Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The guy in New Orleans had been dead for 2 days and nobody noticed .

Now they are getting 'Zuccotti Lung' living in the unsanitary encampment in NYC.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/ny...cern.html?_r=1
I'm amazed he's amazed. I predicted this would happen as they devolve into a 'Lord of the Flies' world. They don't have mommy doing their laundy for them and cleaning up after them so this was predictable.
It's happening in Atlanta too.
Tuberculosis Breaks Out At Occupy Atlanta's Base CBS Atlanta
Time to go home. Mommy has some chicken soup on the stove.

---

Hi Tom,

You have mentioned going home on a number of occasions. I couldn't agree more. I have also said on a number of occasions, "the die is cast". Yes, they are wasting their time.

I suggest we cut to the chase.

Fracking lobby pays 747m to stop laws'

Fracking lobby pays $747m to stop laws


Just the tip of the iceberg?

We all know where the real power resides. Let's not get caught up on environmental issues. The mining lobby may well be correct, but this is not the point. The real issue is who is going to get their way in the end.

On a different thread you discussing the Republican nominations. It wouldn't matter if you were discussing the Democrat nominations it still amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


Tut

Perhaps you think some lobbying is good so long as industry has no say. I say that because the environmental laws are not created in a bubble . The fact is that there are lobby efforts by environmental organizations (dare I say it ? Corporations ) to influence law also . Now the industry you mention may indeed outspend the environmental lobby ,and probably does. However ,they are quite influential on the lawmakers . Are you saying that industry should not have the right to defend themselves and influence laws that directly affect how they do business ? What type of tyranny do you preach ? If there is a law that has an impact on my life I certainly have the constitutional protection to address it ;to petition for redress . Certainly you are not arguing that corporations ;which represents the interests of thousands of shareholders ,should not have the right to influence the lawmakers.

[disclosure. I have some upstate NY property that is sitting right on top of the Marcellus Shale and would not turn down an offer for the purchase of the land by some drilling interest if the price was right.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Perhaps you think some lobbying is good so long as industry has no say

---

No, I am saying that lobbing is grossly disproportional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

I say that because the enviromental laws are not created in a bubble . The fact is that there are lobby efforts by environmental organizations (dare I say it ? corporations ) to influence law also .

---

Yes, but only if they are not drilling in a developing nation. Developing nations lack the means to redress environmental vandalism. No, the industrial horse didn't come before the cart when it comes to environmental issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Now the industry you mention may indeed outspend the environmental lobby ,and probably does. However ,they are quite influential on the lawmakers . Are you saying that industry should not have the right to defend themselves and influence laws that directly affect how they do business ? What type of tyranny do you preach ?

---

I am a bit confused here. I think your quote,"However, they are quite influential on lawmakers", is a reference to the environmental lobby and not industry. If this is the case the I would agree that is generally the case so long as these laws don't become too intrusive. In this particular case I would say that they are too intrusive, hence the muscle flexing.

I would say there is a big difference between defending oneself in terms of existing precedent and attempting create a precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

If there is a law that has an impact on my life I certainly have the constitutional protection to address it ;to petition for redress . Certainly you are not arguing that corporations ;which represents the interests of thousands of shareholders ,should not have the right to influence the lawmakers.

---

My guess would be that you need to look at the above quote in terms of common law and constitutional law.

Tut

Quote:

---

Certainly you are not arguing that corporations ;which represents the interests of thousands of shareholders ,should not have the right to influence the lawmakers

---

.

This is exactly what we should be arguing because what you have just said is a gross distortion of the facts. A corporation does not represent thousands of shareholders, the elected representatives represent those people. A corporation represents only it's profit motive and while a legal entity, it is not a person and not entitled to representation

Quote:

---

,"However, they are quite influential on lawmakers", is a reference to the environmental lobby and not industry. If this is the case the I would agree that is generally the case so long as these laws don't become too intrusive. In this particular case I would say that they are too intrusive, hence the muscle flexing.

---

It is . I don't know if the laws are too instrusive or not. I think concerns about fracking impacting ground water need to be studied and resolved. I am not in favor of pollution despite the constant charge here to the contrary.

The fact is that we are sitting on what has been correctly called "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas". It is much cleaner burning than petroleum ;and as the link you provided states ,there are many well paying jobs in the industry if the environmental challeges can be overcome (it really is an engineering challenge ) .

