Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2011, 10:32 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,951,368 times
Reputation: 5455

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
Paul has zero power in the R party, and he's not going to get the nomination, so it's a non issue. I'd like to see the actual candidates explain how they're going to handle this. You're thinking too small here--the elections are over a year away. If this becomes the biggest issue of 2012, everyone is going to have to take a stand, one way or another.
More excuses. Who do you think will "clean it up"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2011, 10:34 AM
 
1,147 posts, read 907,340 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight View Post
Of course its partisan! Again, there is little if any criticism of Obama, the largest recipient of Wall Street and corporate money.
I don't know for sure, but did he get any money from Lehman and Merryll? If not, that would be funny. Sad, but funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 10:34 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,951,368 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I think moving back to the mid 1970s would be preferable to moving back to the mid 1800s, but that's just me.
Yeah go get your spittoon out and peace signs and headbands grow out a filthy beard and take to the streets like the old days. Would do you some good probably.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,406,864 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugerjitsu View Post
you either didn't watch the video, or are too brainwashed to realize that Capitalism isn't working like it should...let's remove the politicians from the payroll of Big Corporations and Wall Street, and see what happens...
but its the liberals that REFUSE to reform campaigns

Reneging on his earlier promise, Barack Obama announced that he wouldn't accept public funds for his campaign, removing the cap on how much money he can raise and spend.

really let's look at liberal POLITICIANS

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:30 AM
 
1,895 posts, read 3,406,968 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
but its the liberals that REFUSE to reform campaigns

Reneging on his earlier promise, Barack Obama announced that he wouldn't accept public funds for his campaign, removing the cap on how much money he can raise and spend.

really let's look at liberal POLITICIANS

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

i'm not arguing who or why...i'm arguing that it's a fact NOW.

so, are you saying that replacing Obama with a Republican is going to fix this problem? i'm not so sure...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,406,864 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugerjitsu View Post
i'm not arguing who or why...i'm arguing that it's a fact NOW.

so, are you saying that replacing Obama with a Republican is going to fix this problem? i'm not so sure...
depends on the republican...if he/she is a PROGRESSIVE liberal in republican clothes (like bush)...no

my feeling,,, is there should be NO CONTRIBUTIONS what so ever,, not from corps, not from unions, not from individuals....give the two candidate an even amount of taxpayer funded monies, and let them duke it out on THEIR MERITS....not on the liberal "we have better hair" and "we have more money" garbage
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:39 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,724,833 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
They're outraged over both sides taking corporate money, but then turning around and passing legislation that benefits big business but hurts the rest of us--that's the problem. A big part of it is that this isn't a new thing that's just happened--we've been on this track for decades--both sides are responsible--and now it's all coming to a head. The whole system is a mess--both sides have to raise huge corporate dollars to win because we've turned campaigning into some kind of cold war/arms race, and the people paying for those elections expect something in return. One side can't quit until the other side agrees to stop at the same time, or it would be political suicide. Both parties have to work together to end it, or it's not going to happen.
Why limit your outrage to corporate money? Why not union money? Why not trial lawyer money? Why not all special interest money masquerading as public interest groups?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:42 AM
 
1,895 posts, read 3,406,968 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
depends on the republican...if he/she is a PROGRESSIVE liberal in republican clothes (like bush)...no

my feeling,,, is there should be NO CONTRIBUTIONS what so ever,, not from corps, not from unions, not from individuals....give the two candidate an even amount of taxpayer funded monies, and let them duke it out on THEIR MERITS....not on the liberal "we have better hair" and "we have more money" garbage
now that's an idea! okay...i'm picking up what you're putting down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,384,420 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin View Post
Seriously? lol............ You state the problem, ...
What problem? I never said giving money to politicians or a particular political ideology was a problem. Only the parasites who want to spend other people's money consider it a problem. I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin View Post
acknowledge it has always been there.......... but go on to say it's "protected speech" ................ lol

Yeah, that's the right way. Those with the loudest voice (most money) should run the country.

Hey, that approach will also help fight illegal immigration too. Because a few more decades like this and WE will be the ones jumping the fence.
Money has always been part of politics. There is no escaping that reality. According to the Supreme Court, it is indeed protected speech. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. _ (2010).

You do not have to agree with the people's right to free speech, but as long as you stay in the US it is the Supreme Law of the Land so you had better get use to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,384,420 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
depends on the republican...if he/she is a PROGRESSIVE liberal in republican clothes (like bush)...no

my feeling,,, is there should be NO CONTRIBUTIONS what so ever,, not from corps, not from unions, not from individuals....give the two candidate an even amount of taxpayer funded monies, and let them duke it out on THEIR MERITS....not on the liberal "we have better hair" and "we have more money" garbage
Your "feeling" would violate my First Amendment rights.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top