http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mansur-gidfar/this-is-the-supreme-court_b_4086269.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Again I'm not going to take a stance here. Pick apart the article and tell me your opinions.
Why are you so interested in our opinions?....are you writing a thesis or are you a writer for some lib publication?....be honest!
Why are you so interested in our opinions?....are you writing a thesis or are you a writer for some lib publication?....be honest!
Elected officials increasingly feel accountable to a vanishingly small percentage of the population....
I had to almost read the entire article before it became obvious the writer is targeting conservative donors.
No mention of George Soros, the Saudis or any of the other "outside" millions that flow into our democrat's coffers.
...I still think you are not being honest and are up to something....and would appreciate honesty....just not buying it!!!
I really don't know what to say. There is no ulterior motive to me posting here other than trying to spark conversation. What do you believe my motives are/might be/could be?
|
I really don't know what to say. There is no ulterior motive to me posting here other than trying to spark conversation. What do you believe my motives are/might be/could be?
Speaking of media do you approve... as a vet.. and a citizen .. of how they ignored what really took place in DC yesterday?
Why should corporations and conservative organizations be able to contribute to political candidates?
Here's what they are up against:
MAIN FUNDERS OF THE LEFT
Another motive is that you are fascinated with Citizens United and the Koch Bros...I have noticed that in your posts and when you came into chat...
One motive is that you are writing something for some Lib publication or a thesis for some degree.....I just don't think a person would go to all this trouble without an ulterior motive..as you said.
I agree with what you are saying here. I personally think none of our politicians should be influenced by millionaires and rich special interests. They are there to serve the interests of the people that voted for them to be there. I think people running for office should have an equal chance to exposure, and shouldn't have to rely on multi-million dollar smear campaigns designed to manipulate voters. If you are honest, and your message is good, you shouldn't need to do things like that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mansur-gidfar/this-is-the-supreme-court_b_4086269.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsPlainly and simply: The article suggests that Citizens United is wrong, and that privaate political free speech funding is wrong, but fails to mention the VAST sums collected, sometimes without consent, from liberal, public employee organizations.
Again I'm not going to take a stance here. Pick apart the article and tell me your opinions.
Would you support removing the big funding from both political parties? Everybody keeps saying "Citizens United is okay because the left does it too. They have tons of money they get from special interests and rich members of the left wing", but what I propose is not letting ANY of these guys pump their millions into politics, regardless of their political affiliation.
Let me ask you a question... not that you will answer of course... do you know who started and funds the SOS project.
Would it make a difference to you if either of those things were true? Hypothetically, would you care?
Plainly and simply: The article suggests that Citizens United is wrong, and that privaate political free speech funding is wrong, but fails to mention the VAST sums collected, sometimes without consent, from liberal, public employee organizations.
From the lowest elected positions for school board, city council, planning commissions and up, government employee unions are HUGE sources of campaign money.
Do a little honest research and you'll confirm that. If they can pool their huge resources, so can others.
So it is your turn, to convince us that 500 or 500,000 government employees should be able to donate millions to democrats, but not businessmen and women.
Probably not..but to be determined....I would of course appreciate you finally being honest with me.....hypothetically of course!
I know it was co-founded by Becky Bond, Michael Kieschnick and James Rucker.
I swear on my about to be 1 year old son that I am not writing any left wing articles. I am also not writing any school papers, but honestly since I got here it has made me want to.
I was just looking at your stats here..you are online a lot...do you work from home or does your employer allow this.....?
At you afraid to say it was the brainchild of and funded by George Soros? And to admit what their purpose is. It would seem so.
I take my laptop to class constantly and make posts, and my PC at home stays on a lot, sometimes with this forum sitting in an open window.
Would you support removing the big funding from both political parties? Everybody keeps saying "Citizens United is okay because the left does it too. They have tons of money they get from special interests and rich members of the left wing", but what I propose is not letting ANY of these guys pump their millions into politics, regardless of their political affiliation.
It is not money that corrupts politics, but politics that corrupts money.
A return to Constitutionally-limited government and a return of power to the states and to the people would result in money flowing elsewhere. As of now, too much of it is wasted on the shakedown-and-protection racket into which our Federal government has largely devolved.
I'm interested in your opinions because finding common ground between left and right is (in my opinion) the only way to stop the government from completely destroying our freedoms. I think the horrible, giant schism between the left and right is intentional and perpetuated by the government to keep people more worried about screaming at each other than focusing on the real problem. I like to post things and put ideas out there for you guys to comment on, and then I can go through the posts and connect all the dots in the places we agree and have common ground. I thought my non-hostile presence might make some conservatives realize I and people like me are really not that bad.
While we (liberals and conservatives) argue, Rome burns. Meanwhile, establishment politicians get richer and richer.
The author complains:
What he doesn't get is this is exactly how a representative democracy (ie Republic) is supposed to work. Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents who elected them, not a political party.
The government is so big today because both parties have been in on it
Agreed. But let's not just single out the 'rats. The government is so big today because both parties have been in on it; not just the 'rat party, but both establishment parties. Establishment politicians not only don't listen to constituents, they pay no heed to the constitution itself. And SCOTUS? Please. They're the worst bunch. Rewriting the constitution on the fly. Isn't that how we finally got Obamacare?
Agreed. But let's not just single out the 'rats. The government is so big today because both parties have been in on it; not just the 'rat party, but both establishment parties. Establishment politicians not only don't listen to constituents, they pay no heed to the constitution itself. And SCOTUS? Please. They're the worst bunch. Rewriting the constitution on the fly. Isn't that how we finally got Obamacare?
Yes, and my major is world history with a minor in world religion. My goal is to one day be a college professor.
Wow!
Task my advice and stop trying to understand conservatives RIGHT now or you are bound to fail!
Why am I bound to fail?
Because where you profess to want to go will not look with favor on such an enterprise!
Believe me! I know this!
I've had several Republican/conservative professors. In fact I even got into a tiff with one over a C on a paper I wrote about climate change. :P
I don't suppose you want to "share" what you wrote????
I've had several Republican/conservative professors. In fact I even got into a tiff with one over a C on a paper I wrote about climate change. :P
Why do you think BOTH parties are intent on destroying Cruz, Lee, Palin, etc.? Because they are the only people who stand between them and one-party, authoritarian rule, in Washington, DC. They liked the autonomy they had to do as they pleased before the internet and that nasty ole Tea Party brought some people to DC who are actually doing what they told the voters they were going to do... what a novel concept - run on doing something and THEN do it. That is called principle. Few in DC have a clue what this means. Just as in the 1850/60's there was no difference between the Democrats and the Whigs today there isn't a scintilla of difference between 99.9% of the Democrats and the GOP.
Like Andy said - it isn't the money that corrupts. IMHO it is the lack of term limits for everyone that has corrupted the system. People like John McCain have no life outside of their jobs in DC and they will do everything short or murder to keep their jobs (and maybe even murder given this bunch of crooks).
I would support the unrestricted funding of any candidate by any individual or group.
It is not money that corrupts politics, but politics that corrupts money.
A return to Constitutionally-limited government and a return of power to the states and to the people would result in money flowing elsewhere. As of now, too much of it is wasted on the shakedown-and-protection racket into which our Federal government has largely devolved.
Is there anyone on this site who thinks there would have been even an attempt to pass anything like Obamacare into law if we had stuck to the original design of our government prior to the 17th amendment?
Nope and this is why I keep trying to get our liberal friend here to understand this isn't what he thinks is the cause - it goes much deeper and he needs to learn to think deeper - especially if he wants to be a professor as he claims.... I am very grateful that I had teachers who made us think! One being my economics teacher - another being my very first boss.
Is there anyone on this site who thinks there would have been even an attempt to pass anything like Obamacare into law if we had stuck to the original design of our government prior to the 17th amendment?
would have driven our Founders to the streets in protest, if not instantly to their muskets.
Would you support removing the big funding from both political parties? Everybody keeps saying "Citizens United is okay because the left does it too. They have tons of money they get from special interests and rich members of the left wing", but what I propose is not letting ANY of these guys pump their millions into politics, regardless of their political affiliation.
Is there anyone on this site who thinks there would have been even an attempt to pass anything like Obamacare into law if we had stuck to the original design of our government prior to the 17th amendment?
I do because I see it as a slow loss of our spirit, not in legal details on the separation of how the bodies represent. With the Senate as representatives of the State instead of another direct representation of the people (which is the role of the House) you may have had it in a different form and through a different mode, but it is the same loss of individualism that is growing in almost all first word, prosperous nations. Things come to easy, 'luxuries' can be voted on instead of earned. Heck, look at what Switzerland is on the verge of passing, a national 'dividend' which is basically a minimum salary every citizen gets for doing nothing except being a citizen. They don't need to earn it, it is not the result of a trade of goods or services, the sweat of one's brow or the challenge of the mind, nor the creation of anything new. No, it is the people simply realizing that assets can be gained if one simply demands in a large enough mass. This used to be done by cities and tribes raiding each other for property, now is done without breaking a sweat other than going to the ballot box. Things have gotten to easy, we are becoming again like babies nursing, not having to chew meat.
Robert Heinlein foretold this in two novels- For Us, The Living and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The former predicting the almost exact economic structure that Switzerland is about to vote on (and not ironically enough, the socialist utopia that was the written goal of Cloward/Piven) and the latter being the natural result said utopia where there is the necessary slave type class (moon miners made up of 'anarchist' types who didn't want to conform) that has to support the luxury class back on earth. We are on the verge of the first and we are told how wonderful all these free things will be, but the necessity of the second to support the first will come all too quickly.
Like Andy said - it isn't the money that corrupts. IMHO it is the lack of term limits for everyone that has corrupted the system. People like John McCain have no life outside of their jobs in DC and they will do everything short or murder to keep their jobs (and maybe even murder given this bunch of crooks).
I used to think that. Still do to a certain extent, but there is a problem with term limits which was actually explained to me by a very leftist Californian (Libby, may God rest her soul) where they do have term limits for the state legislature.
Lobbyists don't have term limits. They know how the system works and guide and mentor newly elected politicians in return for favors. I was dubious, but she did provide a lot of independently verifiable examples. Wish I had saved that conversation, it was both fascinating and informative.
Still - having someone in the senate or house for 40 years is not ideal. Having "royal" families in politics is even less ideal and is one of the stupid errors that should be dealt with.