It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property
The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.
Question 1. Does Occupy operate under a single banner, or is it a heterogeneous mix of individuals?
Question 2. How do you plan on changing the banks and corporations practices if you don’t change the laws that govern said practices?
Question 3. If you have no problem with success, then do you think people should have a right to do what they want with their wealth, their capital?
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Question 4. What exactly do you mean when you say corporations serve us? Please clarify.
Question 5. If the 1st Amendment is for everyone, then regardless of whether you agree or not, shouldn’t successful people be able to do what they want with what they have, and not have their wealth mandated for social programs?
simple, states have the right to create money in the exact same way federal banks do, and in the case of North Dakota, the people profit from money creation by their state bank, and it is payeed to the state to pay for expenses like infrastructure, this removes the need to beg to federal government for infrastructure spending.
this changes the political landscape from the states up.
yes and no, personally people can do what they want with their money,
but when money is used to pass legislation to benefit a very small people over the general welfare of the nation,
you have fascism. consider A.L.E.C helped pass the stand your ground laws, alot of people will die because of their corporate legislation (fascism)
the original incorporation was by charter, and for a limited time and for a specific task, like building a bridge,
they had to show their would be public benefit, and without a public benefit no incorporation was allowed.
that has been perverted over time, so that now a corporation can be chartered solely to make profits for private share holders,
incorporation was "designed" to serve the public interests not private profit at any or all costs.
The representatives that we vote in make the determination that we (as a representative republic) desire.
how does voting to keep us in the dark as to what we eat, and in a dark cell, change america to the ideals of liberty and individualism?
Honour and integrity are not bandaids that can be taken on and off on a whim. Finding people to elect that have integrity is difficult, but not impossible.
what makes you think entering into a corrupt political system would not corrupt you delegates and representatives and how do you guard against them simply selling out to the highest bidder?
Hypocritical. Unions influence elections with their money and it is not seen as an issue. The Tea Party issues are personal responsibility, individuality, and self-determination.
why with the obvious power of the creation of money, and its ability to influence political outcomes is this NOT a primary issue of the TEA PARTY?
No. I believe Occupy is educated, but lack the wisdom and foresight to clearly see the bigger picture.
do you really believe that OWS is simply a bunch of non educated hippies who want free stuff?
Again, Occupy refuses to see big money from unions and special interest groups as a problem, so your question (again) is hypocritical. Money is not the issue, so it is (not ignored) but relegated to lesser importance.
without an in-depth knowledge of the economy, the tea party wrongly believes that the problem is big government,
while big government is a major problem, big government is subservient to big money,
how can the TP ignore the role of money in politics?
Question 1. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to mandate how a corporation should spend it’s money?
1. does the Tea Party recognise the ability to create money IS the ability to redistribute wealth?
2. would the tea party expect corporations to pay the exact same rate without exceptions?
3. would the Tea Party work with Occupy reps to design a fair tax system?
4. do you recognise the power to inflate and deflate the volume of credit/money/debt can make or break an economy?
5. common ground OWS=TP?
Occupy can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that in order to them (Occupy) to get what they want, the elimination of the free market system must occur.
You advocate government issuing monies without thought that the only way government can issue anything is to take it away from someone else, first.
It appears that Occupy wants to enable the “middleman” even more to take more, simply because the wealthy have more to take.
The actual process of money creation takes place
primarily in banks.
In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks
can build up deposits by increasing loans
Transaction deposits are the modem counterpart of
bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to mak-
ing book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the
borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby
"printing" their own money.
1. how come the state of North Dakota suffered less in the economic down turn?
2.why do you keep pushing the false idea OWS wants to steel your wealth?
No. Quantitative easing was a bailout paid for by the American people to banks for lending money to people who couldn’t afford to borrow under the Frank-Dodd Act.
3.does the tea party agree that Quntitive easing is socialism for the benifit of the banks?
4. would the Tea Party agree to a face to face debate with OWS over "state banks VS TBTF banks"?
Wanna see my tax returns? I’m sure the Tea Party has been open and honest, I do know they’ve been audited a number of times. So, yes.
5. will the tea party publically publish their financial records like OWS does?
This was a tough one to judge. Both sides threw out a lot of political platform with insufficient documentation or in-depth discussion of what it really means. The deciding factor was that xploder argued his position, and beezzer also argued xploder's position. The tea party got far less depth of discussion. Beezzer was good on the attack, but xploder always had an answer, and did a better job of putting forward his own position.
I'm not sure if Beezzer's conception of the Tea Party is the status quo or anarchy, I just know that he is good at holding an opponent's feet to the fire. XPLodER was more on topic and taught me things I didn't know. He seemed to evade a few times, but Beezzer felt like he was twisting things a few times. It was more or less a draw- Beezzer might be the more talented debater, but XPLodER was the one gaining ground on the topic.
Unlike most debates, this one wasn't explicitly pro/con. If it had been phrased as such, Beezzer would have easily won by poking holes in the OWS argument. What we have here though is one versus the other, and given the information in this thread, the options are basically OWS and not OWS more than OWS vs Tea Party, which is a problem since both sides seem to argue that doing nothing isn't an option from where we are now.