I scratch my head at extreme enviromentalism . They surrounded the White House this week with a plastic replica of the Keystone oil pipeline that was supposed to transport oil from Alberta to the refineries in the Illinois,Oklahoma,and the Gulf region . Again a win win . The Canadians want to export their product . If we don't buy it then they will construct a pipeline to Vancouver where the Chinese would be more than happy to purchase it.
It would provide product for the refineries in the Gulf . And ;there would be constructions jobs throughout the central US .

But President Obama ,as is his won't and history ,voted present . He decided to delay a decision on the construction until after the election.

We all know the real reason for the protests of course. One of the businesses that stand to benfit from the construction is owned by the Koch Brothers .

Essentially this becomes just one more case where central government is deciding winners and losers in the market through law and policy.

Those evil 1%er Koch Brothers . To stick a finger in their eye apx 20,000 jobs related to the project won't happen this year.
When Tal talks about capital stalled remember this example as one of the primary causes.

Quote:

---

This is exactly what we should be arguing because what you have just said is a gross distortion of the facts. A corporation does not represent thousands of shareholders, the elected representatives represent those people. A corporation represents only it's profit motive and while a legal entity, it is not a person and not entitled to representation

---

If a corporation is not for legal definition "people" then would you wave them of the legal responsibilities of their debts and liabilities or of getting sued ? In common law only people can be sued... no ? What you in fact are arguing is that they should be required to have the same responsibilities of a legal person ;but not the same rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

.

This is exactly what we should be arguing because what you have just said is a gross distortion of the facts. A corporation does not represent thousands of shareholders, the elected representatives represent those people. A corporation represents only it's profit motive and while a legal entity, it is not a person and not entitled to representation

---

Hi clete,


Exactly right.

A corporation is not a person. If the law says a corporation is a person then this is an absolute nonsense. It would be committing a fallacy of composition. It wouldn't surprise me. After all the law can be a donkey at times.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

If the law says a corporation is a person then this is an absolute nonsense. It is committing a fallacy of composition.

---

Hello TUT:

Of course it is... Did you know that our Supreme Court recently said that corporations have the right of free speech, just like people do??

Ridiculous!

excon

You are aware of the 1st amendment right of free association and petition.
Really what you are saying is people should have those rights ;and certain corporations even should have that right ( unions ;advocacy groups that incorporate into non-profits ) ;but certain corporations should have less rights than the ones you approve of . I have yet to hear a lib complain about the money Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club spends to influence politics in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I have yet to hear a lib complain about the money Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club spends to influence politics in this country.

---

Hello again, tom:

Well, lawdy be. I'm here to grant your wish.. I'm against ALL organizations spending money to influence politics. Money is NOT speech.. People can band together and lobby as a group. That's absolutely Constitutional.. If their collective strength isn't enough to convince politicians of the rightness of their ways, too bad. They may even spend as much as they like as individuals to influence politics... But, the organizations they join may NOT, in my view. Spend MONEY to influence politics.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you are aware of the 1st amendment right of free association and petition.
Really what you are saying is people should have those rights ;and certain corporations even should have that right ( unions ;advocacy groups that incorporate into non-profits ) ;but certain corporations should have less rights than the ones you approve of . I have yet to hear a lib complain about the money Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club spends to influence politics in this country.

---

No, what we are talking about is corporations having the benefit of being recognized as a mythical 'personhood' under the law.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me if you are a 'personhood', whatever that means. Is a personhood vote worth more than an individual vote?

Apparently truth is stranger than fiction.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tut you find it difficult to understand because your system of laws are not based on a constutution that enumerates certain rights .
Now it is true that corporations don't have the same degree of rights as a physical person . But they absolutely do have the same rights as a 'legal person'(persona ficta).

Your laws ,regardless if based on a constitution or not recognizes rights to persona ficta. It's simply a tradition of western law.

Now that's resolved the only debate is if such an assembly of individuals assembled into corporation should have a right to petition and influence the government that individuals do . If such a collection of people do not have that right then I also can advance the proposition that political parties ;unions ,trade associations like the Teachers unions ;various lawyer guilds etc simularily do not have that right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, lawdy be. I'm here to grant your wish.. I'm against ALL organizations spending money to influence politics. Money is NOT speech.. People can band together and lobby as a group. That's absolutely Constitutional.. If their collective strength isn't enough to convince politicians of the rightness of their ways, too bad. They may even spend as much as they like as individuals to influence politics... But, the organizations they join may NOT, in my view. spend MONEY to influence politics.

excon

---

I expect then that you are in favor of stopping political parties from having the right to fund campaigns .

