Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, had to Waaaaaay back for that, eh Pgh, me and Roy have not traded posts in very, very long time, do you have way too much time on your hands. Maybe I should go pull some of your gems, there is a mountain of them to chose from and they can be very entertaining, naaaa, I have more important things to spend my time on.
Sorry to disappoint, well not really, but those had nothing to do with Big Business Buying candidates like you want them to be able to do.
Those ALL had to do with donations to Democratic Candidates being an exercise of free speech.. and it was so quick to find, your response probably took more time than my compiling the list...
Tell me, has your view "evolved", or did you flip flop just because we're discussing Republicans...
Nope, but according to you Money should buy Government Representatives of the People, oh wait the last word is no longer relevant in your world.
Have Fun
Didnt nearly $1B buy the Obama presidency?
Didnt have a problem with it then, in fact you CELEBRATED it..
So, it is down to George Soros vs the Koch brothers for control of the Republic.
What do you all think of that?
On the contrary, if the Democrats get their campaign finance reform passed that they want, then you end up with the Soros vs Koch brothers because there is nothing stopping an individual from spending their own money however they wish, provided that money isnt linked to the candidates directly.
For example, pass the Democratic bill, and George Soros and Koch brothers could spend $1B on campaigns and advertising individual candidates as they wish, because there isnt any law stopping it. The limitations are if they somehow coordinate advertising with candidates then it becomes illegal.
By not passing these stupid laws, then smaller individuals, who dont have multi million dollar budgets, can work together to then coordinate campaigns to counter big business.
Its everything Capser has been moaning against, but supporting.. Because of course its Republican opposition, just like he moans when Republicans raise money but celebrates Democrats doing it as a sign of support..
How do candidates get elected if not through freedom of speech?
Money is not Freedom of Speech. Money is merely a medium that facilitate consumer transactions.
What, you thought you could put apples from your apple orchard in the bank, and then go to an ATM and withdraw several bushels of apples to trade for the products and services you want?
It's a little too early, and people aren't mad enough, but they will be. After 2016, they'll be looking for solutions.
As I have said many times, Congress will never enact any meaningful campaign finance reform.
Since Congress refuses -- in spite of the fact that the majority have think differently -- we'll just have to work from the bottom up.
The good thing about elections, is that there are always losers, and nearly all of the losers lose because of money, in particular, foreign money.
There'll be plenty of losers for me to approach and get their support to amend their township, village, city or county charters to limit campaign financing to only those people who are eligible to vote for those candidates.
Then we can amend State constitutions. To hell with Congress.
If your argument is going to be this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Its also MY country, and if you dont like my companies donating to candiates TOUGH!!! Go cry to your mommy I dont care.
....you're going to lose.
I wouldn't hang my hat on Citizens United.
That case was argued by a freaking chimpanzee and an oran-u-tan. An armadillo could have done a better job arguing the case.
There's a reason I mentioned Tortious Interference. You might want to shepardize Tortious Interference and Free Speech.
You're not going to like how the courts have ruled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
yes, in fact it is the topic because even mom and pop stores can donate to candidates, despite you wanting them to be able to.
But they should not be able to contribute anything, since they are not eligible to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Since when cant someone from Ohio send money to a candidate running in Chicago?
You can pretend all you want, but this isnt the Wonderful Land of Oz and you surely arent the wizzard
Since it violates the sovereignty of Illinois.
Your position is hypocritical.
You cannot argue States' Rights and then claim that Sates are not sovereign.
Whether you agree with States' Rights or not, the simple questions are, "Does every State use the Death Penalty, and does every State apply it in the same way?"
The answer is "No" due to the fact that States are sovereign.
The US Constitution has created a federal system. In a federal system, republics are sovereign.
The transfer of money from California, New York, Florida or Ohio into Illinois to influence elections violates the sovereignty of Illinois...
....in the exact same way that monies from foreign States violates the sovereignty of the US.
You don't care if the Saudi Royals donate $5 Billion to Hillary's campaign, right?
You don't care if the Chinese government donates $5 Billion to Hillary's campaign, either, right?
Shouldn't Saudi ARAMCO (Arab-American Oil Company) be able to donate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Isn't one supposed to sell himself?
Um, that is a Figure of Speech, not to be taken literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Politicians are no different. If they want to get elected, they must sell themselves not only to the public at large, but to investors, who agree with them. I see nothing wrong with that. Why do you find that abhorrent?
Because they are being pimped out, not selling themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
He's totally ignorant, has not thought any of this through, and is clueless about what free speech is, and the right of citizens to support candidates of their choice. In his "progressive" world, business should have no voice at all, and government is the solution to everything.
It is not required to spend money to have a voice.
Businesses are inanimate objects. That's a fallacy called:
Anthropomorphism This is the error of projecting uniquely human qualities onto something that isn’t human.
Businesses are over-represented at the ballot box.
