Constitutional Amendment is now Needed (wages, salaries, ethics, weapons)
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.
You were doing very well until that last paragraph, which, IMO, turned your whole post into a diatribe against those who think differently than you do. I disagree with the OP's suggestion and reasoning for an amendment. But I don't disagree that this country needs more restraint in how it funds and runs political campaigns. What needs to happen is cogent, unbiased discussion with all sides and all sides need to understand what the problem actually is before anyone can suggest actual solutions to it.
I did go too far but you don't tear that last paragraph apart with anything about what is wrong with it. How about explaining what is wrong with that paragraph beyond using the name, Obama.
As has been stated before, our nation is not run as a 'pure democracy' - never has been. We are what is called a constitutional republic, with democratically elected representatives.
However, we can practice our right of free speech by signing the online petition showing our disapproval of the supreme court decision.
Can we have something like that with George Soros turned loose to give from his own pocket now, instead of laundering it through Move.on? Somehow I just can't see that all those millions of dollars that Obama never did account for weren't all from him with the names of little people attached to the amounts.
I won't be reading the petition, signing it or wanting to see the number of fools that did.
On a bit of a tangent, but related: when I gave money to a candidate last year, I was limited to $2000. Would this supreme court rule that unconstitutional too? I would think so. Has that ever been challenged? If money is now considered free speech, isn't that limit now unconstitutional (according to the current court)?
Can we have something like that with George Soros turned loose to give from his own pocket now, instead of laundering it through Move.on? Somehow I just can't see that all those millions of dollars that Obama never did account for weren't all from him with the names of little people attached to the amounts.
I won't be reading the petition, signing it or wanting to see the number of fools that did.
That, of course, is your prerogative.
However, many of us do not want to sit back and watch corporations, especially multi-national corporations, buy our country. When money elects our lawmakers, the average citizens has lost his voice.
Sign the online petition while we still have a voice!
I did go too far but you don't tear that last paragraph apart with anything about what is wrong with it. How about explaining what is wrong with that paragraph beyond using the name, Obama.
Okay, here is you last paragraph from the previous post:
Quote:
This suggested amendment sounds so much like Obama speaking out against those nasty corporations that I would think that amendment over this decision would make liberals want to just amend and amend. Why do they want to do that since they really don't pay much attention to the Constitution anyway?
You start out about Obama "speaking out about those nasty corporations" but don't include any examples of same for comparison with Yardener's amendment suggestion. Then you make an unsubstantiated claim that 'liberals' would want to "amend and amend" and follow it up with a further unsubstantiated claim that 'liberals' don't pay much attention to the Constitution any way.
So show me some examples of those things or admit that you used that paragraph in an attempt to denigrate those who might think differently than you.
Which I might do if I completely disagreed with it, which I don't. Or if I thought an online petition would have any kind of impact, which I also don't.
I think you need to think this thru a bit more. In this litigious society, I decide to form an S Corp, would you silence my freedom of speech? But people who form a union can empower their union leaders to run campaign ads, and the likes of SEIU can contribute $60 million to an 0bama campaign, or billionaires can create a partisan group to run political campaign ads?
No, I think it's time you and others stepped outside the box and faced the fact that pooled mega$$ - from whatever source - is so polluting our political system that the one man - one vote concept we started with has become a joke. That's one of the reasons that so few vote any more.
Our political system is in ruins and needs an overhaul from the ground up. Big bucks = corruption and this court action is a move in the wrong direction. We need more restrictions on campaign money, not less.
No, I think it's time you and others stepped outside the box and faced the fact that pooled mega$$ - from whatever source - is so polluting our political system that the one man - one vote concept we started with has become a joke. That's one of the reasons that so few vote any more.
Our political system is in ruins and needs an overhaul from the ground up. Big bucks = corruption and this court action is a move in the wrong direction. We need more restrictions on campaign money, not less.
I do not disagree, all I'm saying is we need to find a constitutional way to correct this.
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.
