Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 232

Thread: Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves(edited)

  1. #111
    Advisor Polotick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-17-11 @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    374

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.
    I would support something like this, but apathy among many and blind following among others will insure this will never come to pass. Even if it got close I am afraid Congress would set the limits so high as to render them useless anyway. I am also against matching funds in presidential races.

    In my dream world here this would reduce political attacks, hopefully, and force a candidate to tell me their position instead of spending all their time insulting their opponents position. I loathe election years for this reason.

  2. #112
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Thanks for proving my point.
    Only if your point is that IOKIYAR

    It's a simple question, Perry and a very relevant one. What do you think of all this Big Money flowing into campaigns? Would you supporting limiting the amts an individual or corp can donate to a candidate? Would you support limiting the amts a politician can spend on a campaign? Would you support any form of public financing for campaigns, and if so, what forms?

    Or will your comments be limited to "Obama did it too!!" which I, for one, find extremely partisan and unpersuasive because I think that Obama (and nearly all the dems in congress) is just as beholden to corporate interests as any republican
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #113
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.
    So you don't support any limits on the money flowing into political campaigns, so why complain about the money Obama received from Goldman Sachs? I know, I know, you wanted to show the mythical "hypocrisy" of the "libs" even though they have expressed their support for limiting this money no matter which side it goes to.


    And I noticed that you keep referrnig to "individuals". Are you OK with corporations donating money to political campaigns?

    Are you OK with foreign money being given to candidates? Right now, it is not hard for a foriegn interest to get their money into a candidates campaign.
    Last edited by sangha; 08-05-11 at 01:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It would require a constitutional amendment even if Congress was willing to do it -- thanks to our brilliant SC.
    Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)

  5. #115
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)
    So you believe that corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited funds to a politician? Then why complain about Obama getting money from GS?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Polotick View Post
    I would support something like this, but apathy among many and blind following among others will insure this will never come to pass. Even if it got close I am afraid Congress would set the limits so high as to render them useless anyway. I am also against matching funds in presidential races.

    In my dream world here this would reduce political attacks, hopefully, and force a candidate to tell me their position instead of spending all their time insulting their opponents position. I loathe election years for this reason.
    I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So you believe that corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited funds to a politician? Then why complain about Obama getting money from GS?
    I'm going to grant you one free clue. I never did this. I might in a different context but not this one.

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,914

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)
    The problem lies in the underlined words.

    I do not think anyone has any problem with the Constitutional rights of their fellow American citizens in this regard.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #119
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)
    It's the Big Money of the few that is shutting out the voices of the many. Why should a corporation get to give massive amounts of money to a candidate?

    Do you support a US-based corp giving money to candidates even though the corp is owned by foreigners?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #120
    Advisor Polotick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-17-11 @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    374

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)
    Isn't that already happening? I also defend free speech, or what little of that right yet remains. I have not proposed silencing anyone, I have suggested that they are required by law to at least have the balls to identify their voice. The OP wasn't about freedom of speech even remotely, it was about a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law from a position of secrecy.

    I hope you can see the difference. If not, go yell "Bomb" in any airport, all will become clear.

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •