Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

This doesn't seem right...

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 9:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I just knew "turd blossom" (Bush's nickname, not mine) had his hand in the republicans recent ascension to power. Karl Rove has his hand in all of these matters.

"Spending blitz by outside groups helped secure big GOP wins
Hedge fund moguls helped bankroll groups' attack ads, sources tell NBC News"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is seriously messed up. The republican dominated Supreme Court paves the way for this shady and immoral confluence of money and power, and then the republicans use it to elect more republicans. <sigh>

Republicans couldn't have done this well without the money. Chomsky, where are you? Why don't more people read your stuff? Or better yet, why don't more people read more in general?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:01:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 9:54:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
I just knew "turd blossom" (Bush's nickname, not mine) had his hand in the republicans recent ascension to power. Karl Rove has his hand in all of these matters.

"Spending blitz by outside groups helped secure big GOP wins
Hedge fund moguls helped bankroll groups' attack ads, sources tell NBC News"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is seriously messed up. The republican dominated Supreme Court paves the way for this shady and immoral confluence of money and power, and then the republicans use it to elect more republicans. <sigh>

Republicans couldn't have done this well without the money. Chomsky, where are you? Why don't more people read your stuff? Or better yet, why don't more people read more in general?

Wait, what?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:01:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 9:54:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
I just knew "turd blossom" (Bush's nickname, not mine) had his hand in the republicans recent ascension to power. Karl Rove has his hand in all of these matters.

"Spending blitz by outside groups helped secure big GOP wins
Hedge fund moguls helped bankroll groups' attack ads, sources tell NBC News"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is seriously messed up. The republican dominated Supreme Court paves the way for this shady and immoral confluence of money and power, and then the republicans use it to elect more republicans. <sigh>

Republicans couldn't have done this well without the money. Chomsky, where are you? Why don't more people read your stuff? Or better yet, why don't more people read more in general?

Wait, what?

The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:11:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Massive amounts of money was spent on both sides. I always did find it odd that in this recession (which is statistically over, but not really over) where everyone is suffering, that politicians managed to raise and spend so much money.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:18:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:13:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?

Nope.

Ok.... Are you unaware of the fact that 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have conservative leanings?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:28:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If we're not careful, the U.S. government might turn into some sort of corporate kleptocracy. What's next, are they going to go print trillions of dollars out of thin air and hand it to rich bankers?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:32:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:18:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:13:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?

Nope.

Ok.... Are you unaware of the fact that 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have conservative leanings?

Kennedy's a moderate by most people's standards. By my standards the whole lot of 'em are filthy libruls.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:33:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:28:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
If we're not careful, the U.S. government might turn into some sort of corporate kleptocracy. What's next, are they going to go print trillions of dollars out of thin air and hand it to rich bankers?

Certainly not. No one would be stupid enough to... wait a minute.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:43:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:32:04 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:18:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:13:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?

Nope.

Ok.... Are you unaware of the fact that 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have conservative leanings?

Kennedy's a moderate by most people's standards. By my standards the whole lot of 'em are filthy libruls.

Kennedy's a swing vote on some rather limited issues, but he is mainly a conservative.

Exactly how small do you want the government to be? If your ideal government were to embody itself as an animal, I could probably kill the poor thing with a BB gun.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 10:49:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:43:52 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:32:04 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:18:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:13:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?

Nope.

Ok.... Are you unaware of the fact that 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have conservative leanings?

Kennedy's a moderate by most people's standards. By my standards the whole lot of 'em are filthy libruls.

Kennedy's a swing vote on some rather limited issues, but he is mainly a conservative.

Exactly how small do you want the government to be? If your ideal government were to embody itself as an animal, I could probably kill the poor thing with a BB gun.

Maybe if you were at really, really close range...otherwise I doubt you'd be able to hit it :P
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 11:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 10:49:04 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:43:52 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:32:04 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:18:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:13:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/3/2010 10:06:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
The mainly conservative Supreme Court. Does that clear it up?

Nope.

Ok.... Are you unaware of the fact that 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have conservative leanings?

Kennedy's a moderate by most people's standards. By my standards the whole lot of 'em are filthy libruls.

Kennedy's a swing vote on some rather limited issues, but he is mainly a conservative.

Exactly how small do you want the government to be? If your ideal government were to embody itself as an animal, I could probably kill the poor thing with a BB gun.

Maybe if you were at really, really close range...otherwise I doubt you'd be able to hit it :P

I lol'd
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Okay, I don't know much about US politics but I do know the following is true:

* Advertising works
* Advertising costs money
* Investment bankers have lots of money
* Investment bankers don't like paying tax
* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
* Investment bankers funded Obama's opponents' advertising campaigns
* Obama lost out in the elections

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:16:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:

* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
False.

