|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Regan Inner circle U.S.A. 5726 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 00:02, EsnRedshirt wrote: Well, Obama promised a way. He said the CSpan cameras would be rolling. That has not been the case though.
Mister Mystery
|
|||||||||
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 01:15, EsnRedshirt wrote: This post says volumes to me. Hello People! It's not about winning an argument. It's about what will best serve the country and is in the confines of the Constitution. Following the Constitution is a losing position at this point in our history. A team of wild horses couldn't drag me off the idea we should though no matter who or how many oppose it or how well they argue the point. This, "I wanna be with a winner", sports induced idea we cherish so much in the States is a stifling thing when it comes to freedom and prosperity.
You know why don't act naive.
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote: When the Dems were in the minority, they never bothered to filibuster. By the time they finally got the majority, the filibuster rules had been changed so that nobody had to stand on the floor and talk to have one. The fact is that the point of the argument is to sway the public opinion; "winning" it means you've won the public to your side and they'll re-elect you, whether or not the filibuster's successful, because they know you stand for their values.On 2010-01-22 09:50, HerbLarry wrote:
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 09:50, HerbLarry wrote: You are right about the idea of "winning". One reason is it is blinding. It causes one to make compromises on principls just in the name of "winning". It is the goofiest idea in politics. Oh and incidently the 1st amendment was upheld pretty well yesterday, I have not been proud of my Supreme Court in my lifetime, till now, to paraphrase our first lady.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Danny, I've mentioned the SCOTUS decision already.
Have you considered all of the ramifications? For example, what about multi-national corporations? I don't know that there will be adequate disclosure from corporations about their political ads, either. Bank of America could, for example, create a shell company called "Americans for Love and Puppies, LLC" and fund campaign ads through that. The ruling also drops restrictions against non-profits, which includes churches. A Muslim religious group (or any religion, for that matter) could run campaign ads for their candidate. McCain and Obama, together, spent nearly a billion dollars on their campaigns in 2008. That is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what a corporation can spend, if it views something as being in its best interests, politically. Those banking companies we gave a handout to have enough money to buy all of the advertising slots on a channel or two the week before an election. This is not a good can of worms to open.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Bull. What free speech bothers you?
Unions, trial lawyers, ACCORN, aclu, millionaires can contribute whatever they want? Only when it agrees with you it does not matter HOW much is spent, just so you "win" right? I could not be happier that the corporations have a voice to fight back against the smears. I want the worms out and crawling about. Just because you organise one way you have certain rights, and others who orgainse another way will have different rights. NO MORE! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpar......def.html Obama was more than happy to bundle resourses from millionairs and billionairs so they could give him 1/2 a billion dollars a million at a time! All I want is the first amendment.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 12:30, Dannydoyle wrote: You've got it. And, now, so does: Shell (owned by a Dutch company) T-Mobile (owned by a German company) Church's Chicken (owned by a company backed by a bank in Bahrain) Holiday Inn (owned by a British company) French's (also owned by a British company) Toll House (owned by Nestle, a Swiss company) CITGO (owned by the government of Venezuala) Anheuser-Busch (owned by a Belgian company) etc.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts |
Howdy Redshirt,
Looks like we now get to decide if we want to vote for people that accept funds from these sources. More freedom! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!!
You know why don't act naive.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
I just find it hard to believe that man-made institutions are "endowed by the Creator" with inalienable rights of any kind.
Corporations rose in response to our forefather's attempts to prevent the rise of an aristocracy. Prohibitions against entails and primogeniture were enacted in most states, even long before the revolution in the state of Franklin, which was organized in what is now eastern Tennessee and western Virginia. This was to keep the wealthy from accumulating vast sums of money and keeping it together by passing it only to the first born son, and the other traditional means of maintaining wealth. "The breakup of powerful combinations of families is the very heart and soul of the republic." --Daniel Webster An undying legal "entity"--the corporation--was used to amass great wealth and power that could be controlled by individuals, but that could always grow and never have their wealth scattered because they were basically "immortal." These corporations replaced the aristocracy of old. When these fictional entities have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as human individuals, we will have lost all semblance of democracy and become the perpetual serfs in a new system of corporatocracy. |
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
Will have become...?
I sense we have been there a long time.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
Close.Up.Dave Inner circle Behind you! 2956 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 15:44, Whit Haydn wrote: :applause: |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 15:44, Whit Haydn wrote: Corporations are owned by people, and why is it ok if liberal groups like ACLU and ACCORN and trial lawyers, and unions and so forth have sorts of exemptions. It is an equal playing field.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 14:48, HerbLarry wrote: Except that since most of the requirements for disclosure in advertising were thrown out, you won't actually know which corporation is spending money on the issue ads you like, and those you don't.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Close.Up.Dave Inner circle Behind you! 2956 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 18:59, Dannydoyle wrote: You're right, it's not okay if liberal corporations have exemptions, it's also not okay if conservative ones do too. The playing field may be equal, but it is immoral. The point was to ensure no one became too powerful, but the same people found a way around it. And now instead of a person being powerful, it is a made up entity that has the same rights as an actual person. Just because the playing field is equal it doesn't mean it is okay of liberal or conservative corporations screw over people. I find it scary that corporations are treated with more respect than the middle class people that run them day to day. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-22 19:15, balducci wrote: Oh I know. It would be almost as bad as if a bunch of really rich people got together to funnel and bundle money for a particular liberal presidential candidate, now president wouldn't it? I notice how your outrage is simply for those who you don't agree with LOL. It is funny to watch. ACCORN is ok to have that sort of power simply because they are oganised in a different fashion? Is that true? I don't think that is good. Big money liberals like George Sorros funnel money through a bunch of criminal front groups just to get money to candidates, is that ok? Hardly. It simply levels the playing field and it is about darn time. Look how much money they put into Air America, which is now bankrupt as of yesterday. Wanna still tell me what a wonderful business model THAT was?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Interestingly, the ACLU supported this decision.
As to the issue of a level playing field,--who spent more money on lobbiests last year, ACORN or Big Pharma? Who spent more on political propaganda: Air America or Australia's own FoxNews? Good lord, as if the corporations haven't already spent billions influencing Congress with their bundling. Democrats and Republicans--all taking corporate cash. I know your eyes can't be closed.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts |
At least the corporations are spending their money, Nebraska and Louisiana’s vote was bought with money taken from the tax payers without our consent.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Tom? What are you talking about. I haven't heard of any election fraud in those states. Wait- are you talking about ACORN?
You're starting to sound like tommy (No offense, tommy!)
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts |
Quote: Check out this link or just google it yourself. http://medinnovationblog.blogspot.com/20......ska.htmlOn 2010-01-22 23:40, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote: Oh, that? Don't worry about it. Haven't you heard Health Care Reform's dead?On 2010-01-23 00:04, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Good News! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |