Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Money is free speech? Rob a bank and use that as your defense

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 19, 2012, 3:32 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Money is free speech? Rob a bank and use that as your defense"

funny quote from Jesse Ventura mocking the US political system

26 Comments

26 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Rob a country get a bailout. Rob a bank and your in deep shit.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Yes. We can't stand speech being imprisoned in the vault. :-)

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

If money is speech, why isn't the NYPD pepper spraying the free speaking corporate persons in the face?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It doesn't have to be that way. Eliminating private campaign financing is possible, but only through forming a broad coalition that includes the entire 99%, not just the left side of it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Occupy has already proven to be able to work with others.

Progressives and Libertarians working together against bought out politicians and the banking cartel. Because until those two issues are dealt with, the rest is just nonsense.

Its the Dems and Reps that cant work together. Greens, Occupy, RP crowd, etc....These are all open minded people.

Its the mess in the middle that really prevents anything from happening. They endorse all the bought out politicians, they spew nonsense about the other constantly, and they are really only concerned with erradicating the earth of their mortal enemy (which just shows how stupid it is because that is the whole point in a two party system, keep the people blaming each other).

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The General Assembly disintegrated due to infighting, and people on this site have been very aggressively telling me for the last two days that there is no need to even have a conversation with conservatives, because of how they're just wrong. Which is why I don't expect the coalition to arise out of the activities of extremists on the fringes, like OWS and the Tea Party. It will grow from the center outward. There have been many times in our country's history when such coalitions have formed to pass amendments. It's very possible, but only if enough people manage to look beyond their partisan squabbling for the good of the country. I don't think that Occupiers are capable since they only represent the left side of the 99%, but I do think that the 99% are capable in general. It's how prohibition was passed. And repealed. And many other amendments too.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The middle doesnt know its head from its ass right now. The center actually really is the Tea and Occupy and RP when you look at their hatred of fascism, bought politicians and the banking cartel.

"Libtards" "Repelicans" "Democraps" "Paulistas" etc.... There has never been a use, or ever will be a use, for this type of mindset when it comes to change.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Sorry, no, Occupy and the Tea Party are at the extremes and they don't represent the mainstream at all.

But I definitely agree with you that all of that extremist language is nothing but destructive and counter productive.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well if a being fed up with congress, wanting more options, ending the wars, ending the constant printing, and wanting our rights back is not middle, Im not sure what is.

Im not talking about the shit you see on FOX or MSNBC. Im talking about what you hear when you are THERE, talking for hours with a variety of people.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I have a baby so I don't watch television at all. Which might be why I'm less prone to rallying behind my tribe's flag like most people who aren't capable of looking beyond the left/right dichotomy.

Anyway, have you glanced at the link that I posted? I would consider it a personal favor if you would take a tiny look. I think that you're one of the few people around here who might understand the concept, because most people around here are obsessed with extremism.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We posted this graph on OT facebook a while ago, i though it had a great impact. Of course, it got a lot of very reactionary responses.

The idea is there. I dont think its so much a problem with agreement, as it is with getting the masses to actually get involved. That is the key, in my opinion, and the tough part.

No one in congress is going to do this, because they all benefit from us staying divided. So it would take a movement of people, and lots of em.

Getting people to go and vote is tough. Getting them to give up 2-3 hours a month is next to impossible. But I do think its shifting.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Getting people to focus on the issue really is the hard part. Especially when so many people are too distracted by the phrases "Occupy Wall Street" and "Tea Party" in that diagram to be able to comprehend all of those words in the center of the diagram. That's why I don't think that extremists are capable of catalyzing the change that we're all looking for. It has to grow from the center.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2728) 2 years ago

TechJunkie: your point is proved ("getting people to focus on the issue really is the hard part") by this forum you've been on, being rationale and reasonable. Over and over, from those on the left (or at least the dem. partisans), who continually get stuck on the word T party, and can't focus on any other part of a discussion.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/usatoday/article/57206476

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/19/2302664/convicted-puyallup-banker-kept.html

Just like the congress can't get work done-talking past each other.

Obama kind of was a centrist, but he gets attacked from both sides (not that I am pro Obama)

Unfortunately centrist positions (such as Justice Party) gets drowned out in corporate or financed attacks.

So we need a new centrist 99 percent party, that is the middle, that TechJunkie shows in the Lesseg graphic/

So how do you make the argument more appealing to centrist (and apathetic) America?

Show them where it hits them, in the pocket book.

PBS News Hour (9-19) economics guy in last segment says the congress not talking, could cause world to go into another world-wide depression. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/woodward_09-19.html

How much wealth the middle has lost, due to it being siphoned off in the current system, where politicians have to take big money to fight off the other guy, and the middle is left getting squeezed.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I personally think that if people had the option to support a tangible effort to eliminate private campaign finance without affiliating with extremists, then more people would get behind it.

I always imagine the people who hear about Occupy because of the protests who Google "Occupy Wall Street" and end up here, who are then turned off by all of these people referring to them as the enemy. It seems like at least half of the people who come to this site will end up turned off, and whenever they hear anybody talking about reform after that they're going to think of the Occupier extremists.

So IMHO, the way forward is to liberate the idea of reform from the extremists. Calm, rational people need to be talking about the destructive influence of money on our government, not foaming-at-the-mouth leftists with tattoos and piercings and dreadlocks and bongo drums who insist that Mitt Romney is Satan incarnate. People need to hear about the issue from people who they can identify with, and most people don't identify with extremists.

[-] 3 points by gsw (2728) 2 years ago

It's Working: two-thirds of likely voters polled would consider a candidate's commitment to addressing corporate wrongdoing as part of their decision-making process in the upcoming U.S. election.

Some 64 percent of those surveyed said corporate misconduct helped bring about the economic crisis that led to the U.S. recession. About 81 percent said the government has not done enough to stop corporate wrongdoing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-campaign-corporatewrongdoing-poll-idUSBRE88I11E20120919

www.voterocky.org

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Punishing people won't change the structure. The only way to get elected is through private financial donors and that's the heart of the problem. Changing that structure would leverage changes across the board by making politicians answer to voters instead of to financial backers.

You seem like the reading type. I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig's One Way Forward. It's really short and it's cheap. You can read the whole thing in one sitting easily. It's got some very clear, coherent, rational, centrist thinking on all of this.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 2 points by gsw (2728) 2 years ago

that seems like one concrete step-forward goal that unites people.

The public says they are not happy with the in-fighting congress.

Bush said he would unite people. Obama said he would bring people together, to solve problems.

The problems are bigger than 1 person, exactly because of the money from contributions in campaigns.

That leads to Romney saying stupid things at $50,000 a plate fundraisers.

I will order the Lessig book on my Kindle immediately. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

[cheer]

Thank you. You just made all of my frustrations here in the last day or two worth it, if one new person is going to take a look at that book. It's a pamphlet, really. Very light. And yet very enlightening. Lessig has always had a way with taking complex concepts and making them accessible.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2728) 2 years ago

in the end the politics driving it.

And that's part of the problem.

This rationale moderate Bob Woodward has a book, was on PBS interview b Judy Woodruff.

In summer 2011, a partisan Congress sparred with the White House on how to solve the U.S. debt crisis. Judy Woodruff talks to journalist Bob Woodward about his new book, "The Price of Politics," about how Washington's politicians couldn't look past their own political aspirations in order to forge a deal.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, it's clear that the economy is the issue, impacts everyone.

And leading up to a presidential election this year, I mean, it's obvious that -- what happened?

What -- and you find when you do these books, the news coverage is excellent, but it runs by history. And you have to go back and say, OK, let's get the meeting notes. Let's get the documents, do the extensive interviews, so you do a full excavation of what really happened.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What was it about that -- it was pretty much a six-week period that you mainly focus on in the middle of 2011.

BOB WOODWARD: Yes, about half the book is that, last summer, the struggle.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why that period?

BOB WOODWARD: Well, because that's when we were at the edge of the cliff.

And if there was a default -- as the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, told the president, if we don't fix this, if we don't come to sort of even a superficial agreement, we could trigger a global meltdown, a depression that would be worse than the 1930s.

And the impact on everyone would be giant.

And he also said, this isn't just a political or an economic decision you have to make. It's a moral choice you're faced -- if we have a default, it's going to hurt the people at the low end of the economic spectrum the most, because they're least able to deal with it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What's an example of a mistake made on both sides? Clearly, they didn't reach an agreement. And I want to ask you about the president in particular in a minute.

