America's a democracy?

[Tecumsehsbones]

what was even more obvious was the/my reference to the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision... apparently, the Chief doesn't draw inference well... at all!

Nice to see the lefty isn't above a racist shot.

But I'm interested. What limits do you think the government should place on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and property rights in order to bring about your notion of fairness?

For example, should George Soros, the multi-billionaire supporter of Democratic candidates, be subject to the same limitations you would put on the Koch brothers?

 

[waldo]

Nice to see the lefty isn't above a racist shot.

talk about, as you say, (YOUR) pissin' and moanin'! No, as you say, "racist shot"! You tried this little ploy once before... and I provided you links that speak to your namesake.

But I'm interested. What limits do you think the government should place on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and property rights in order to bring about your notion of fairness?

For example, should George Soros, the multi-billionaire supporter of Democratic candidates, be subject to the same limitations you would put on the Koch brothers?

and right away you play the left-right card! Is the Citizen's United decision left-right aligned? What's your measuring bar for equating freedom of speech to dollars spent? Oh my! :mrgreen:

 

[Corduroy]

All of the above. It's called a discussion. You come up with your big idea, then examine the details of how to bring it about.

You know that, of course. I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of waldo and the onlookers.

I think the movement is pushing for a constitutional amendment. Seeing as the supreme court legalized bribery, the only way to make it illegal is to go after the source of their own power. Naturally, the rich will do all that's in their power to prevent this / continue to buy politicians. The difficulty of the job is evidenced in the reactions from people in this thread. Some people know the US isn't a democracy and that elections are essentially auctions where candidates sell power and influence to the rich, but they greet the information with "duh" and "so what?". What really needs to change are attitudes.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

talk about, as you say, (YOUR) pissin' and moanin'! No, as you say, "racist shot"! You tried this little ploy once before... and I provided you links that speak to your namesake.

Twist as much as you like, everybody here knows what you said and what you meant.

and right away you play the left-right card! Is the Citizen's United decision left-right aligned? What's your measuring bar for equating freedom of speech to dollars spent? Oh my! :mrgreen:

No, I said "freedom of speech" AND "property rights."

Clearly you didn't understand. Hardly surprising.

Nonetheless, here's a notion. Seeing as how you have utterly failed to propose any sort of a solution, would you like to hear my proposed campaign finance solution? Then you could piss and moan and criticize without having to actually propose and defend a solution of your own, which you have demonstrated is beyond you.

 

[captain morgan]

talk about, as you say, (YOUR) pissin' and moanin'! No, as you say, "racist shot"! You tried this little ploy once before... and I provided you links that speak to your namesake.



and right away you play the left-right card! Is the Citizen's United decision left-right aligned? What's your measuring bar for equating freedom of speech to dollars spent? Oh my! :mrgreen:

Do you feel better now that you've had a good cry?

 

[gore0bsessed]

the solution is obvious. "get big money out of politics" as bernie says.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

the solution is obvious. "get big money out of politics" as bernie says.

How, exactly? Without contravening the legal and Constitutional freedoms of the U.S.?

 

[gore0bsessed]

make it illegal for corporations to "lobby". i put lobby in quotations because it's more like bribing really.

 

[waldo]

Twist as much as you like, everybody here knows what you said and what you meant.

apparently, your perceived oppression has you playing the race-card... willy-nilly! :mrgreen:

No, I said "freedom of speech" AND "property rights."

twist as much as you like! Other than actually defining your measurement, you clearly put forward a bar to equate spending, apparently unfettered and unlimited spending, to freedom of speech. So, uhhh... what's the election campaign spending value you put on freedom of speech... and if you're only half there, does that equate to "half free"?

Nonetheless, here's a notion. Seeing as how you have utterly failed to propose any sort of a solution, would you like to hear my proposed campaign finance solution? Then you could piss and moan and criticize without having to actually propose and defend a solution of your own, which you have demonstrated is beyond you.

again, you have extreme difficulty in drawing inference. When I mock your SCOTUS Citizen's United decision, do you equate that to me advocating for it to stay? :mrgreen: Now... now... you have a proposal? What took you so long? But hey now, how do you propose to NOT LIMIT your referenced FREEDOM OF SPEECH, with your proposal (whatever the hey it is)... notwithstanding how you presume to have it work under the proviso of Citizen's United?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You want in on this, Walter?

Here's my solution. . .

It is clear to me that the Constitution and American law generally grant rights to natural persons, i.e., "man born of woman," and the Framers didn't give a damn about "legal persons" at all, considering them to be subject to the government, as they are created by the government, while natural persons are created by God, and therefore their rights are beyond infringement by human government.

