Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

Do you support the global "Occupy" protests?

  • Total voters
    234
researchkitty said:
Mittens Romney says Corporations are people. So what if a group started Occupy, how else would it come up with itself?
Click to expand...

The way it SEEMED to....

And the way it IS in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY :dunce:

People getting angry, or being too damn broke to do anything else, and taking to the streets to change things...

I thought it was a real protest...And that the people would stay forever if necessary.

But it was just a job for them

From 1-10 everyday...
Not protestors, laborers.
Not doing it because they cared for their lives, or their futures and wanted to see change.
But because they were PAID to be there.
 
Finshaggy said:
The way it SEEMED to....

And the way it IS in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY :dunce:

People getting angry, or being too damn broke to do anything else, and taking to the streets to change things...

I thought it was a real protest...And that the people would stay forever if necessary.

But it was just a job for them

From 1-10 everyday...
Not protestors, laborers.
Not doing it because they cared for their lives, or their futures and wanted to see change.
But because they were PAID to be there.
Click to expand...

your wrong.

"how to start a revolution" -Gene Sharp ALL of the movements your thinking of had an organizing factor, Gene Sharp.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp
 
researchkitty said:
Mittens Romney says Corporations are people. So what if a group started Occupy, how else would it come up with itself?
Click to expand...

The good side of viewing corporations as people is that when they screw someone over and get sued, you can take their (the owners) cars, homes, etc.

Seems like decent motivation to not screw people over imo.
 
budlover13 said:
The good side of viewing corporations as people is that when they screw someone over and get sued, you can take their (the owners) cars, homes, etc.

Seems like decent motivation to not screw people over imo.
Click to expand...

they are only people with respect to money as speech, they are still covered from many liabilities legally by whatever they choose to set up their business as.

win-win for them.
 
UncleBuck said:
they are only people with respect to money as speech, they are still covered from many liabilities legally by whatever they choose to set up their business as.

win-win for them.
Click to expand...

THAT, i disagree with. Had this convo yesterday and today with a co-worker. If corps are people, with the right to "voice" their opinion through money and whatnot then they must also be considered people when it comes to harming another imo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
budlover13 said:
THAT, i disagree with. Had this convo yesterday and today with a co-worker. If corps are people, with the right to "voice" their opinion through money and whatnot then they must also be considered people when it comes to harming another imo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

i'm with you, but reality is not. they lobbied well enough so that they could have their cake and eat it too.

THIS is why i am all for an ultra-progressive tax structure. too much money at the top = bad news for the rest of us.
 
budlover13 said:
The good side of viewing corporations as people is that when they screw someone over and get sued, you can take their (the owners) cars, homes, etc.

Seems like decent motivation to not screw people over imo.
Click to expand...

No you CAN'T take them.
The company (as a "person") is responsible for its own actions.

If you sue the owner you can take their car, but not if you sue the corporation...
That corporation is a person, and is accountable as such...
 
budlover13 said:
THAT, i disagree with. Had this convo yesterday and today with a co-worker. If corps are people, with the right to "voice" their opinion through money and whatnot then they must also be considered people when it comes to harming another imo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

The supreme court ruled that we have freedom of speech,
But also ruled that Money=Speech :(
 
Finshaggy said:
No you CAN'T take them.
The company (as a "person") is responsible for its own actions.

If you sue the owner you can take their car, but not if you sue the corporation...
That corporation is a person, and is accountable as such...
Click to expand...

So i can sue and take the corporations car and factory?
 
budlover13 said:
So i can sue and take the corporations car and factory?
Click to expand...

i'm not sure what shinfaggy has going on up in that dome of his, but if i recall correctly, if you sue a corporation and win you can lay claim to certain assets of the corporation, but not to the car or house of the person/people running the organization.

so you may be able to hurt the entity, but not the people behind the entity who can still laugh all the way to the bank.

but it's been a while since i took my business courses in university, so this may be only half true.
 
Finshaggy said:
The supreme court ruled that we have freedom of speech,
But also ruled that Money=Speech :(
Click to expand...

The way in which one spends money is a freedom of expression imo. Which i still say is not covered by the Constitution.

Never have liked hearing "But freedom of expression is protected!"

Expression can take many forms.
 
UncleBuck said:
i'm not sure what shinfaggy has going on up in that dome of his, but if i recall correctly, if you sue a corporation and win you can lay claim to certain assets of the corporation, but not to the car or house of the person/people running the organization.

so you may be able to hurt the entity, but not the people behind the entity who can still laugh all the way to the bank.

but it's been a while since i took my business courses in university, so this may be only half true.
Click to expand...

That's what i was referring to, as far as taking their company vehicles, facilities, etc. Just seems like a get outta jail free card to me.

i incorporated my feed store back in the day to avoid my personal assets from being targeted in the event of a mistake or error because it was available. i just think that if that protection wasn't there they might be a little more likely to think twice before intentionally screwing someone over.
 
budlover13 said:
That's what i was referring to, as far as taking their company vehicles, facilities, etc. Just seems like a get outta jail free card to me.

i incorporated my feed store back in the day to avoid my personal assets from being targeted in the event of a mistake or error because it was available. i just think that if that protection wasn't there they might be a little more likely to think twice before intentionally screwing someone over.
Click to expand...

i am fine with the protection they are afforded by incorporating, i am not OK with them being able to claim that their money = speech with respect to political campaigns.
 
Canna Sylvan said:
I wonder how many of you would change your vote, now that you found out how full of shit this whole thing was?
Click to expand...

i have a friend going voluntarily homeless in tucson (going on 35 days now) as part of the occupy movement. former combat vet, too.

so it ain't completely stuffed full of shit and as the poll indicates, the movement does have support.
 
UncleBuck said:
i have a friend going voluntarily homeless in tucson (going on 35 days now) as part of the occupy movement. former combat vet, too.

so it ain't completely stuffed full of shit and as the poll indicates, the movement does have support.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, i believe that those with good intentions (your friend included) have been duped and are being used as pawns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top