What would you do ? Stop oil companies from airing ads that promote how much they spend on green research knowing damn well it's purpose is to influence politics? Would you stop the Teacher's Unions from defending themselves in ads when they are under attack in a political campaign ?

There are already laws that restrict how much they can spend directly to a candidate so what you are opposed to then is the right to petition directly either to the lawmakers or the public . The right to petition is not restricted to anyone be they flesh or persona ficta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What would you do ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Look. I don't know what to do. What I DO know is that when money is involved in politics, the guy with the most money gets his way...

That is NOT how this country was designed.

excon

Wow, I just read through all that. A few things you clever folks might be able to clear up for me:

More regulation/less regulation. How about the right kind of regulation made my intellligent fair-minded politicians. Where do we find those?

Why do you have to be poor to protest against poverty?
Why do you have to be a personal victim of unfairness to protest against social inequality?

How is it possible that some of us have a work ethic, do what we can to earn the money, but still end up skint?

What on earth does tea parties and corn holing mean??

Why did exy leave his island of naked chicks for somewhere that sounds much less appealing?

What do the occupiers specifically want? Is it actually their job to come up with the answers anyway? Or should we be looking for political leadership to find them? I go back to my first question.

Whoever has the money is the boss, plain and simple and backed up by facts. And when we the people don't keep a careful eye peeled, some will sneak in and take it all right from under our noses.

We are defined by what we do, so whose fault is it if we elect a lot of clowns who turn the country into a circus?

Whose fault is it when we let others make decisions for us, whether its in our interest or not?

Its our fault that we are where we are. We the people get what we elected, what we deserved, and its up to we the people to get beyond the BS, and get what WE want.

Sometimes choosing who to vote for at an election feels like shall I vote for having my left foot amputated or my right one...

Quote:

---

More regulation/less regulation. How about the right kind of regulation made my intellligent fair-minded politicians. Where do we find those?

---

Good luck finding that... given the choice ,in an imperfect world, I opt for a government with limited defined powers.

Quote:

---

Why do you have to be poor to protest against poverty?

---

You don't have to ;but it is a bit hyporitical for clowns like Michael Moore to show up at these rallies cheering them on and then at night retreat to his lake side mansion.
It is a bit of a joke for Warren Buffet to complain he's under taxed only to find out later he refuses to pay the taxes he is due to pay.
Do you think Al Gore should be jet setting around the world and living in a mansion that leaves a carbon footprint the size of the Lock Ness Monster... advocating for governments to put regulations on carbon emissions that would favor companies he's invested in ? Let them walk the walk.

Quote:

---

How is it possible that some of us have a work ethic, do what we can to earn the money, but still end up skint?

---

Stuff happens . Are you saying that it is the role of government to guarantee an outcome of success ? If someone invests in a college career and doesn't succeed in translating that into a good life then what are yours and my responsibilities to that person? What really rubs me raw is that these so called guarantees are picked up by some tax payer who may never have had that chance . Let's say someone without the intelligence is consigned to busting their a$$ and over time carves out a decent existence for themselves. Why is it that person's problem that some idiot paid a fortune to get one of those liberal arts degrees like humanities ,and can't make a go of it ? But money gets picked out of that person's pocket then so the loser's college loan is government guaranteed ? Gimme a break ! But that is exactly what they mean when they talk about college loan relief.

Quote:

---

What do the occupiers specifically want? Is it actually their job to come up with the answers anyway? Or should we be looking for political leadership to find them?

---

I don't have to look for political leadership for them. They are destroying the neighborhoods by their encampments and can't give a coherent reason why ? That sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

Tea Party is a political movement started a couple years ago to protest the bail outs and excess government spending . It is named after the Boston Tea Party. Surely someone from England knows about that. Colonists protesting taxes threw tea into Boston harbor... 'making the tea undrinkable... even for Americans'(to quote Mr Banks from 'Mary Poppins') .

Cornholing is disgusting ,

I am of course aware of the historical relevance of the Boston Tea party but was unsure of it's exact current usage. So thanks for the info; still not sure what the cornholing means but from your comment I guess I'm happier not knowing the details.

No, I'm not saying that it is the role of government to ensure success. Rather that it is not their role to undermine it by punitively taxing the masses to dig us out of a hole dug by the bankers. Wouldn't we all love a job where we get a massive bonus even after we make a spectacular balls up. Not that I'm not willing to share the pain of reducing a spectacular debt owed by the country, but somehow the sharing seems a little bit skewed. I don't actually know exactly what is on the agenda of the occupiers but I bet these factors are in there somewhere.

