U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-22-2010, 12:26 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,688,436 times
Reputation: 2797

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
You are mistaken that anyone in the system as it is has a choice but to be railroaded into collusion because our election campaign process is dysfunctional. What shot has any sincere potential public servant got if an increasingly obscene dollar requirement is put upon them? NO, this isn't about free speech at all, it's about suppression of free speech so that only those paid by the highest bidder shall pass. Any candidate, left right center or indie, who dares to come up with a plan that displeases a particular industry will be dogged relentlessly with smear campaigns.

The levels of decorum in this country are already appalling. The political process gets used to abuse anyone who dares enter public life. That burden is ridiculous to impose, and shouldn't be a criteria for the job. It's disgusting watching the press bash Palins children, and I don't even like Palin. The dignity of every office is already questionable, and this just gives free license to abandon ethics. The bigger the pile of money, the worse element you will attract.

Tea Party, if you ever had a thought, you haven't got a prayer now.
I agree with you on the process being dysfunctional and about the level of decorum. I think that's one of the biggest problems in our system today.

My point is that the reason this is allowed to continue is because our partisan society, and loss of decorum in general, allows it to continue. We have the power of the purse and the power of the ballot, but we also have an uninvolved, apathetic electorate that eats up garbage like Levi being on talk shows.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2010, 02:51 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,441,862 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
But I don't think the Supreme Court wanted to suppress free speech by way of this opinion, I think they wanted to hold Congress to a higher standard in terms of defining when and how to limit an individual's (or corporation's) influence.

While I agree with the NYT that the Supreme Court decision may have been over-reaching, and McCain may be right in characterizing the Supreme Court's understanding of corporate influence as naive, it is still not a bad thing to ask Congress to meet a higher standard.
Forward looking view; Like deregulation that looks so good on paper that more must therefore mean more, it ends with catastrophic consequence when ramifications aren't considered in context.

Traditional context, the spirit of the constitution... go back to that positive thread where everyone had a favorite founder or president. Would each one of them be seated on the supreme court today, what way would they be voting omnipotently informed of the DC climate, the sophistry of commerce, and the capacity our civilization has for destruction? How would they decide? I already know how Jefferson felt about corporations. What would common sense Ben Franklin have to say? Washington? Maybe that's your next thread. I'd love to read it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 03:01 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,473,962 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
A logical explanation will do.
How about A is A?

Good enough?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 03:36 PM
 
39,075 posts, read 23,174,345 times
Reputation: 12157
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Forward looking view; Like deregulation that looks so good on paper that more must therefore mean more, it ends with catastrophic consequence when ramifications aren't considered in context.

Traditional context, the spirit of the constitution... go back to that positive thread where everyone had a favorite founder or president. Would each one of them be seated on the supreme court today, what way would they be voting omnipotently informed of the DC climate, the sophistry of commerce, and the capacity our civilization has for destruction? How would they decide? I already know how Jefferson felt about corporations. What would common sense Ben Franklin have to say? Washington? Maybe that's your next thread. I'd love to read it.
Thread? That might have to be my first blog. I'll think about it over the weekend. Right now, I'm thinking about tulips. Buying lots and lots of tulips, for every room in the house. After last week's deep freeze, this week it feels like spring!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 03:38 PM
 
39,075 posts, read 23,174,345 times
Reputation: 12157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
How about A is A?

Good enough?
Ah, go have a great weekend! We can resume the debate next week. I might even have a blog you can throw darts at. Won't that be grand?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: NY
12,263 posts, read 9,000,993 times
Reputation: 8020
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
It is not about free speech. It is about the inequality of what and how much a corporation can pay to have a voice as compared to what the average American citizen can express. Do you have the capacity to compete with whom big pharma or big oil can support in order to further their agendas? Why is this so obvious a strike against our democracy such a difficult concept for some to comprehend? This allows corporations, foreign or otherwise, to take our voice away and with it our vote.
Such a typical liberal attitude. People are sheep. People are stupid and can't think for themselves. People need a big Daddy in Washington to do their thinking for them.

You libs listen to your masters in your party. On the other hand, I appreciate all points of view, including corporations defending themselves from Washington's iron fist. Many of us are capable of thinking for ourselves.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 06:32 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,721,468 times
Reputation: 3146
That is an exclusive American invention, with no parallels elsewhere.
1) Corporates have no opinions and do not need freedom of speech. "If you prick them, they do we not bleed. If you tickle them they do not laugh..." Corporates have only interests!
2) Spending money is not freedom of speech (unless you are American...)
3) I know of many individuals who desperately need more money, but that is the last thing our political system needs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 08:03 PM
 
23,768 posts, read 16,039,968 times
Reputation: 8752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
Such a typical liberal attitude. People are sheep. People are stupid and can't think for themselves. People need a big Daddy in Washington to do their thinking for them.

You libs listen to your masters in your party. On the other hand, I appreciate all points of view, including corporations defending themselves from Washington's iron fist. Many of us are capable of thinking for ourselves.
Your response is a totally nonsensical retort to what I wrote. "Typical" is a response from a propaganda spoonfed right winger responding with insults that have zero to do with what they are responding to. In case you have not realized, corporations now have Carte Blanche in Washington which interprets to your vote meaning zilch. Do they give a rats' butt about you? Even an idiot will know the answer to that. It seeems that you wouldn't mind when foreign entities pour money into our elections for their special interests. The Saudis will support whomever they think will do their bidding. What happens when banks run the show even more than they do now? What is the matter with you?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 08:37 PM
CSG
 
201 posts, read 327,872 times
Reputation: 136
A great decision by the court upholding the First Amendment!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2010, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,380,730 times
Reputation: 699
The shareholders are not going to permit corporations to sink vast sums in elections. Anything that protects Capitalism from the Socialists works for me. America thrives on Capitalism.

My praises and prayers to Justice Roberts. Surprised to know there are so many Socialists in City Data.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top