.

    1. At any rate, since I for one fail to find a clause in the Constitution extending personal rights to associations, whether or not Citizens United was rightly decided is a fair debate.

      Implied right since associations are composed out of people with rights. And I imagine the court case would be perceived a whole lot different, if MoveOn were the plaintiff instead.

      Although the Citizens United demand is mixed in with political donations, pretty much everybody understands that if I run an ad saying “Politician X is a fink!” it has the same effect as giving money to X’s opponent to run an ad.

      And so what? Go for it!

    2. At any rate, since I for one fail to find a clause in the Constitution extending personal rights to associations, whether or not Citizens United was rightly decided is a fair debate.

      Did you find one prohibiting it? No. The Constution doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does.

  5. The problem with this is the legal personality of corporations and similar entities. Corporations are not people, and should NOT have the same rights as real, organic people. Corporate personality is a useful construct for the purpose of contract law and legal liability. After all, if corporations are people, why doesn’t Exxon have a vote?

    1. After all, if corporations are people, why doesn’t Exxon have a vote?

      Because then the shareholder would have more than 1 vote. As it stands, every dollar that Exxon gives to a PAC is a dollar it cannot pay its shareholder in dividends (that he might in turn donate to a candidate of his choice). In effect, the shareholder pays Exxon to speak on his behalf with that dollar.

    3. Why shouldn’t corporations (or unions) be allowed to respond in the media to the accusations being made against them? They should just sit there and take it when the torches and pitchforks show up?

      Any group who will be effected by government policies has the right to speak out.

  6. I for one fail to find a clause in the Constitution extending personal rights to associations

    It’s called “freedom of assembly”. “Sure, you can speak, and he can speak, but you can’t *work together* to speak” isn’t a brand-new trick that you wannabe censors have just come up with recently. See also “freedom of the press”, wherein the “you can speak, but not using anything expensive” trick was anticipated and quashed.

  7. “I for one fail to find a clause in the Constitution extending personal rights to associations.”

    Since State-shtuppers such as the author of the above gem don’t really recognize the personal rights of individuals, this isn’t exactly surprising.

  8. Taking the comments in order:

    Exxon – since Exxon isn’t required to disclose how it spent the money, how would a shareholder know, and thus consent to, Exxon’s spending?

    Corporations are no more evil than a wild animal, even one that bites a human. But like the wild animal, the corporation (via the people who run it) operate under a different set of rules.

    Suddenly finding a love of freedom of assembly while regarding all labor unions as illegal violations of the right of contract is an amusing piece of mental gymnastics. I do think a difference can be drawn between creating an organization to speak and allowing an organization created for other purposes the same rights as an individual.

    At any rate, I restate my point that the OWS demand calls out unions and corporations for equal treatment.

    2. Suddenly finding a love of freedom of assembly while regarding all labor unions as illegal violations of the right of contract is an amusing piece of mental gymnastics.

      Stupid strawman, Chris, but then I expect nothing more from you. People are free to join a union if they want to. It’s compulsary union membership that most of us object to. There is a difference between being allowed to join a union and being forced to against your will, but I guess that’s lost on the likes of you.

        1. You are assuming that the better wages and working conditions are better for you, but ignoring the fact that sometimes they put a company out of business (like GM) unless it gets bailed out by the taxpayer. If it’s not a service that I’m requesting of it, why should I not feel free to opt out?

          2. I’ll give you the same answer I got regarding stock. You don’t want to work in a union shop, go somewhere else. That’s your opt-out.

            One of these things is not like the other.

          3. They’re exactly like each other. They are economic agreements that are freely entered into. A condition of working for a unionized company or government entity is that you join the union.

            A condition of buying a stock is (apparently) that they get to spend money on political advertising without disclosing it to you.

  9. how would a shareholder know, and thus consent to, Exxon’s spending?

    Who said anything about consent? You missed the point entirely: money is finite and divisible. Votes at the ballot box are not.

    regarding all labor unions as illegal

    What comment are you responding to? Are you sure you’re posting on the correct blog?

    1. So I get to buy shares in a corporation, AKA own part of the corporation, but I have no say in how they spend money? They can reduce my dividend by spending money on political ads or whatever and I have no say in the matter?

      Regarding unions – I’ve seen dozens of posts on this blog about how unions are evil, liberally interspersed with posts about “union thugs” roughing up Tea Partiers. Your convenient amnesia fools nobody.

          1. Bolding words don’t magically make them true. Since when have taxed business not been required to track and report spending?

            Wait, wait… I know the answer! The 4th Amendment! It’s right there. It’s why you and me don’t have to report spending on our IRS returns. Sure, we pay taxes on our income, but if we spend the way the government tells us, then we cut our taxable income. However, if we don’t spend the way the government tells us; we can forego disclosing such spending and just pay the higher taxes. This way, the government doesn’t get to know everything we do. It’s sort of a right to privacy, but really, it’s just a right to keep the government from searching you. And it works for both you and associations that you and others decide to form.

            Welcome to a liberal and free society Gerrib. If you don’t like it, I’m sure Illinois will be occupied by debt collectors controlling your spending habits soon enough.

      2. – Unions have a right to exist under freedom of assembly and related right to act as a group. What we condemn unions for is actions that no individual has a right to do. Such as extort money under the color of a “representation fee” or sending out thugs to intimidate adversaries.

        – Shareholders in most corporations elect the board of directors to represent them in the operation of the company. And as Trent says, you’re always free to not buy shares in a business you disagree with.

      3. So I get to buy shares in a corporation, AKA own part of the corporation, but I have no say in how they spend money?

        An interesting point — perhaps you should take it up at the shareholder’s meeting. Regardless, that’s a red herring with regard to FC’s question.

        unions are evil

        The validity of public sector unions has been drawn into question, a detail you deliberately avoided. Your straw-man fools no one, but thanks for playing!

  10. but I have no say in how they spend money?

    Yes you do. Through the ballot box. And the last time I checked there are no corporations that are proposing any kind of “card check”.

    1. Gerrib also fails to mention that for-profit corps must still pass all their dollars through a non-profit or PAC. You know, those things that were supposed to clean up politics and improve transparency whenever ago? Now it seems only censorship will suffice the leftist. Typical.

    1. Florida 2000, nationwide, further complicated by individual states having different election equipment. No thank you.

    1. Created by Fox? No.

      Supported by Fox? Yes.

      Sort of like OWS not being created by MSNBC, NPR, and the other branches of leftist media but also being supported by them.

      How many people got raped at OWS protests today?

      1. “Wouldn’t have happened if Evil Corporate Amerikkka allowed OWS to sleep in their buildings as planned! It’s their fault!”

Comments are closed.