If Congress so chose, it could clarify the 1st amendment to eliminate thwt interpretation. It won't be the first time. Congress had to define what makes on a US citizen since popular cultural interpretations of the law we excluding certain classes of people form citizenship rights. Overturning an part of the bill or rights would be nearly politically impossible. But clarifying a gross misinterpretation/misapplication of the law is a no brainer.
I don't particularly agree with the occupy "insert whatever here" people. But all the response does kinda remind me of Of course no where as violent as the result of that.
Corporations should only count as three-fifths of a person since they can't vote. There is at least legislative precedent for it. CML or whoever the bootstrappy the "government takes what is mine" people are have such a delusional view of what they earn and own. What would they earn without roads, airports, police, armies, hospitals, the SEC, the Fed, the EPA, the Post office, the Civil Courts system... it is our society that imparts value to you and your efforts unless you are a self sufficient mountain trapper. (you are posting on the public internet) You would probably be a syphilis infected, physically beaten down, peasant share cropper that had to give his wife's virginity to the local Lord without an organized and tax funded social system. Your hubris is based on an illusion. Here's the real fact Darwin: nothing is yours, if you can't keep it. So maybe you think you are the biggest strongest baddest caveman around, constant vigilance is going to be exhausting, and just when you think you can whip anybody, some little pop fart is going to stab you in the back when you are not looking, and then take your stuff. That is why we organize into societies of laws; it's a shared effort at civilized security. And when we do and we can have free and informed elections where the majority decide what the priorities and social responsibilities of the society are. And generally, people choose not to have indigents dying in the streets as a quality of life issue. If you are not sick, infirmed, mentally challenged, outsourced, clinically depressed, under nurtured, raised disadvantaged, abused, undernourished, unskilled in English,learning disabled, dyslexic, a pregnant teen, or old maybe you should consider that rich, in and of itself. Because no matter how much tax you pay, you are better off then the folks that are.
You may think conservative people don't care but in reality that could not be further from the truth. You have no idea how much I give to charities. I have also spent a lot of time and money helping a group of underprivileged Hispanic kids. The problem is this has gone too far. We are now 15 trillion in debt. Now I realize you and other liberal people think that is because we just don't tax the rich enough, it's all Bushes fault, or whoever you want to blame but the real problem is this country is spending itself into oblivion. We can't sustain the current path. 15 trillion debt with trillion + dollar deficits is going to bring this country to it's knees. When the country falls we are ALL going to be in real trouble. Not just the people who live off of the government, EVERYBODY. If you took all of the money from every rich person in the country it would not put a dent in this mess. We have to get spending under control. That means entitlements and military. Why does that not make sense to liberals. Taxing the rich will not get us out of this mess. You see rich people are usually job creators. When their businesses grow they hire more people. Conservatives want everyone to be able to get a job so they can help contribute to the infrastructure you spoke of. The only way out of this mess is to DRASTICALLY cut spending and lower taxes to jump start the economy.
sigh. Someone needs to create an auto-reply, as soon as this flawed idea pops up--- "Most empirical evidence indicates that America is to the left of Laffer curve optimums. Do not expect reducing taxes to magically balance budgets; as a matter of fact, lowering taxes further will create bigger deficits---which really just makes sense. We do not live in a magic world where lowering taxes or eliminating regulations will magically create a new economy. Any serious attempt at deficit reduction should include revenue increases, and lower expenses." Also, "job-killing tax hikes---job-killing budget cuts, two sides of the same ugly coin."
This is so ****ing stupid it hurts. There are two things majorly wrong with this sentence. Can you identify them? No, of course you can't. Who am I kidding? if you're a real person, you are too intransigently disadvantaged to even remotely comprehend the sheer idiocy and incongruity of this post. Go with god, young man, and make sure you close your garage door when you leave the car running. Or is it even open it? I'm not sure.
No ****. The guy is apparently oblivious to the fact that Federal taxes today are at modern historic lows. Whining and babbling about lowering them even more is only carrying water for the wealthy and the big corporations, who will NEVER stop shouting for lower taxes, regardless of how low they have become. The kid is also apparently oblivious to the fact that the reason we have such huge deficits are because of Iraq, a war we should never have fought, enormous bailouts for a few huge banks, who created their own mess due to corruption, greed, wildly irresponsible gambling with their depositors money, handing out loans they knew were absurd, but begging Americans to get them, even talking them into those crazy loans when they walked into the office expecting to get a more traditional one (hey! this is cheaper! check it out!!! it's really cool and safe! HONEST!!!), AND THOSE ****ING HISTORICALLY LOW TAXES. He's either oblivious, stupid, or knowingly talking out his arse because he has fun trolling around here. And he isn't alone, there being a few more just like him crying the same nonsense. With all due respect to the kid and the rest of them, of course.
Police Pepper Spray Peaceful UC Davis Students and get ran off campus. A beautiful piece of video! The last minute is stunning. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BjnR7xET7Uo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I am an avid supporter of occupy wall st, saying that it is appalling to see you quote something and give a comparison like that. There is massive population and size factor not included in that logic. It is comparisons and so fourth like the above which gives occupy wall st a bad name, when someone sees something like that they notice the ridiculous idiocy in comparing the two~ when someone who doesn't understand the movement sees the above they wont look into what the movement is over, they will automatically make up their minds that its a joke.
I bet if you had 100K protestors camped out on the White House lawn for 7 weeks, you'd see something pretty close.
The irony was which regime is considered 'oppressive' when juxtaposed by the arrest count. I guess he needed a TRANSPARENCY IS THE ISSUE! Things are evolving: 'Occupy The SEC' Scrutinizes The Volcker Rule For Loopholes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/occupy-sec-volcker-rule_n_1102842.html NEW YORK -- A handful of protesters at Occupy Wall Street are doing what the authors of the so-called Volcker rule, a 298-page regulatory document legislation may have hoped no one would do. They are reading it.
I'm sorry you were offended. The point was more about the repressive tactics taken by the police. I just found it ironic that one of the most recent repressive crack downs for democratic reforms in another country had fewer arrests than our supposedly civil society.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uQZb-5GM6to" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Summed up very nicely. Bernie Sanders is a great face of socialism. The guy is awesome and doesn't back down.
You do realize there is a huge difference between your personal efforts and what effects your politics support? That's great that you gave "a lot of time and money" to underprivileged hispanic kids. I'm sure you thanked them for buffering our labor force, immeasurably skewing our state's economic data and narrative, and for giving Perry the illusion of the Texas Miracle. You might think your philanthropy justifies your political prerogative to repress social mobility and blame poor, undeserving Americans, but I just think it makes you a hypocrite. Ok. One, explain to me how these two ideas are going to be cohabitant in this political environment, and two, I want you to explain where you want the cuts to come from. We need to spend less. This we agree on. Now I want you to tell everyone that you want to take away pennies from social security, protect the bullion of corporate taxable revenue (and how Obama is "anti-business" or whatever the **** that means) and ride the 9-9-9 train to your oligarchic paradise.
