- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,589
- Reaction score
- 28,955
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah smart people need to suck on the public teat and make others fund their existence?
So what do you think Obama and liberalism is doing? We have a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal govt. today and an 18.2 trillion dollar debt NONE of it came from those evil corporations but that doesn't stop people from wishing for more govt because they are naïve, gullible, and poorly informed just like Gruber stated.
Do you have a solution to what you perceive is a problem or do you think more and bigger govt. is the answer? Who pays for it?
You mean like work for news organizations?
Or do you mean people who work for the DOJ?
Who said anything about more and bigger government? Campaign finance ain't like it used to be. Just to let you know, that's what we're talking about. We aren't talking about the debt and we certainly aren't talking about the straw man liberal buffoon that you're so proud of yourself for pounding on. So do I have a solution to what I (and millions upon millions of other people) perceive as a very big problem? Yes. It's called campaign finance reform. It's a popular idea in many circles with the exception of the hyper partisan and the cognitive dissonant.
Campaign finance reform = government rationed political speech.
people who work for the government aren't teat suckers
those who expect other tax payers to fund them are
Oh BTW since you want to make personal comments
I paid more in TAXES each quarter than I made in salary-and I was an SES level equivalency
corporations {and their PACS} are people, my friends.
Legally, in this context, yes they are.
And is that a good thing, when they can be legally responsible for killing people with no criminal consequence?
Electoral/lobby feedback loops, how do they work?
Oh that is just choice since the left didn't have a problem with the Koch brothers when they donated to their campaigns. Nope not a problem until 2012 when they ceased to fund Democrats. Gee could it be their ever growing anti corporate stance? Their increase in regulations by the bucketful to appease their staunch political donors such as greenie weenies? And the constant mantra of victims in society they conjure up without holding them to any personal responsibility for their feckless choices in life demanding those who did it the right way pay for them too? Why yes it is all pertinent.can you smell the stench of the rotting corpse of our federal democratic representative republic?
Wait. So journalists who work for news organizations are 'teat suckers', and government employees are taxpayers who don't get their money from taxes.
I don't follow, but I don't think I'm supposed to.
Oh that is just choice since the left didn't have a problem with the Koch brothers when they donated to their campaigns. Nope not a problem until 2012 when they ceased to fund Democrats. Gee could it be their ever growing anti corporate stance? Their increase in regulations by the bucketful to appease their staunch political donors such as greenie weenies? And the constant mantra of victims in society they conjure up without holding them to any personal responsibility for their feckless choices in life demanding those who did it the right way pay for them too? Why yes it is all pertinent.
I'm just sorry that the Koch brothers stopped at 389 million. I was hoping for a solid 1/2 billion. :mrgreen:
They are able to engage in free, unrationed political speech, as are all Americans.
so you are an adherant of the $=== speech theory.
*I'm shocked*
The Constitution is clear.
See, you call out "left" (presumably insinuating me).
You have no idea. I want to end corporate personhood, I want federally funded elections, I want the Kochs, Soros, everyone ***OUT*** of the election game.
But hey, go on patting your back as a proud patriot while shouting the text I underlined.
The constitution denotes free speech with respect to defining government authority to imprison persons.
The constitution is VERY unclear in denoting what a person is.
Please cite the sections and clauses *you think* connote an ability for a fictitious legal-construct person to influence an election.
/PS, good luck finding fake graphs and links to AGW denier blogs.
federally funded elections? So you want everyone to be beholden to what the federal government allocates to fund elections? :lol: I don't know whether to cry for you or laugh at you.
Politics is a dirty business. It has been from the beginning. But so are a lot of things that come with freedom. When you start trying to "sanitize" it you infringe on liberty.
Like the right to privacy, the political personhood of corporations (and unions, etc.) is found in the penumbras of the Constitution. Your wording has some appeal; corporations are indeed legal-construct persons.
so --- you can't cite a section or clause?
SCOTUS found the needful, and in the words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Good night.
Yes, laught it away. A debate or two. NO* smear ads. Candidates who are serious and have to defend their positions.
A travesty, I'm sure.
And yes, if the gov't has to cut funds to NASA, or DOEnergy, it has to cut funds to the election fund. PRIORITIES.
HOW IN THE SAM HELL did POTUS candidates win before TV, ads, and stuff to begin with? Oh. A clear policy message.
Is getting back to that... SO WRONG?
Nope-I was just wondering why people who depend on the government to feed them are smarter
or why those who support that while making a decent salary are smarter than those of us who merely want the government to leave us alone
Well, the fact that journalists tend to be smarter and more well informed than most people has nothing to do with your ramblings. Journalists just tend to be really sharp people in general, able to quickly understand information and synthesize connections between facts and events. Not all, but I'd guess about three quarters of them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?