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.
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"?
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.
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.
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...
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.