Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Is it corporate fraud or only specific things tied to 2008?kame-sennin said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
AlimNassor
Banned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-protests-live#block-9
An Iraq War Vet was shot in the head by Police in Oakland. Now he's suffering from massive swelling of the brain and a cracked skull. Oakland cops are getting violent.
An Iraq War Vet was shot in the head by Police in Oakland. Now he's suffering from massive swelling of the brain and a cracked skull. Oakland cops are getting violent.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I hear vague complaints about corporate fraud, so its hard to tell what they're pissed about.Chichikov said:
schmalz said:
Holy shit!
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It seems like a tear gas canister hit him in the head when descending, is that correct?AlimNassor said:
jamesinclair
Banned
AlimNassor said:
Absolutely disgusting.
Seem so (though there were some reports about rubber bullets, and such injury can be consistent with those as well).Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
If the cops are shooting 40mm from that range (and again, I have no idea if that the ordinance that they're using, nor can I be sure from where it was shot) than they're at the very least criminally negligent.
This is WAY below the safe distance, and you never supposed to fire those things into crowds anyway, they're almost impossible to aim.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
True, honestly when I heard shot I was expecting with a bullet. We'll need to see what the range it was shot from as you point out.Chichikov said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Probably already posted, but:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/
EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement
Fucking FoxNews....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/
EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement
Fucking FoxNews....
empty vessel
Member
kame-sennin said:
Fox News is a corporation, not a person. It doesn't have free speech rights. Regulating corporations--including media corps--is our prerogative and duty. That doesn't mean Fox News has to be shut down. It does mean we should have no compunctions regulating its or any other corporate media's behavior.
Part of OWS's mission is to reestablish public control over the corporate form.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
CHEEZMO said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now
FoxNews and their cronies basically destroyed them with some made up bullshit because they helped minorities and poor people to go out and vote. They ended up being completely defunded.
Mortrialus
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
James O'Keef is pretty much the scum of the Earth.
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I saw a video earlier of what was allegedly Olsen falling down after a tear gas canister exploded a few feet from him (so it was shrapnel? I admit I'm not all that well-informed). I... don't know which link it was but I am pretty sure it was in this thread.
kame-sennin
Member
empty vessel said:
This is a tough issue for me, I don't feel great about either side of the argument. I agree that corporations should be subject to regulations, but ultimately, any media organization is a collection of people expressing themselves. How does one regulate the speech of a corporation without infringing on the rights of the individuals who are producing the message?
Nah, I was politically active in a country that has much more liberal use of such measures and I served in the military, where I sadly got to deploy such toys.Puddles said:
Well, I didn't want to derail this thread (as every mention of Israel seem to do) so I was going to be all hush hush about that, but yeah.jorma said:
No worries, one is fine, twice is okay, but if you say it three times, fortified_concept shows and poop all over your thread.jorma said:i'm sorry
I dont think it should derail anything though, we have enough other threads to... talk about the IDF in
I'm pretty sure you're not going to find me in those...jorma said:I dont think it should derail anything though, we have enough other threads to... talk about the IDF in
empty vessel
Member
kame-sennin said:
I understand the hesitancy, but I think that's borne of a concerted effort and struggle spanning decades to get people to view corporations as "collections of people." But they are not that. The corporation is a separate legal entity that is an extension of government power and that empowers the people in it. Because they are wielding power granted by the public through the corporate form, imposing restraints on its exercise is our prerogative. Corporations exist solely to serve the people--that's why we authorize our government to create them. If they are engaging in behavior that is detrimental to society--whatever that behavior is--it is our collective responsibility to fix it.
Shutting down Fox News* does not, for example, deprive Bill O'Reilly of his right to free speech. He remains as free as the rest of us to speak his mind as a citizen without interference. All we have done is take away his corporate platform, to which he has no entitlement and which is our prerogative as its creator and the ultimate source of its power.
