T1B

Occupy Portland Incorporated update:

While they're are no longer "people" since incorporating, the non-people are having some issues.

Even though the Non-People have 5 digits in their corporate accounts, they appear to be hoarding the money, and refused to spend it on... portable pissypoo facilities. A private donor finally got tired of their filth and buckied up for some.


Rather than using it as a platform to protest... something, OPI has become a marketplace for the buying and selling of drugs. Man... at a big campout... in Portland? Gee, no one saw that coming. I mean, drugs were pretty hard to come by in the Park Blocks prior to this, so it needed a little help.


The Non-People decided to cover the ground with straw, since we're flirting with the onset of the Rainy Season. They also decided dumping their wastewater on it was a good idea (since sanitary drains are pretty darn hard to come by in the downtown area of a major city). Their ground cover is now black with molds and fungi, and a good chunk of them now have a mystery illness that results in incessant, raspy coughing.


I hope this live-theater, ad-libbed comedy lasts quite a while longer. This is good stuff.

Nevermind this "protest" started as the news reports poured in that the apples (particularly Eastern Washington) were rotting on the trees due to lack of labor. A hard-working apple-picker can make $15 an hour, which ain't too bad if you're broke and unemployed. I believe the farmers offered transportation, and it would appear all they need for lodging is a tent.


It's just been one KYOA moment for these people after another.

Dinsdale wrote:
Nevermind this "protest" started as the news reports poured in that the apples (particularly Eastern Washington) were rotting on the trees due to lack of labor. A hard-working apple-picker can make $15 an hour, which ain't too bad if you're broke and unemployed. I believe the farmers offered transportation, and it would appear all they need for lodging is a tent.

Awesome. Serfs working the land for their feudal lords.

We are in the "decay" phase of capitalism.


Faster, please.

Martyred wrote:
Awesome. Serfs working the land for their feudal lords.

Oh yeah -- those farmers are just rolling in the dough. They all retire by age 40, with frequent vacations to Monte Carlo while they amass their billions.


BTW, Marty... do you eat food? I guess that means you support those "feudal lords."

Maybe you should leave the self-inflicted-ass-kickings to the professionals at the Occupy movements.

These idiots are on to something. Let's close all the corporations and banks and then some unknown rich person will just give us all money.

BTW.....they should name their shantytowns after the guy who has received the most $$ support from Wall Street than any other politician:

OBAMAVILLE

Dinsdale wrote:

Martyred wrote:
Awesome. Serfs working the land for their feudal lords.

Oh yeah -- those farmers are just rolling in the dough. They all retire by age 40, with frequent vacations to Monte Carlo while they amass their billions.

These "farmers" sure seem to have enough time away from work to go and troll white dreadlock/bongo playing dudes.


I guess if you don't want shitty seasonal work that pays a shitty wage with no benefits, you have no right to complain.



Remember when America had factories?

Martyred wrote:
These "farmers" sure seem to have enough time away from work to go and troll white dreadlock/bongo playing dudes.

Gonna have to link me up on that one, since it makes no sense.

I guess if you don't want shitty seasonal work that pays a shitty wage with no benefits, you have no right to complain.

Complain all you want -- and when someone offers you work when you're unemployed, you take it.

Remember when America had factories?

Like the ones that process apples that magically appear at their facilities?

Martyred wrote: Remember when America had factories?

I wasn't born but rumour has it, kids worked in them for shit wages too and many were sweatshops.


When does the labor movement move to China, India, and Vietnam to fight for the rights of those poor people ?

Labour movement?

You killed it, remember?

Moi ?

No.

It would be interesting who killed it though, the "evil" 1% 'ers and their greed or the greed of the middle man opportunists running Union bureaucracies for their own ambitions for power, money, and acclaim.

Might be a bit o' both. Heh ?

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:How do people who do not bank with BofA have any market influence on the business decisions of BofA? If banging on a plastic bucket with a stick was successful in changing corporate behavior, the chimps at the Columbus Zoo would have completely different living conditions, I suspect.

Yep, they're all stoners in drum circles. BofA underestimated the will of the people too.

about 99% of them are.



ha!!

Tom In VA wrote:...the greed of the middle man opportunists running Union bureaucracies for their own ambitions for power, money, and acclaim.

This post-Reagan mythology of union activity as "organised crime" has to end. It's largely nonsense.
Modern industrial/manufacturing America was built by unions and every dollar that rightfully belonged to the worker was wrenched out of the wicked and thieving rich by the blood and sweat of union men and women.

Tom In VA wrote: Might be a bit o' both. Heh ?

Ummm...no.

Got it. Government, corporations, and rich folk get corrupted. Unions and union bosses don't.

Nobody is saying that the labor movement didn't serve a good cause at some point, and serve their brothers. But for some unions - it got seedy. I don't know man, there's some anecdotal stuff I can provide but I know that won't fly here. So, okay Marty, seems like you know what you're talking about.

Thanks.

Tom In VA wrote:Got it. Government, corporations, and rich folk get corrupted. Unions and union bosses don't.

Nobody is saying that the labor movement didn't serve a good cause at some point, and serve their brothers. But for some unions - it got seedy. I don't know man, there's some anecdotal stuff I can provide but I know that won't fly here. So, okay Marty, seems like you know what you're talking about.

Thanks.

Everything can be corrupted. By that logic of yours, we should have no institutions, since they all can be corrupted. Didn't realize you were an anarchist.

First thing Lenin did was outlaw unions and chucked them all in jail

titlover wrote:about 99% of them are. ha!!

I spent a few hours at my local occupation this afternoon. Good folks who are articulate and nowhere near stoned. I'm watching a forum right now on revamping and reforming the local educational system that is being conducted live at a downtown public park and streamed on Livestream. Informative stuff, even with the piter pater of a drum circle in the distant background.

Dr_Phibes wrote:First thing Lenin did was outlaw unions and chucked them all in jail

But Stalin brought them back.







sort of...

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Got it. Government, corporations, and rich folk get corrupted. Unions and union bosses don't.

Nobody is saying that the labor movement didn't serve a good cause at some point, and serve their brothers. But for some unions - it got seedy. I don't know man, there's some anecdotal stuff I can provide but I know that won't fly here. So, okay Marty, seems like you know what you're talking about.

Thanks.

Everything can be corrupted. By that logic of yours, we should have no institutions, since they all can be corrupted. Didn't realize you were an anarchist.

Well my point was, everything can be corrupted. including the workers of the world united in unions. Sometimes I think that possibility gets overlooked as we discuss these matters. I'm nothing really, just and Ordinary Average Dude I suppose. Maybe a bit anti authoritarian. I don't think unions need to go, not at all. But could have gotten too much power ? A little too greedy for more power ?

Tom In VA wrote:Well my point was, everything can be corrupted. including the workers of the world united in unions. Sometimes I think that possibility gets overlooked as we discuss these matters.

On this board? Sometimes I think you have your head up your ass. Look around here, do you see a lot of folks ignoring issues of union corruption?

I'm nothing really, just and Ordinary Average Dude I suppose. Maybe a bit anti authoritarian. I don't think unions need to go, not at all. But could have gotten too much power ? A little too greedy for more power ?

Or not greedy enough. Methinks unions became complacent, not greedy.

BSmack wrote:
Or not greedy enough. Methinks unions became complacent, not greedy.

Bwwaahaaaa...tell that to the public employee unions, the teacher unions, all getting step raises, COLA's, retirement contributions.

Greedy cocksuckers they are..always wanting more and giving nothing in return. No complacent behavior there at all, any time anything is threatened they jump up scream and bitch and grab the public balls and squeeze until the TAXPAYERS have to give in.

Derron wrote:Greedy cocksuckers they are..always wanting more and giving nothing in return.

Oh, I wouldn't call that "nothing."

Sin,
DNC Coffers


BTW, Derron -- Finally got some real rain. I'll tell you how the Kilchis was.

Derron wrote:

BSmack wrote:
Or not greedy enough. Methinks unions became complacent, not greedy.

Bwwaahaaaa...tell that to the public employee unions, the teacher unions, all getting step raises, COLA's, retirement contributions.

Greedy cocksuckers they are..always wanting more and giving nothing in return. No complacent behavior there at all, any time anything is threatened they jump up scream and bitch and grab the public balls and squeeze until the TAXPAYERS have to give in.

Not always true. In Wisconsin, public employee unions have bargained for better benefits over the years to offset lesser pay. Some positions have not seen a pay increase in 5 years or more. On top of that, they got furloughed for 16 days over the past two years. Then this past year they agreed to start contributing more for health and retirement benefits. Many have seen take home pay shrink this year by $300-$600 per month. The governor just decreed that they would get no raises for the next two years.

BSmack wrote: On this board? Sometimes I think you have your head up your ass. Look around here, do you see a lot of folks ignoring issues of union corruption?

Not on this board. And I have a recurring curvature of the spine that occaasionally finds my head up my ass from time to time.

Or not greedy enough. Methinks unions became complacent, not greedy.

Ok.

Goober McTuber wrote:
Not always true. In Wisconsin, public employee unions have bargained for better benefits over the years to offset lesser pay. Some positions have not seen a pay increase in 5 years or more. On top of that, they got furloughed for 16 days over the past two years. Then this past year they agreed to start contributing more for health and retirement benefits. Many have seen take home pay shrink this year by $300-$600 per month. The governor just decreed that they would get no raises for the next two years.

About fucking time. Not happening out here in the U & L. State employees "gave" furlough days. But then get enough OT to trade out for comp time on the other days to more than make up for the "furlough" days. Straight from an ODOT supervisor.

Most public employees in Oregon contribute NOTHING to their health care packages or retirement. If they do, they are a small exception. Most pay scales and benefits are well above private business in the trades anyway. Props to the governor for sacking up and getting them reined in a bit. Maybe more public agencies could take a move like that to get these labor costs under control. Look for the unions to plant a bulls eye on his ass next election.

Derron wrote:
Greedy cocksuckers they are..always wanting more and giving nothing in return.