So, here's my solution. . .

Any person can give any amount of money to any candidate, party, or organization she chooses, without limitation.

Parties, organizations, associations, corporations, or any other non-natural persons shall have no right to speak or spend in the national conversation. They may, from time to time, be PERMITTED to spend, and to participate, but they have no right.

apparently, your perceived oppression has you playing the race-card... willy-nilly! :mrgreen:



twist as much as you like! Other than actually defining your measurement, you clearly put forward a bar to equate spending, apparently unfettered and unlimited spending, to freedom of speech. So, uhhh... what's the election campaign spending value you put on freedom of speech... and if you're only half there, does that equate to "half free"?



again, you have extreme difficulty in drawing inference. When I mock your SCOTUS Citizen's United decision, do you equate that to me advocating for it to stay? :mrgreen: Now... now... you have a proposal? What took you so long? But hey now, how do you propose to NOT LIMIT your referenced FREEDOM OF SPEECH, with your proposal (whatever the hey it is)... notwithstanding how you presume to have it work under the proviso of Citizen's United?

Son, you have accomplished a mighty feat when you make Joke Hill seem like a reasonable person.

 

[waldo]

Do you feel better now that you've had a good cry?

capStain, how confrontational of you! So unlike you. :mrgreen: (but really, I suggest you keep you own cry within the other currently running thread where the waldo laid a whoopin' on ya!) Carry on.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

make it illegal for corporations to "lobby". i put lobby in quotations because it's more like bribing really.

I agree with that, to an extent. They may meet with elected officials and make their points and arguments, but I would ban all direct or indirect transfers of money to, or for the benefit of, elected officials or candidates for office.

So, we starting to move toward some agreement, gore? I'd welcome that.

 

[Walter]

Another way to take a lot of money lot of politics is to have a flat tax or a fair tax.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Another way to take a lot of money lot of politics is to have a flat tax or a fair tax.

Agreed. It'll never happen, though, so we should probably concentrate of what's do-able.

 

[captain morgan]

capStain, how confrontational of you! So unlike you. :mrgreen: (but really, I suggest you keep you own cry within the other currently running thread where the waldo laid a whoopin' on ya!) Carry on.

Nothing confrontational in asking if you had a good cry and feel better.

Boy, your nickname sure suits you well weirdo

 

[gore0bsessed]

Another way to take a lot of money lot of politics is to have a flat tax or a fair tax.

why the hell did you neg rep by post about getting big money out of politics but you agree with getting money out of politics...

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

why the hell did you neg rep by post about getting big money out of politics but you agree with getting money out of politics...

Ignore it, gore. Answer my post. Let's get past the cheap-shot, drive-by artists, and try to find some common ground, conservative to leftist (and I don't mean anything by that, it's not an insult. It seems like a neutral way to characterize you).

 

[gore0bsessed]

it makes sense but realistically the politicians will still be bought off as long as they are susceptible to greed . the bribery will just be more clandestine.

 

[waldo]

So, here's my solution. . .

Any person can give any amount of money to any candidate, party, or organization she chooses, without limitation.

Parties, organizations, associations, corporations, or any other non-natural persons shall have no right to speak or spend in the national conversation. They may, from time to time, be PERMITTED to spend, and to participate, but they have no right.

don't you know! Corporations are people. :mrgreen: You appear quite naive to the subject at hand. Ever hear of, for example, Donor's Trust... and the gaggle of other like declared non-profits that work to ensure the anonymity of donors?

Son, you have accomplished a mighty feat when you make Joke Hill seem like a reasonable person.

pa, I have no idea what you're implying... if it made you feel better to write it, I'm content that I've validated you.

 

[taxslave]

Popularity from citizens on a policy has no influence on whether congress will pass a bill or not. What does have influence? Money.

Popularity and what is right are not often the same thing. Fortunately the people that have to pay the bill usually have some influence on government spending.

yes, money given by corporations to lobby politicians so they can pass favorable bills to themselves not in the interest of actual voters. popularity of polices among the actual voters has no impact on whether government passes a bill or not. americans consistently vote for a government that doesn't care for them basically. how's that a democracy?

was the question i posed, not whether this was groundbreaking news or not. but it is to many people i'm sure.

It is a democracy because that is what the people voted for. Every 4 or 5 years the people get to decide if the government has done what was asked of it. That is democracy. In socialist or worse countries the people do not get to vote in any meaningful way. , they do as told or disappear.