But -- well, let me ask you first, the congressional side, what was the mistake they made?

BOB WOODWARD: Well, that there is a war going on in the Republican Party, which I document here, where Speaker Boehner and his deputy, Eric Cantor, don't see eye to eye on lots of things, that Cantor is tied much more to the extreme conservative wing, the Tea Party people.

And at one point where Boehner looks like he's considering adding more revenue to the deal, more taxes, he calls Cantor down, and Cantor's chief of staff, not Cantor, but his chief of staff asks the speaker, how many votes do you think you can get for this? And the speaker says, about 170.

And the chief of staff, a staffer, says, you're crazy. And Cantor backs up the chief of staff. They think he can only get 50 votes for it.

And that's when Boehner goes into this period of about a day when he won't return the president's phone calls. So there is...

JUDY WOODRUFF: It's a very dramatic few days there.

BOB WOODWARD: Yes. And it's just not -- you know, and it's -- even last -- you know, this summer as they're trying to figure out things, the super committee is working, or in the beginning period of the Obama presidency, you see these struggles and in the end the politics driving it.

And that's part of the problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you also make it clear, Bob Woodward, though, that you think the main responsibility lies with the president, because you said he's the president, it's on his shoulders.

What was it that he could have done and should have done differently?

BOB WOODWARD: Well, first of all, presidents have to work their will.

They have to solve problems. And the Republicans are a brick wall, with a cement wall behind it, with a steel girder behind that.

But you have to find some way to break through or get around that to solve the big problems.

And the president engaged, worked hard on it, very sincere, but you look at the details of this, some of the negotiations, some of the proposals were made impulsively by telephone.

And no one else is talking on the extension, as best I can tell, when the president is talking to the speaker and asking for more revenue.

And there is a monumental miscommunication here that sets the whole thing off. There's no fallback position. The treasury secretary really is running around shouting: Fire. We are going to do something that will last for generations if we don't fix it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And can you put your finger on what it was that President Obama didn't have or didn't do?

BOB WOODWARD: He doesn't have the relations with these people.

For instance, specifically, Joe Biden has this relationship with Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader. He's known in the West Wing, Biden is, as the McConnell whisperer, the person who can deal with McConnell.

They have known each other for decades. They don't agree on things, but it's the kind of old deal-making philosophy, one for you, one for me.

And at key points in this three-and-a-half year period, it's Biden who comes and bails the administration and the president out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have reported on presidents since Richard Nixon, obviously, going back to Watergate.

I have talked to other folks who have covered other presidents who talk about this is such a difficult time historically, intransigent, poisonous relationships. Can anyone lead in these circumstances?

BOB WOODWARD: Bill Clinton says, well, no one could fix this fully. And, you know, you can make a case for that.

But it depends on your expectation. If our expectations are such that, oh, there's gridlock, and you can't get around it, then we aren't going to solve the problems. There are all kinds of difficult things out there.

Getting and tracking Osama bin Laden was tough. It took 10 years to do it, but they did it.

And the problem with all of these economic debates is -- and people think, well, it's about a budget or it's about creditworthiness and so forth. No, it's about this country's balance sheet. We have $13 trillion of IOUs out in the world, and we're going to have to go borrow more.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/woodward_09-19.html

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I haven't read The Price Of Politics but it's coming up next in my Kindle after the book that I'm not reading now because I'm wasting time here. Plan Of Attack was amazing and it's too bad that more people don't have the attention span for Woodward's style of in-depth journalism.

BTW it's funny how people here don't recognize the schism within the right.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2728) 2 years ago

yes. they are pretty split.

we are like romney, (who writes off 47 percent) when we write off the other 47 percent (as stupid or ignorants incapable of observing facts)

It is their leaders, and financiers, and religious manipulaters, who are the deceivers, of their masses.

Actually, it would probably not be hard, with some facts and information, to get in and change some of the "righties" who are not total tow the party line righties, and carve out a bit more fore a new party there

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Better yet: how about a strategy that doesn't require righties to become lefties, or lefties to become righties? That's why consensus is not forming so far. Because the two groups on opposite ends want to require people to align with one extreme or the other in order to participate.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Bribing politicians is legal, but paying for sex is not.

Ironic.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

it's legal in Vegas

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And if you have a D or R after your official title haha.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

nice