Not surprising you hate teachers...seeing as how little interaction you and your family have had with them.

Martyred wrote:Awesome. Serfs working the land for their feudal lords.

So what should these people be doing for a living then? What would you consider "acceptable" employment?

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:about 99% of them are. ha!!

I spent a few hours at my local occupation this afternoon. Good folks who are articulate and nowhere near stoned. I'm watching a forum right now on revamping and reforming the local educational system that is being conducted live at a downtown public park and streamed on Livestream. Informative stuff, even with the piter pater of a drum circle in the distant background.

how's the Oakland chapter behaving. not so good....

titlover wrote:how's the Oakland chapter behaving. not so good....

99% of the Oakland protesters behaved admirably and are now condemning the rioters. Feel free to livestream their next general assembly.

BSmack wrote: 99% of the Oakland protesters behaved admirably...

you seem caught up with the 99% figure.

they shut down the nations 5th busiest port, is that admirable?

99% of the Oakland protesters behaved admirably.

It's what I was thinking.

- ChargerMike

War Wagon wrote:

BSmack wrote: 99% of the Oakland protesters behaved admirably...

you seem caught up with the 99% figure.

You're right. The real number is closer to 99.9%.

they shut down the nations 5th busiest port, is that admirable?

It is neither here nor there. And it would have never happened had not the Longshoreman's Union tacitly supported the occupiers.

BSmack wrote:it would have never happened had not the Longshoreman's Union tacitly supported the occupiers.

beyond pathetic.

88 wrote:Where in the First Amendment does it give the People the right to break the law?

The 1st Amendment sets the ground work for what the laws pertaining to assemblies on Federal lands should be as well as what you can say when you are on those Federal Lands. It controls what the Government can and can not do. The peoples' rights are not 'given' to them by the 1st Amendment.

I have a question for you. What should the laws about assembling on Federal Lands be in your view given your rather strict reading of the Constitution?

88 wrote:
And the assemblers must act "peaceably", which means they cannot block traffic, impede or disrupt the businesses and freedoms of others.

What does it mean to you?

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:Where in the First Amendment does it give the People the right to break the law?

The 1st Amendment sets the ground work for what the laws pertaining to assemblies on Federal lands should be as well as what you can say when you are on those Federal Lands. It controls what the Government can and can not do. The peoples' rights are not 'given' to them by the 1st Amendment.

I have a question for you. What should the laws about assembling on Federal Lands be in your view given your rather strict reading of the Constitution?

so I can just go set up camp on the steps of the Capitol forever, right?

you must have some extra chromosomes or something.

88 wrote: However, Congress (insofar as federal lands are concerned) and States (insofar as state lands are concerned) do have the right to make laws and regulations prohibiting prolonged assemblies that create health, safety and sanitation issues.

And just where do you find this right you say the Feds have?

Why can't the "occupiers" just go home overnight and re-assemble the next day.

Because they don't want to.

Is a law that prohibits overnight camping in an urban park somehow abridging the right to assemble?

Yes, by definition.

And the assemblers must act "peaceably", which means they cannot block traffic, impede or disrupt the businesses and freedoms of others.

What is not peaceable about sitting in traffic or on a sidewalk?

What does it mean to you?

Apparently a hell of a lot more than it means to you.


titlover,
Are you really that dumb or are you being obtuse for a reason?

Moving Sale wrote:What is not peaceable about sitting in traffic or on a sidewalk?

I said sitting on a sidewalk doltface.

88 wrote:It should be common sense.

We are talking about the law not common sense.

But for those who are too dense to be able to figure it out without the aid of the courts, the SCOTUS has spoken:
See Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence

There is no place in the Constitution that talks about Camping so they should be able to Camp. Oh wait that is not a sane man's argument, that is the argument YOU make when abortion or drugs or any one of a number of subjects come up.

If you don't believe in Marbury how can you use Clark to defend yourself?

88 wrote:Using your position as our benchmark, what if me and my homies decide we want to occupy the U.S. Capital Rotunda for the rest of our lives. Would we be on solid ground, assuming we claimed that our presence there was protected by the First Amendment?

That is YOUR argument for so many different areas why is it different here? The 1st Am says peaceably assemble, it doesn't give a time frame, therefore, using your arguments from the past there is no way that the courts can restrict it. It needs to be changed by a Constitutional Am.

88 wrote:How? The assembly can occur the next day and every day thereafter. No problema.

Unless you work from sunup till sundown, or watch your kid from sunup to sundown, or any one of a number of reasons.

88 wrote: In this sense, it means you have the right to assemble provided you do not disrupt the peace (i.e., violate the laws providing for civil order).

How is camping disrupting the peace?

hey moving fail,

you ever been to a national park? real nice places. gotta make reservations months ahead of time for campsite. can't stay over two weeks. don't even THINK about camping in undesignated places. and every bit of it is federal land, owned by us.

what if i decide to go there next summer, set up camp somewhere and decide to stay there for a year or two?

you fine with this? should i be dragged away by the rangers?

you know goddamn well what the first amendment means. do you support other amendments the same way? the 2nd for instance?