Of course there will be some hypocrites jumping on the bandwagon for a bit of personal air time or whatever. Hardly means we should write of the whole movement.

I am totally against the violence and destruction and think it's a real shame these things degenerate this way. However, I do support everyone's right to peaceful protest. Vote for idiot A or tosspot B every few years, only for them to reneg on their manifesto promises, is hardly democracy at it's best.

If you are anti government intervention does that mean they should have just let the banks fail?

LOL, Tom. You are worried about a bunch of kids tearing up a park, but say nothing about wall street and the banks decimating neighborhoods, and cities, pensions and wages, nor the republicans who instead of creating jobs, want to bust unions, and triple down on abortion.

And what makes you think the Tea Party is any more important, or wiser than the youth who are just as frustrated, though less articulate?

Truth is, a lot of cash from rich guys goes to state, federal, and local candidates for there own agenda, and enrichment, and that's not fair.

So whose side are you on??

Quote:

---

If you are anti government intervention does that mean they should have just let the banks fail?

---

Absolutely... I've made that point a number of times here . AMHD is notoriously bad as far as finding past comments but I'll do my best to dig them .Basically I go into detail about the elimination of moral hazard and the willingness to take unreasonable risk knowing a bailout was in the offering if things go south .


To start... this one is the most recent one... but I argued against bailout or as we called it here "TARP" (the toxic asset relief program where not one toxic asset was relieved ) since Oct 2008.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...us-610438.html

Quote:

---

No, I'm not saying that it is the role of government to ensure success. Rather that it is not their role to undermine it by punitively taxing the masses to dig us out of a hole dug by the bankers

---

I also write of regulations implemented by the government intent on doing some command and control of the real estate market for the purpose of advancing a social agenda that caused the market problems . In fact it was not lack of regulation ;but as you correctly identified bad regulation that was the problem.

Sorry Tom, but the tarp did relieve the toxic assets from the banks books and holds them until they can be unwound and rectified so they can be put back as positive assets and sold as safe. But the problem really is that the whole financial market was deregulated and exploited in a very greedy manner and blew up the whole freaking economy, and even after the disaster they are fighting to keep doing what they did before, because they are not going to be re regulated anytime soon.

Thanks repubs, for watering down the safety regulations and calling them a failure. Bust up the banks, between investments, financial services, and depositors, and have derivatives fully disclosed, and rated accurately, not only would the market be fair, but less risky for investors and borrowers.

The banks took a good idea, and made it dirty from greed. Letting the fox guard the hen house is what got us here. The government NEVER told the banks to use underhanded trick to get people into houses they couldn't afford, quite the contrary, the banks steered people into new unfairly priced homes and charged fees upfront, and then bought INSURANCE to maximize profits when rising interests and balloon payments became due a year or two later.

They also let people combine their debts with their mortgages by refinancing longer established home owners to drain the equity that was built up over years from the home to their pockets.

Financial over reach, which had nothing to do with government, but crooks gaming the system. Knee jerk reaction isn't the way to get that money back, but taxing some rich guys who benefited this robbery would help relieve a lot of pain.

I agree with Tal it is time to tax the corporate criminals in fact to confiscate their assets, whether that be corporations or individuals and if that means bank failure, that's tough but fair. Until you put criminals out of business you will continue to have corporate crime, so calling fraud a failure of regulation is an ultimate copout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut you find it difficult to understand because your system of laws are not based on a constutution that enumerates certain rights .
Now it is true that corporations don't have the same degree of rights as a physical person . But they absolutely do have the same rights as a 'legal person'(persona ficta).

---

No, they have rights far above what any individual would hope to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Your laws ,regardless if based on a constitution or not recognizes rights to persona ficta. It's simply a tradition of western law.

---

Disagree with this.

Unless you can show me otherwise I would say that few countries in the Western tradition would come to the conclusion that corporations have certain rights as a person. Not in this country anyway. I would say your country would be an exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Now that's resolved the only debate is if such an assembly of individuals assembled into corporation should have a right to petition and influence the government that individuals do . If such a collection of people do not have that right then I also can advance the proposition that political parties ;unions ,trade associations like the Teachers unions ;various lawyer guilds etc simularily do not have that right.

---

As stated above I don't think it is resolved.

In my opinion corporate personhood in your country was badly given and supported by the legal systems in place. It allows corporations too much power and thus enabling them to be the real power behind government.