* I am not proposing shutting down Fox News, I am just using it as an extreme example to show that it is not possible to violate a citizen's right to free speech by acting against a corporation.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't tread carefully. Even matters of grace should be dealt with in a fair way and as respectfully as possible to the individuals involved. But the public is the ultimate arbiter of what best serves society's interests, and the corporate form--which obtains its life and power from an act of our government--can never trump that.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Mortrialus
Banned
ReBurn said:
Who are you, Mitt Romney?
ReBurn
Gold Member
But what does that have to do with anything? It's not like every single person who showed up at a Tea Party rally brought an AK-47. That image is just trolling of the lowest order. It's ok to not like the Tea Party, but to try to cast it as the antithesis of the Occupy movement and use contrived statements to support baseless conclusions, like that it stands for the 1%, is pretty weak.jorma said:
I guess I just don't understand why people even try to compare them, much less with so much bias. I think it devalues what Occupy stands for.
Wouldn't a start for the Occupy movement to push is supporting the 'Green Party of the United States'? Their goals seem so inline, and it is an official party with representatives in states, right?
Where does the movement go in terms of getting results? I mean, 'reform' almost seems like a half solution, if one at all at this point, in this political atmosphere.
Where does the movement go in terms of getting results? I mean, 'reform' almost seems like a half solution, if one at all at this point, in this political atmosphere.
teruterubozu
Member
Ether_Snake said:
empty vessel said:
Where do you draw the line? Do you say PETA can't say certain things because they are an organization, not a person? Sean Hannity can stand on a street corner saying what he wants, can put out a podcast, say it on the radio, and give his opinion on TV. At what point do we say someone can say X on a street corner but not X on TV or radio?
If you don't want to deal with people in power who would suppress speech favoring YOUR opinion, you can't suppress those you don't agree with.
We draw the line wherever we, the people want.Kosmo said:
Personally, as much as I hate them, I don't think that PETA crossed the line where it should be dissolved, but if enough people think it did, the constitution should not provide it protection against the will of the people.
teruterubozu
Member
Chichikov said:
And how is that calculated? 51%?
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
Chichikov said:
WAT. That's the whole point. No one wants the KKK to hold a rally in their town, but they have the right to do so (provided they get all the permits, ect).
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
demon said:
No, it's just the easiest example of a group that it's pretty much universally agreed that their message is abhorrent. I'd gather that you would find a majority of people would want them censored.
Going back to Fox News, they are a corporation, one that runs a news channel. Freedom of the press, ect,ect,ect.
Same way we decide everything in a representative democracy -teruterubozu said:
We elect officials who will hopefully advance that goal.
This is really no different than any other decision we can make through our government.
People have the right to say what they want, but I don't think they have the right to incorporate (and the benefits that comes with it).x Power Pad Death Stomp x said:
Are you suggesting that corporation is a basic human right?
It's not like there aren't already limitation on who and how can do that.
empty vessel
Member
Kosmo said:
We never say a person cannot say X on TV or radio. We say a corporation cannot do X, Y, and Z, and X, Y, and Z can be anything. Sean Hannity can say anything he wants on radio or TV. Whether he can do it through a corporation depends on what the corporation is permitted to do, which is up to us.
Kosmo said:
I'm not in favor of suppressing any person's speech. I oppose virtually all limits on free speech. The point is that exercising control over what corporations can and cannot do doesn't implicate free speech at all.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Myansie said:
Hey man, we gotta make sure the squatters don't get violent and start raping people on their way to work. If that means we gotta brain one with a rubber bullet (it's rubber, ffs, it's not even deadly!) once in awhile then so be it. They really shouldn't be there anyway.
Chichikov said:
ESPN is not a government entity, and therefore can do whatever they want. What EV is suggesting is that there should be certain things corporations (tv stations) should not be able to say to push political agendas and if those regulations are violated, presumably they could be prosecuted.
captmorgan
Banned
I was wondering is it too late to copyright/trademark the phrase "occupy wall street" and start selling merchandise? t-shirts, coffee cups, and what not?
- Status