Yea Mob Rule!

Codenamechaz: Which begs the question "How do you make politics"?

HOW IS POLITICS FORMED? HOW ELECTORATE GET SCRAWWED?

Oh, and I hope TFA is on the right track. As much as OWS has kind of turned into a joke, I'd love to see the Dems address the issues they raise.

Calmamity: What do you mean "thanks!"? I been stocking up on ammo and gas and practicing my Australian accent and now it's all for nothing. You're a jerk, ManRay.

You efforts are not in vain. I'm sure you can find some use for that stuff. Maye not at the same time, but still.

This would require the 99% to be in politics, at which point, they're no longer the 99%.

Lando Lincoln: I knew this headline wasn't talking about the GOP. And I was right.

Because you hate Freedom and have been brainwashed by the liberal elite media. You're also obviously envious. The politics of envy will fail in 2012. And remember

Corporations are people my friend

Because then we'd be catering to the minority of The People.

/"The People" is a registered trademark of Koch Industries, Inc.

Nadie_AZ: sweetmelissa31: GWLush: The problem is part of that 99% don't think they are part of the 99%.

They're just 1 lottery ticket away from being Mitt Romney.

Yup.

And their real father is a prince living in England.

Hey! That worked for Amanda Bynes!

The Dictatorship of the 1% vs. The Democracy of the 99% = 'OMG MOB RULE!!!' according to the 99%

Maybe people really are too stupid to govern themselves...

meat0918: The 99% better reign in some of their more anarchistic members then, lest they taint Obama and the Democrat's re-election chances.

Although Monday's march was peaceful, it caught the attention of police after event organizers created promotional materials that included a flier depicting a ninja armed with a crowbar and a pipe wrench, and an announcement that stated in part that organizers "are not encouraging anyone to attack any property whatsoever, but some property is more acceptable than others if you really must risk your freedom by doing something of that nature." (new window)



Huh huh huh-huh. You said "taint"

As Krugman keeps pointing out, even the rugged individualist Galt types cannot make it alone. They need their suppliers and customers to be easy/fast to ship to-and-fro and easy/fast to communicate with. Governments that keep this in mind are able to craft manufacturing infrastructures/regions/systems that are more powerful than the go-it-alone free market types can create organically.

So, yes, you can has Laissez-Faire, but the centrally planned, independently operated manufacturing cluster will eat your lunch.

We live in a plutonomy. The bottom 90% don't matter except as consumers. Changing our system will require a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. In an interview a few days ago, Nancy Pelosi indicated just such an amendment is on the Democratic agenda if they win the Presidency, House and Senate in November.

timujin: Because "we" don't make politics*.

Via The Daily Show^, and as usual really well done.


*"make politics" is a horrible phrase

Yeah, Mitt Romney is kind of a dick.

And when the election is over, it'll be business as usual - doing what the 1% tells them to do.

Attacking rich people to gain votes probably ends one of two ways.

A. They take their money and run to greener pastures after ripping us off for every cent we're worth.

B. A politician says he wants to make the rich pay their fair share, but it turns out he is lying...

The result for OWS supporters is pretty much the same.

Makh: Why would I want to run for that office?

Who cares? Someone with values other than "get paid" would run.

way south: Attacking rich people to gain votes probably ends one of two ways.

A. They take their money and run to greener pastures after ripping us off for every cent we're worth.

I hear many supply-siders make this threat. Funny thing is that after A., yes, they are gone, but if they provided a useful product of value to the market then the invisible fist of the market will quickly replace their function.

/Why do the "Job Creators" toadies get to use threatening, extortionate language against livelihoods?

Notabunny: Nancy Pelosi indicated just such an amendment is on the Democratic agenda if they win the Presidency, House and Senate in November.

Yeah, that's coming from Nancy Pelosi, who while talking a good game is just as much on the take as anybody. "Oh, if we win everything we might propose a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics..." yeah, and if Charlie Brown runs at the football again, Lucy just might not pull it away at the last minute.

Fark that. Put the gauntlet down, introduce it in the Senate before the election. No, not the weak-ass amendment proposal that Sanders and company put out, go hardcore: state corporations only have First Amendment protection for the purpose of arbitrating and signing contracts, and that the only form of protected political speech is the vote which shall not be denied or infringed except on the basis of age.

Introduce that farker at the end of the summer Senate session (to eat the Republicans' lunch at the RNC) or at the start of the fall session as an October surprise. Push that hard and make sure the populace knows exactly who stands with it, against it, and why. Make sure that sucker is #1 on the minds of voters when they go to the polls.

bootman: way south: Attacking rich people to gain votes probably ends one of two ways.

A. They take their money and run to greener pastures after ripping us off for every cent we're worth.

I hear many supply-siders make this threat. Funny thing is that after A., yes, they are gone, but if they provided a useful product of value to the market then the invisible fist of the market will quickly replace their function.

/Why do the "Job Creators" toadies get to use threatening, extortionate language against livelihoods?

The problem is both that you no longer have to live in the us to make money off it, and that we are perfectly happy to buy from the cheapest source. As soon as someone reaches a certain threshold of wealth then they'll take advantage of that.

You can't lock their money inside the border and it is quite a bit of change we're talking about. They'll build shanghai la wherever they can buy amicable laws.
Do your honestly believe our politicians will turn their nose up at a fist full of bills in exchange for our loyalty?

/not when they can buy it by way of blog and billboard.

that bosnian sniper: Notabunny: Nancy Pelosi indicated just such an amendment is on the Democratic agenda if they win the Presidency, House and Senate in November.

Yeah, that's coming from Nancy Pelosi, who while talking a good game is just as much on the take as anybody. "Oh, if we win everything we might propose a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics..." yeah, and if Charlie Brown runs at the football again, Lucy just might not pull it away at the last minute.

Fark that. Put the gauntlet down, introduce it in the Senate before the election. No, not the weak-ass amendment proposal that Sanders and company put out, go hardcore: state corporations only have First Amendment protection for the purpose of arbitrating and signing contracts, and that the only form of protected political speech is the vote which shall not be denied or infringed except on the basis of age.

Introduce that farker at the end of the summer Senate session (to eat the Republicans' lunch at the RNC) or at the start of the fall session as an October surprise. Push that hard and make sure the populace knows exactly who stands with it, against it, and why. Make sure that sucker is #1 on the minds of voters when they go to the polls.

Your idea would be a great way to highlight stark contrasts between Democratic and Republican positions. I'm sure the ads would include Romney's now famous, "Corporations are people, my friend1" But while I agree the money in our politics is the source of a lot of problems, I think a Constitutional amendment needs to be worked up to slowly. I can imagine it taking a year of high profile conversation in the media before enough public support could be generated.

way south: You can't lock their money inside the border and it is quite a bit of change we're talking about. They'll build shanghai la wherever they can buy amicable laws.

As long as their profits are taxed before or as they are wired over I do not care where Mr. Galt chooses to live.

/If Mr. Galt was smart, he would retain his US Citizenship so the Seals would be slightly less disinclined to save his sorry arse when Somali Pirates abscond with his person.