Aren't you one of those who cries "One person, one vote" ?
A publicly traded corporation is represented by the CEO, the other chief officers, the board, all of the shareholders, plus all non-shareholders who vote or act in the interest of the corporation.
A corporation that has 3 Million shareholders hypothetically gets to cast 3 Million votes.
Are you going to allow me to cast 3 Million votes to offset that?
Do you not see how absurd your position is?
HEAVY HITTER The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems.
View totals for other cycles:
CONTRIBUTIONS
$2,383,767 ranks 137 of 20,981
LOBBYING
$19,251,200 (2012)
$20,823,341 (2011) ranks 5 of 4,368 in 2012
OUTSIDE SPENDING
$1,912,675 ranks 47 of 296
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
If more than 5,000 hospitals are members, then that means 86.8% are members.
That's a monopoly.
How much did Obamacare cost?
Apparently, it cost $779 Million in "Free Speech."
By the way, how do you think the American Hospital Association gets $779 Million?
Lots of $55,000 appendectomies that really only cost about $2,800 creates a huge slush-fund, no?
But, hey, monopolies are good and you don't mind being price-gouged and charged $55,000 for an appendectomy that probably only costs about $2,800. Your insurance pays that. And you don't mind paying higher insurance rates so that businesses can have "Free Speech" right?
Do you think that $779 Million spent on Obama is an efficient use of Capital?
If a business would not be able to waste $779 Million on an election, what do you think a business might do with that money?
Do you think businesses might use that Cash Capital in a more efficient way?
The ignorant person is the one who cannot see the economic benefits of keeping businesses out of the election loop.
I don't own stocks, but perhaps I should start buying stocks.
That would give me standing to sue.
If unions aren't supposed to be using union dues for campaign contribution, then corporations should not be using shareholder money for campaign contributions, either.
It's funny how you all rail against big government, but then support the very system that creates big government.
Sovereignty...it's what States have....
Money is not Freedom of Speech. Money is merely a medium that facilitate consumer transactions.
What, you thought you could put apples from your apple orchard in the bank, and then go to an ATM and withdraw several bushels of apples to trade for the products and services you want?
It's a little too early, and people aren't mad enough, but they will be. After 2016, they'll be looking for solutions.
As I have said many times, Congress will never enact any meaningful campaign finance reform.
Since Congress refuses -- in spite of the fact that the majority have think differently -- we'll just have to work from the bottom up.
The good thing about elections, is that there are always losers, and nearly all of the losers lose because of money, in particular, foreign money.
There'll be plenty of losers for me to approach and get their support to amend their township, village, city or county charters to limit campaign financing to only those people who are eligible to vote for those candidates.
Then we can amend State constitutions. To hell with Congress.
If your argument is going to be this...
....you're going to lose.
I wouldn't hang my hat on Citizens United.
That case was argued by a freaking chimpanzee and an oran-u-tan. An armadillo could have done a better job arguing the case.
There's a reason I mentioned Tortious Interference. You might want to shepardize Tortious Interference and Free Speech.
You're not going to like how the courts have ruled.
But they should not be able to contribute anything, since they are not eligible to vote.
Since it violates the sovereignty of Illinois.
Your position is hypocritical.
You cannot argue States' Rights and then claim that Sates are not sovereign.
Whether you agree with States' Rights or not, the simple questions are, "Does every State use the Death Penalty, and does every State apply it in the same way?"
The answer is "No" due to the fact that States are sovereign.
The US Constitution has created a federal system. In a federal system, republics are sovereign.
The transfer of money from California, New York, Florida or Ohio into Illinois to influence elections violates the sovereignty of Illinois...
....in the exact same way that monies from foreign States violates the sovereignty of the US.
You don't care if the Saudi Royals donate $5 Billion to Hillary's campaign, right?
You don't care if the Chinese government donates $5 Billion to Hillary's campaign, either, right?
Shouldn't Saudi ARAMCO (Arab-American Oil Company) be able to donate?
Um, that is a Figure of Speech, not to be taken literally.
Because they are being pimped out, not selling themselves.
It is not required to spend money to have a voice.
Businesses are inanimate objects. That's a fallacy called:
Anthropomorphism This is the error of projecting uniquely human qualities onto something that isn’t human.
Businesses are over-represented at the ballot box.
Aren't you one of those who cries "One person, one vote" ?
A publicly traded corporation is represented by the CEO, the other chief officers, the board, all of the shareholders, plus all non-shareholders who vote or act in the interest of the corporation.
A corporation that has 3 Million shareholders hypothetically gets to cast 3 Million votes.
Are you going to allow me to cast 3 Million votes to offset that?
Do you not see how absurd your position is?
HEAVY HITTER The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems.
View totals for other cycles:
CONTRIBUTIONS
$2,383,767 ranks 137 of 20,981
LOBBYING
$19,251,200 (2012)
$20,823,341 (2011) ranks 5 of 4,368 in 2012
OUTSIDE SPENDING
$1,912,675 ranks 47 of 296
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
If more than 5,000 hospitals are members, then that means 86.8% are members.
That's a monopoly.
How much did Obamacare cost?
Apparently, it cost $779 Million in "Free Speech."
By the way, how do you think the American Hospital Association gets $779 Million?
Lots of $55,000 appendectomies that really only cost about $2,800 creates a huge slush-fund, no?
But, hey, monopolies are good and you don't mind being price-gouged and charged $55,000 for an appendectomy that probably only costs about $2,800. Your insurance pays that. And you don't mind paying higher insurance rates so that businesses can have "Free Speech" right?
Do you think that $779 Million spent on Obama is an efficient use of Capital?
If a business would not be able to waste $779 Million on an election, what do you think a business might do with that money?
Do you think businesses might use that Cash Capital in a more efficient way?
The ignorant person is the one who cannot see the economic benefits of keeping businesses out of the election loop.
I don't own stocks, but perhaps I should start buying stocks.
That would give me standing to sue.
If unions aren't supposed to be using union dues for campaign contribution, then corporations should not be using shareholder money for campaign contributions, either.
It's funny how you all rail against big government, but then support the very system that creates big government.
Sovereignty...it's what States have....
Mircea
Very good post and the in-depth detail and work was excellent.
Too bad it is wasted on those that understand neither logic or what the words Freedom of Speech mean. Great try though, it was simply the wrong people to present it to, they believe it is expressing ones Freedom of Speech to buy the best candidate their money can buy and that a Business holds the same rights and freedoms as a person, because after all they are People.
They were right to block it. The Democrats were trying to overturn the decision of the SCOTUS. for the Republicans!
A fascist and treasonous repub-appointed SCOTUS which itself needs "reform".
Overturning fascism is what Americans should do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats not true, the other poster very much indeed responded..
The "found fathers" (you brought them up), believed in limited government, so if I have to "buy" a congressman to keep the government out of my dam pocket then so be it..
You dont like it, TOUGH.. its NOT YOUR MONEY...
Wow, the fascist Fox opinion is strong here.
Most founding fathers did not want plutocracy in America (yeah they argued over it) - so where do you get the idea that they did? Oh yeah - Faux News.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Wow, looks like I hit a nerve getting you guys to admit openly that you agree with Big Businesses being able to buy our Government Representatives, something you were denying in the beginning of this thread. Now you are on Record and it will be there for reference at a later date when you claim you never said it. Thanks for playing, boys and girls, my job on this Thread is complete. Jeeez, you guys are so easy and predictable. ROTFLMAO!
Very easy to "hit a nerve" - and a waste of time to "debate" RW extremist trolls and dittoheads. They have their Roger Ailes scripts and talking points which they will parrot over and over, and defend at all cost. You can see the flailing and thrashing about they must do in order to defend their plutocratic views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
So, it is down to George Soros vs the Koch brothers for control of the Republic.
What do you all think of that?
** First, Fox favorite whipping boy, Soros, can't match money the Koch inheritance babies can put up.
** Second, the aims of Soros vs the Kochs is democracy vs plutocracy - see the difference? The Kochs contribute to the fascist Right.
** Third, campaign finance reform is aimed at candidates across the board, putting the electoral process back into the hands of Americans regardless of party and wealth.
What is it y'all righties don't get about this? Amazing really...
BTW, your response suggests that you don't know what a "republic" is - look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Didnt nearly $1B buy the Obama presidency?
Didnt have a problem with it then, in fact you CELEBRATED it..
No, the Obama money just allowed him to run like any other candidate - which is the basic problem with the system, which campaign reform is designed to address, and which the fascist Right wishes to continue.
But keep those Fox scripts coming - never get tired of hearing 'em...
The founding fathers were a plutocracy.... That's why they set up a Federal Republic with "representatives" and not a democracy. They didn't entrust the future to the unwashed masses.
The founding fathers were a plutocracy.... That's why they set up a Federal Republic with "representatives" and not a democracy. They didn't entrust the future to the unwashed masses.
Holy crap - what wacko extremist website did you get this from?
Holy crap - what wacko extremist website did you get this from?
LOL...I know. Yet a lot of the unwashed masses now think that we were ever given any real power. They don't realize the "vote" is just a feel-good thing so that we feel included.
Thanks for affirming what I have been saying since this thread was started, Cons believe in the right to buy Representatives and that it has Nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. You make this way too easy, Nonsense.
Nope, it is MY COUNTRY
The ACLU and NARAL were part of the groups that brought the lawsuit that resulted in Citizen United. You seem to continue to ignore this. Is there a reason why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why they set up a Federal Republic with "representatives" and not a democracy. They didn't entrust the future to the unwashed masses.
