Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No limit for corporate donors

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2010 12:31:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was just blown away by what the Supreme Court ruled in the case of lifting the restrictions on the amount of money corporations are able to donate. I think mostly it's because they saw how astronomical Obama's campaign donations were without any federal funding. I think that the GOP is mainly behind this, but maybe I am wrong.

I heard from on a radio broadcast that this is the beginning of a fascist state. I think we were already one that path anyhow.
douglasfunny
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2010 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Basically its a pro capitalist policy. I think many corporations will chill before casting their money willy nilly as the shareholders of the corporations may not like that. However in cases like national healthcare, etc. It gives them a foot in the door.

Basically like lobbying taken to a whole new level.

Personally I'm against any donations for political candidates from personal, or businesses. I'm for taxing it and dividing it equally amongst the top 10 highest polled.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2010 12:39:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2010 12:31:12 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I think that the GOP is mainly behind this, but maybe I am wrong.

Sure, why not. Count Chocula also bears some of the blame. Hell, why not blame all interested parties? Including the Democrats.

I heard from on a radio broadcast that this is the beginning of a fascist state. I think we were already one that path anyhow.

No, no - the US is a near-oligarchy, not a fascist state. It could easily go down that path, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2010 12:49:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2010 12:39:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/26/2010 12:31:12 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I think that the GOP is mainly behind this, but maybe I am wrong.

Sure, why not. Count Chocula also bears some of the blame. Hell, why not blame all interested parties? Including the Democrats.

I'm sure some Democrats will benefit from this just as much as Republicans. They both are puppets anyway.

I heard from on a radio broadcast that this is the beginning of a fascist state. I think we were already one that path anyhow.

No, no - the US is a near-oligarchy, not a fascist state. It could easily go down that path, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will.
Spaztoid
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 5:05:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When I heard about the US Supreme Court decision, I was actually really surprised and rather dissapointed. I honestly am not pro any political parties, so I don't care to place blame on any one group of people for the decision, however I think it is an unwise one to say the least. It gives all corporations the ability to have a major influence in policy making and elections, which will negatively effect so many different areas of the US that we could easily see major damages to the enviroment, economy, small buisness, and coruption levels. With any luck, this decision will be over turned.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 5:05:53 PM, Spaztoid wrote:
When I heard about the US Supreme Court decision, I was actually really surprised and rather dissapointed. I honestly am not pro any political parties, so I don't care to place blame on any one group of people for the decision, however I think it is an unwise one to say the least. It gives all corporations the ability to have a major influence in policy making and elections, which will negatively effect so many different areas of the US that we could easily see major damages to the enviroment, economy, small buisness, and coruption levels. With any luck, this decision will be over turned.

Agreed. Treating corporations like human beings is opening the door for huge injustice.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What injustice is that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 6:20:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What injustice is that?

That dissolving a corporation could then be considered murder ;)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 6:28:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 6:25:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
That dissolving a corporation could then be considered murder ;)

If they were consistent. Which just goes to show how absurd the idea of legal personhood for corporations is.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2010 12:37:39 PM, douglasfunny wrote:
Personally I'm against any donations for political candidates from personal, or businesses. I'm for taxing it and dividing it equally amongst the top 10 highest polled.

Oh, because that's sure great. Lets tax the money.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 8:05:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Corporations are NOT being given the rights of people.

People are being given the right to use their corporation to funnel money to political campaigns.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 8:09:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So by giving dogs the right to life, are we giving them "the rights of people?" I don't think so. It's the same way with corporatons. The freedom of speech was never specified for the people. It was something Congress couldn't regulate.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 8:50:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2010 12:37:39 PM, douglasfunny wrote:
Personally I'm against any donations for political candidates from personal, or businesses. I'm for taxing it and dividing it equally amongst the top 10 highest polled.

Why donate to a candidate when just as much money will go each and every one of his/her opponents?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 9:42:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2010 12:31:12 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was just blown away by what the Supreme Court ruled in the case of lifting the restrictions on the amount of money corporations are able to donate. I think mostly it's because they saw how astronomical Obama's campaign donations were without any federal funding. I think that the GOP is mainly behind this, but maybe I am wrong.

I heard from on a radio broadcast that this is the beginning of a fascist state. I think we were already one that path anyhow.

Is that "donate" or spend to say their piece on the matter.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 1:31:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Democracy has been dead since December 12th, 2000. Never thought it could get any worse... >_>
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 1:31:09 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
Democracy has been dead since December 12th, 2000. Never thought it could get any worse... >_>

Lmfao. Obvious Democrat is obvious.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:23:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 1:31:09 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
Democracy has been dead since December 12th, 2000. Never thought it could get any worse... >_>

Democracy? AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:26:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:23:22 PM, mongoose wrote:
Democracy? AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY!

Separate? TEXAS WILL NEVER SEPARATE!

Hehe.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:26:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/7/2010 4:23:22 PM, mongoose wrote:
Democracy? AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY!

Separate? TEXAS WILL NEVER SEPARATE!

Hehe.

American is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Texas' Constitution says that Texas has the inalienable right to change its own government, which includes secession. It's only a matter of time.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 1:31:09 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
Democracy has been dead since December 12th, 2000. Never thought it could get any worse... >_>

1. We never had a democracy.
2. What about the 1800 elections?
3. Why is democracy high on your value scale?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:30:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:28:48 PM, mongeese wrote:
American is a Republic, not a Democracy.

I know.

Texas' Constitution says that Texas has the inalienable right to change its own government, which includes secession. It's only a matter of time.

Sure, it has the right. Doesn't mean it will. And you know it never will. You're like the sovereigntistes in Quebec - always hoping, even getting some victories, but you know it will never happen.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:34:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:30:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
3. Why is democracy high on your value scale?

