• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report by ABC's Karl criticizes Obama picks, but it's the anchors to the rescue!

Grim17 said:
Hey Pete, here's a news flash for you... Just because something is factually correct, doesn't mean it can't be biased.

btw, I just saw the report that NBC did on it, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. They actually reported on it factually without trying to justify the president's actions. I just wish NBC would make a habit out of reporting on the news that way.
Click to expand...

Wait! If they did that they would be watched by more people. They might become rich!
 
eohrnberger said:
The same old, same old. More public money will make the things better. :roll:

It wasn't the Republicans, nor the Democrats, who ruled that money = free speech. That was SCOTUS.

I happen to agree that unlimited money to politicians is a bad idea. But I'm not going to go as far as saying that elections should be publicly funded.

I see the corruption of DC and the money = free speech as two separate issues.

One is closely tied to the type of people who are elected and what the news media and electorate let them get away with, while the other is merely a campaign funding mechanism.

It may be foolish or naive from your point of view, but that's where I am at on this at this moment.
Click to expand...

Return to Constitutional limits and no one will want to spend millions to get a job that earns them about what I earn.
 
Misterveritis said:
Return to Constitutional limits and no one will want to spend millions to get a job that earns them about what I earn.
Click to expand...

I could agree and support that. Elected office is supposed to be about serving, and not becoming a millionaire.
 
Middleground said:
That's right. Money can buy anything.
Click to expand...

We do have the best government money can buy. When goes to vote these days they must decide which candidate to vote for. The one who represents Goldman Sachs or the one who represents Exxon Mobil.
 
Perotista said:
We do have the best government money can buy. When goes to vote these days they must decide which candidate to vote for. The one who represents Goldman Sachs or the one who represents Exxon Mobil.
Click to expand...

Yup. The richest no doubt have the louder voices.
 
eohrnberger said:
I could agree and support that. Elected office is supposed to be about serving, and not becoming a millionaire.
Click to expand...

Government is no longer for the people. It's for the 'people' who have the deepest wallets.
 
Middleground said:
Government is no longer for the people. It's for the 'people' who have the deepest wallets.
Click to expand...

And that's a problem. Yes. How best to address it, and what legislation to address it could be passed, well, that's when it bumps up against the government reality, then.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I've never had a real problem with you, so I will refrain from doing anything that may be interpreted as such.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I would not care. But please tellme where President Obama is corrupt with the proviso that he is worse than any modern day president.
 
Middleground said:
Freaking right. So how do we overturn the SCOTUS ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Or better yet, how do we stop campaign contributions--period? Money buys everything, including posh jobs. And if you think it's just Obama who has done this then you're naive as ****.
Click to expand...
Ask scotus. did any of them campaign to get rid of private money in politics? oh wait...they didn't.

The president on the other hand well....you can't seriously think he should bear absolutely no responsibility that he has not come through....again.
 
pbrauer said:
Like I said, I would not care. But please tellme where President Obama is corrupt with the proviso that he is worse than any modern day president.
Click to expand...

Corrupt? Don't know, maybe not... probably not. Blatantly indifferent to the Constitution, the Law, the other two branches of the federal government as well as anyone that doesn't agree with his ideology? Heck yeah. Does that make him corrupt? Not in the historical sense of the word since he hasn't (to my knowledge) profited for personal gain.

And, I'm not a person that said "What about Clinton" when Bush was President or "What about Bush" now that Obama is President, and I don't see myself saying "What about Obama" when the next President takes office. I try to judge each person, and each President, on their own merits and in view of the Law and the Constitution. Not against others, since they are not the others.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Corrupt? Don't know, maybe not... probably not. Blatantly indifferent to the Constitution, the Law, the other two branches of the federal government as well as anyone that doesn't agree with his ideology? Heck yeah. Does that make him corrupt? Not in the historical sense of the word since he hasn't (to my knowledge) profited for personal gain.

And, I'm not a person that said "What about Clinton" when Bush was President or "What about Bush" now that Obama is President, and I don't see myself saying "What about Obama" when the next President takes office. I try to judge each person, and each President, on their own merits and in view of the Law and the Constitution. Not against others, since they are not the others.
Click to expand...
Thank You Barry... er I mean Beaudreaux for your thoughtful answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom