Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Red Arrow]

RA, there's no reason AOPA (to pick one example) ought not be able to send you newsletters and whatnot keeping you abreast of pending legislative and regulatory changes that you should be aware of.

Actually, AOPA (a good example in my case) does.  I send them some money (not tax deductible, even if I did itemize) a few times a year to enable them to present "my" position to law makers.  Thousands of letters to law makers would largely go ignored or handled by staff members.  The fact that AOPA represents thousands of members allows better access to members of Congress.  Most of them are not from Oklahoma.  Why would they pay any attention to one, or even hundreds of voters from Oklahoma?  Answer: They wouldn't.

As long as lobbyists are restricted from buying members of Congress, I think the idea works.  We are not a country of a few hundred thousand any more.  Issues cross state lines.  Issues may be totally under the control of someone from another state.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You believe the same source you condemn Bush for using?  I have looked around the internet a bit and most put your numbers as high by an order of magnitude.  Many specifically say the Lancet is just flat out wrong.

Most meaning ALL the Rupert Murdoch sources.

I don't condemn Bush for using the Lancet.  They are about as good as it gets.  And much better than those Murdochian sources you are talking about.  And of course they would say Lancet is wrong...

But hey, those same people say that waterboarding is not a violation of treaty law.  When everyone in the real world knows it is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, definitely not that one.  Get out your dictionary again and find some more words starting with the letter "i".  I believe the first three letters ("int") were correct but you stopped too soon.
 
 

Most especially that one...else, why would you be so engaged?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I see just as much problem with politics being controlled by Unions (the organization, not the individual members acting as individuals).  Why do you always neglect that?

We could start by getting more people to vote.  The voter turnout in this country is abysmal.  Stop all political contributions by Corporations and Unions.  I have mixed feelings about expensive $/plate fund raisers.  For a long time the cry was that only rich Republicans benefited.  Obama has proven that to be incorrect.  Severely restrict any gifts to elected officials.  My employer deals with government contracts.  We cannot even buy government representatives lunch unless it is part of a working lunch brought in.  If a government rep joins a group of us after hours, he/she must buy their own food and liquid refreshment.  As I understand it, they cannot even be part of "buying the next round".   Lobbying should not be outlawed entirely.  For example, a couple of the aviation groups I belong to speak for me.  I cannot know everything going on in Washington that would affect my flying (planes).   Some regulations will be necessary.  Where to draw the line will always be in contention.

Since unions now have what...about 6% of the work force, and declining, that old saw about "evil unions" is just another worn out, threadbare leftover of the early Murdochian Era.  It does point out how no matter what, the script must be adhered to.


Lobbying will never change, until there is a Constitutional amendment.  Or the Supreme Court actually realizes that a corporation is NOT a human being and one of "the people" mentioned in same document.  You like the aviation groups, I like the NRA.  Everyone has their pet projects.  (I like the fact of the existence of the aviation groups - I'm just not a member, since I don't fly.)  It will always be tough to get a balance.

[we vs us]

Since unions now have what...about 6% of the work force, and declining, that old saw about "evil unions" is just another worn out, threadbare leftover of the early Murdochian Era.  It does point out how no matter what, the script must be adhered to.


Lobbying will never change, until there is a Constitutional amendment.  Or the Supreme Court actually realizes that a corporation is NOT a human being and one of "the people" mentioned in same document.  You like the aviation groups, I like the NRA.  Everyone has their pet projects.  (I like the fact of the existence of the aviation groups - I'm just not a member, since I don't fly.)  It will always be tough to get a balance.

Lobbying won't change until we can all agree that money isn't speech.  In other words, never.

We're in a vice of our own construction.  We've enshrined corruption as an essential exercise of one of our defining freedoms.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

We're in a vice of our own construction.  We've enshrined corruption as an essential exercise of one of our defining freedoms.  

Sounds like the history of the human race, doesn't it?  For at least a few thousand years.

[Red Arrow]

Since unions now have what...about 6% of the work force, and declining,

Then you should have no problem with stopping the use of mandatory union dues to support a political candidate that some individual members may not wish to support.  I see that as the same problem as corporate money being used to support candidates that employees of the corporations may not wish to support.

[Red Arrow]

Most meaning ALL the Rupert Murdoch sources.

I don't condemn Bush for using the Lancet.  They are about as good as it gets.  And much better than those Murdochian sources you are talking about.  And of course they would say Lancet is wrong...

Look around a bit before condemning all sources that don't support you as Murdochian.

[Red Arrow]

Most especially that one...else, why would you be so engaged?

Just to be contrary.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Then you should have no problem with stopping the use of mandatory union dues to support a political candidate that some individual members may not wish to support.  I see that as the same problem as corporate money being used to support candidates that employees of the corporations may not wish to support.

Just as soon as we stop mandatory use of my Federal taxes for the killing of our kids, civilians, and unwarranted spending of trillions of dollars on Imperialistic Voyeurism!


As for mandatory union dues...well, as the RWRE is SOOOOOO fond of saying...there ain't NOBODY in this world forcing them to work a union job!  (As you know.)  They can go get a job somewhere else!  Anyone disparaging working in a "mandatory union dues" job is using misdirection, dissemination, and flat out lies to try to advance an irrelevant point.  Nobody is forced to work that job.  It is a mutually agreed-to work rule - by both the company and the union, that should one CHOOSE to work that job, one shall pay dues as a condition of employment.  It is very simple law of supply and demand which forms the basis and essence of capitalism.  So, by definition, should one CHOOSE to take and keep the job, then one agrees to the terms contained therein.

If there is that much philosophical disagreement, then get another job!

[Red Arrow]

Lobbying will never change, until there is a Constitutional amendment.  

I don't have a problem with the concept of a group of citizens hiring someone to take their concerns to their lawmakers.  There is a problem with the mechanics of how it works.  It will be difficult to get lawmakers to make a law that reduces their income but I don't think a Constitutional amendment is required.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just to be contrary.

Just to be contrary...because you are interested.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't have a problem with the concept of a group of citizens hiring someone to take their concerns to their lawmakers.  There is a problem with the mechanics of how it works.  It will be difficult to get lawmakers to make a law that reduces their income but I don't think a Constitutional amendment is required.

That whole Supreme Court thing last year shut down over a hundred years of laws like that.  I'm betting it will take an Amendment, given the nature of our Soldout Supreme Court.  But, then you gotta give them credit on the Second Amendment - even with Obama's two imitation justices, they got that one correct.


And as for the Second Amendment, I think it may be time for me to get wound up on that one real soon!  Especially given the attacks being made on our RIGHT to bear arms by the Obamanites.  I wonder if a new thread is in order?  I wonder if anyone would read it?

[Red Arrow]

As for mandatory union dues...well, as the RWRE is SOOOOOO fond of saying...there ain't NOBODY in this world forcing them to work a union job!  (As you know.)  They can go get a job somewhere else!  Anyone disparaging working in a "mandatory union dues" job is using misdirection, dissemination, and flat out lies to try to advance an irrelevant point.  Nobody is forced to work that job.  It is a mutually agreed-to work rule - by both the company and the union, that should one CHOOSE to work that job, one shall pay dues as a condition of employment.  It is very simple law of supply and demand which forms the basis and essence of capitalism.  So, by definition, should one CHOOSE to take and keep the job, then one agrees to the terms contained therein.

If there is that much philosophical disagreement, then get another job!

I'm glad to see you support the concept of  Right to Work.  If you can't stomach working in a non-union shop, go somewhere else.

[Red Arrow]

I think it may be time for me to get wound up ... real soon!  

If you get wound up any more, you will break like a cheap watch spring.