What is better, corrupt pseudo-libertarian dictatorships? Democracy allows people to be involved in their political system, a system that will not go away no matter how much you dream about minarchy. Democracy, when done fairly and people *actually* get involved, can work very well. Or do you want a dictatorship outright? How about an Orwellian totalitarian in control?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:35:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is making the assumption that the only kind of dictator is totalitarian.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:35:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This is making the assumption that the only kind of dictator is totalitarian.

No, I simply asked if he preferred that. Didn't make the assumption.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:48:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:34:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/7/2010 4:30:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
3. Why is democracy high on your value scale?

What is better, corrupt pseudo-libertarian dictatorships?

No. That isn't any better, either. Of course, a constitutional monarchy would probably be much less tyrannical than the current system.

Democracy allows people to be involved in their political system, a system that will not go away no matter how much you dream about minarchy.

Most minarchist ideas for societies are democracies. A minarchy is a country with a working constitution that strictly limit power.

Democracy, when done fairly and people *actually* get involved, can work very well.

People get involved in our democracy. And yet we still have a Patriot Act.

Or do you want a dictatorship outright?

Again with the word dictator. Dictatorship is not the antithesis of democracy.

How about an Orwellian totalitarian in control?

Funny, 1984 had a collectivist government.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 4:58:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:48:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
No. That isn't any better, either. Of course, a constitutional monarchy would probably be much less tyrannical than the current system.

Do you mean my type of constitutional monarchy, or the kind run by Henry VIII, one of the most notoriously corrupt monarchs in history?

Most minarchist ideas for societies are democracies. A minarchy is a country with a working constitution that strictly limit power.

Then whats wrong with democracy?

People get involved in our democracy. And yet we still have a Patriot Act.

The US has a barely functioning democracy in my opinion. Obama's election was a sign that people can get involved, but their influence doesn't go far because of how your system is set up, even if it is a hyper-democratic state. The Patriot Act was a sign of that.

Again with the word dictator. Dictatorship is not the antithesis of democracy.

I disagree. You cannot have an authoritarian dictatorship and a democracy.

Funny, 1984 had a collectivist government.

People always say that, but I read it more as a pass of judgment on the USSR, which was supposed to be socialist and communist and etc., but turned out as a state run by the elitists with state-run capitalism.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 5:18:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Done watching the Who.

At 2/7/2010 4:58:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/7/2010 4:48:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
No. That isn't any better, either. Of course, a constitutional monarchy would probably be much less tyrannical than the current system.

Do you mean my type of constitutional monarchy, or the kind run by Henry VIII, one of the most notoriously corrupt monarchs in history?

Question is too dumb to compehend. I have no idea what your type of constitutional monarchy is supposed to be, and Henry VIII wasn't bound by any effective constitiution.

Most minarchist ideas for societies are democracies. A minarchy is a country with a working constitution that strictly limit power.

Then whats wrong with democracy?

It's politically collectivist and unrestrained.

People get involved in our democracy. And yet we still have a Patriot Act.

The US has a barely functioning democracy in my opinion. Obama's election was a sign that people can get involved, but their influence doesn't go far because of how your system is set up, even if it is a hyper-democratic state. The Patriot Act was a sign of that.

The Patriot Act is an example of why government should not be able to legislate based off of "necessary and proper". It's a failure of an unrestrained representative system.

Again with the word dictator. Dictatorship is not the antithesis of democracy.

I disagree. You cannot have an authoritarian dictatorship and a democracy.

Adolf Hitler. Just saying.
And even besides that, you're forgetting the possibility of a person elected into unlimited power.

Funny, 1984 had a collectivist government.

People always say that, but I read it more as a pass of judgment on the USSR, which was supposed to be socialist and communist and etc., but turned out as a state run by the elitists with state-run capitalism.

You're hitting its policies. Look at its structure. There is a collective oligarchy on top. There is no dictator.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 4:58:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
Then whats wrong with democracy?

See lynch mob.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 6:04:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 5:18:36 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Question is too dumb to compehend. I have no idea what your type of constitutional monarchy is supposed to be, and Henry VIII wasn't bound by any effective constitiution.

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca... <-- that is what a constitutional monarchy is. And my point was that Henry VIII was a monarch who, while not bound by any effective constitutional, still managed to do a lot of damage. Most monarchies are like this, whether the constitution bounding them is effective or not. Look at the early British parliaments, constantly fighting with the monarchy over powers.

It's politically collectivist and unrestrained.

Anarchy is unrestrained. Democracy is restrained, since it sets up the system whereby an individual's - not the collective but the individual - can make his or her views influential by voting in politicians that share them. It funnels an individual's influence into the government, thereby investing the power in those that can be restrained through the same way - by vote.

The Patriot Act is an example of why government should not be able to legislate based off of "necessary and proper". It's a failure of an unrestrained representative system.

Well, I agree that there should be more restrictions, though I will not go as far as to say that it should be abolished. We should discuss this sometime though.

Adolf Hitler. Just saying.
And even besides that, you're forgetting the possibility of a person elected into unlimited power.

I think any system whereby a person is elected into unlimited power is most likely rigging the system. But that is why liberal democracies are set up with legislative and executive powers, as well as a separate and non-partisan bureaucracy. And as with Hitler, he was elected into his position in a democracy, but then he turned it on its head and suspended the legislature and took over the powers of the executive and folded them in to his position.

You're hitting its policies. Look at its structure. There is a collective oligarchy on top. There is no dictator.

The same occurred with the Soviet Union after Stalin. Kruschev never had complete power because the various factions within would vie for power. Different leaders, including his successor, Brezhnev, would continually try coups. This also occurred before Stalin's reign. Stalin was sort of an odd duck in terms of Soviet political structure.