I understand the role of representative government and the role bodies as trade unions to try and influence government decisions. What I have been saying all along is that this representation is disproportional. It is disproportional because of the legal status you endow upon the artificial person. Yes,it is true that other bodies enjoy the same legal status but this does not make it a level playing field. Far from it.


Tut

You are right TUT, but the guys with the loot want the power that their loot can buy. So they steal your loot to buy their power. That includes buying the judges too! Just to hedge their bets in their favor.

That's a huge problem.

2 Presidents both came in in a down economy . 1 had a business friendly economic plan . 1 doesn't like buisiness and has policies that punish buiness. One in Sept of his 3rd year had 100,000 new jobs (Obama ) .One had 1million new jobs in Sept of his 3rd yead (Reagan) .
The Reagan expansion continued.

So who's model should the country follow again ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So who's model should the country follow again ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Your comparison is as shoddy as calling my WIN at Monopoly last night a viable economic model, and comparing it to the economy Obama inherited.

But, I'm used to your wing making up its own history.

excon

Tom you apply such false logic to economic outcomes

Ex you are right.. my facts were wrong... it was actually 1.1 million jobs.

Clete what is false about results ? The month Obama took office, unemployment was 7.8 percent.

Obama’s third September in office he created 103,000 jobs .He saw that as an improvement because it was better than the zero jobs created in August, but not large enough to bring down the unemployment rate or to make a claim that we are in recovery.

My logic claims that the Obama anti-business rhetoric ,executive orders ,and regulations are directly responsible for the slow to no recovery. The numbers don't lie . Back in Reagan's day they were concerned about the economy over heating and were talking of ways to slow it down.

By my logic Tom, it's the republicans policy of obstruction, and just say NO, to whatever the president proposes that has stopped a full recovery of this economy.

But I can understand that's the only hope of regaining the white house with the motley crew they have to depend on. King Reagan had a congress that was willing to work with him, Mr Obama does NOT.

What he said

Sorry the President's policies are wrong... that's why the Republicans won't go along with ridiculous spending plans that are already proven to be a formula to failure .

Ah Tom the formula for failure is partisanism.

Then tell that to Obama while he's there .It was his policies ,passed in his 1st 2 years ,that are the failure of today. Republicans were shut out of all the input into things like 'cash for clunkers' ,the stimulus bucket list ,and Obamacare . It is the President and the Dems who have failed .

Perhaps we should take a different tact... they WANT to live in the Park... we we erect a TALL chain link fence completely around the park... to "protect" them from all the homeless people they have such a disdain for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sorry the President's policies are wrong ...that's why the Republicans won't go along with rediculous spending plans that are already proven to be a formula to failure .

---

Hello again, tom:

Here's why you're going to lose this debate, and the OWS'rs are going to win.

SAYING that spending for repairing bridges and roads is ridiculous, IS RIDICULOUS. It's something the government is going to have to do anyway, and the people are catching on... Fixing roads and repairing bridges DOES WORK. How can it not? Your right wing blinders are showing themselves again.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Here's why you're gonna lose this debate, and the OWS'rs are gonna win.

SAYING that spending for repairing bridges and roads is ridiculous, IS RIDICULOUS. It's something the government is going to have to do anyway, and the people are catching on... Fixing roads and repairing bridges DOES WORK. How can it not? Your right wing blinders are showing themselves again.

---

Yeah, so we can have a brand new round of Obama promotional signs. You know of course that most of what Obama does is about him, not the American people.

If the infrastructure repair was going to be the thing that got us out of the Obama depression then he should've done it in the original bucket list . All the money we had for phony pump priming has already been spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

All the money we had for phony pump priming has already been spent.

---

Hello again, tom:

Ok, then let's pass an emergency tax increase on the wealthy. Do YOU want to drive on a bridge that needs repair?? It doesn't care that you're a right winger. When it crashes, it's going to kill Republicans and Democrats alike.

excon

I don't know where it is a Federal Government responsibility to make sure all roads and bridges are in a state of repair. If for instance the State of Massa~tax~us decided to build a boondoggle tunnel that costs... oh let's say $22 billion (most of it in costs over runs) ;then why should tax payers in Texas pay for it ?

Look ;the days of WPA building Hoover Dams are days gone by. Today's construction projects goes to a very elite and minority group of workers... unionized workers who are part of the reason why costs for such projects are so inflated .
There is no way that huge Robin Hood punative taxation of a small group will do the job of pulling the economy out of the cr@pper .

Reagan showed the way . Make a friendly environment to private business and the exconomy will recover .