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.
What about banning candidates from running in the first place.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
EllieP
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:50:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Okay, I don't know much about US politics but I do know the following is true:

* Advertising works
* Advertising costs money
* Investment bankers have lots of money
* Investment bankers don't like paying tax
* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
* Investment bankers funded Obama's opponents' advertising campaigns
* Obama lost out in the elections

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.

Please explain how Obama is corrupt? Last I checked, he's very opposing this issue and trying to prevent "the richest or most corrupt, wins the election."

http://www.opensecrets.org...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is not a way of democracy, and Obama is certainly not trying to win in ways such as this, he released the Disclose Act in response to it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:11:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is such crap. In my state where we unfortunately remain blue it was without any doubt the unions that controlled the elections, particularly the public unions. In the three days leading up to the elections 400,000 doors were knocked on by union members. Most, if not all of the ads that were being run against the republicans were sponsored by one of the different public unions. There is no way to beat this democratic machine in this state. Oh, and they call it a machine here because they don't think. They see "D" and they just vote. We have the elitists and the unions that control this state. Barney Frank continues, but at least he has less power to hurt us.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:11:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The logic is absurd on its face. What does Obama have to gain by REALLY cracking down on special interests? Nothing. This is all a PR stunt.

Stricter lobbying regulations will only make it more difficult for smaller corporations to get their foot in the door. Entrenched interests probably don't even NEED to make direct contributions. They can get to officials before and after the term. Its only 4-8 years...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 9:28:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 6:50:44 AM, EllieP wrote:
At 11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Okay, I don't know much about US politics but I do know the following is true:

* Advertising works
* Advertising costs money
* Investment bankers have lots of money
* Investment bankers don't like paying tax
* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
* Investment bankers funded Obama's opponents' advertising campaigns
* Obama lost out in the elections

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.

Please explain how Obama is corrupt? Last I checked, he's very opposing this issue and trying to prevent "the richest or most corrupt, wins the election."

http://www.opensecrets.org...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is not a way of democracy, and Obama is certainly not trying to win in ways such as this, he released the Disclose Act in response to it.

I think you misunderstood me - I used the word "democratic" with a small "d" - I was, in fact, suggesting that Obama and the Democratic Party lost out because investment bankers funded the Republican's advertising campaign.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
EllieP
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:17:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 9:28:35 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 11/4/2010 6:50:44 AM, EllieP wrote:
At 11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Okay, I don't know much about US politics but I do know the following is true:

* Advertising works
* Advertising costs money
* Investment bankers have lots of money
* Investment bankers don't like paying tax
* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
* Investment bankers funded Obama's opponents' advertising campaigns
* Obama lost out in the elections

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.

Please explain how Obama is corrupt? Last I checked, he's very opposing this issue and trying to prevent "the richest or most corrupt, wins the election."

http://www.opensecrets.org...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is not a way of democracy, and Obama is certainly not trying to win in ways such as this, he released the Disclose Act in response to it.

I think you misunderstood me - I used the word "democratic" with a small "d" - I was, in fact, suggesting that Obama and the Democratic Party lost out because investment bankers funded the Republican's advertising campaign.

On that note, I very much agree. That's no way to have a democracy
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Freedom of speech yo.
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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:29:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 6:27:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Freedom of speech yo.

Very loose definition of speech, don't ya think?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:58:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 5:43:30 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Okay, I don't know much about US politics but I do know the following is true:

* Advertising works
* Advertising costs money
* Investment bankers have lots of money
* Investment bankers don't like paying tax
* Obama wants investment bankers to pay their fair share of tax
* Investment bankers funded Obama's opponents' advertising campaigns
* Obama lost out in the elections

That doesn't seem very democratic to me and that's why I believe political funding in the US should be capped so that the best candidate, rather than the richest or most corrupt, wins the election.

We've been run by corrupt political machines since at least 1910; it's always been "the guy with the most dough wins". Read Lincoln Steffens, "Shame of the Cities"; he investigated the boss system back at the turn of the century, and it hasn't changed substantially since then.

What these articles fail to point out is that the Democratic party and it's races are helped along by generous donations by George Soros and the unions. Both sides lean on big money with strings.

I'm not sure what the answer is; it's certain though that capping the amount of money will only limit the extent of corruption, or force it to become more secretive.

I lean towards replacing the entire thing with a monarchy, as having a leader who does not have to campaign for popularity to keep power will not have to rely on corrupting people. I realise this would bring it's own problems, though, and that it is not going to happen. I see no realistic solution to the problem. Insist the government keeps putting people on trial for corruption, I guess; even though those are only the ones the system doesn't want anymore, it's more justice than we'd get otherwise.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Bipolarmoment
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:36:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 6:29:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 6:27:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Freedom of speech yo.

Very loose definition of speech, don't ya think?

Plenty of people use the term 'expression' which may clear up your scope issue.