Yeah 6/9 here - sort of amazing just how similar the rhetoric is between the two.
"they are suggesting that corporations power needs to be limited, such as not being able to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns"
So is this the main focus? Because then my response is still the same. Join the Tea Party. They have the same goal. If politicians are committed to small government then they don't have the power to do what the big lobbies want them to do, so corporate money gets out of politics. How does an OWS kid think it can be accomplished otherwise? One guy was saying we need to overturn Citizens United but that's not realistic, and corporate bans were a horrible failure before Citizens anyway.
The only way to remove corporate influence in politics to vigilantly elect politicians who will commit to small government, a government that doesn't micromanage our lives. Then when the lobbyists realize they aren't getting their way anymore, they'll leave.
7/9
Fun quiz. It sort of validates what I was telling my husband last night. Between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street you have this overlapping common bond, a recurring theme if you will. They're both dissatisfied with their government for the same reason, only the two groups have different visions as to what sort of steps need to be taken to fix the problems.
"they are suggesting that corporations power needs to be limited, such as not being able to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns"
So is this the main focus? Because then my response is still the same. Join the Tea Party. They have the same goal. If politicians are committed to small government then they don't have the power to do what the big lobbies want them to do, so corporate money gets out of politics. How does an OWS kid think it can be accomplished otherwise? One guy was saying we need to overturn Citizens United but that's not realistic, and corporate bans were a horrible failure before Citizens anyway.
The only way to remove corporate influence in politics to vigilantly elect politicians who will commit to small government, a government that doesn't micromanage our lives. Then when the lobbyists realize they aren't getting their way anymore, they'll leave.
Except most on the right, who would be aligned with the TP, don't feel that corporations should be limited in what they can donate. Talk radio went nuts over McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul. Not to mention the TP has been hijacked by social nutters like Michelle Bachman who don't want government in their lives, but have absolutely no problem putting it in other people's lives.
I have no doubt that the OWS, if its momentum continues to build, will have the same fate, where a bunch of radical left wing nutters will hijack it, then we'll just have to polar camps that continue to send our country on a fast track to destruction.
But you can limit corporate influence by enacting all sorts of unconstitutional limits on their influence or you can commit to electing politicians who won't be bought.
I think the latter is a better way.
Social nutters? Well, it is the social nutters who want government in other people's lives, but Michele Bachman isn't one of them. Bachman is on the right. It is leftists who want government in other people lives.
Social nutters? Well, it is the social nutters who want government in other people's lives, but Michele Bachman isn't one of them. Bachman is on the right. It is leftists who want government in other people lives.