Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 232

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

  1. #161
    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 apdst View Post
    Or, unions...yes?
    A Union isn't a citizen. All special interests should be prohibited.

  2. #162
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's their money, not mine.
    It's your tax dollars they're buying with their contributions. And they're buying them on the cheap.

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Or, unions...yes?
    Unions either.

    Dues should go to support the interest of the union members and his/her fellow employees on work-related matters, not so that the union can put its collective membership support behind a political candidate. A union can "suggest" who its membership should support because it is believed that that candidate supports the interest of the membership. But in the end it is the vote by the union members whether they should support that candidate as a whole, not an arbitrary decision made by the union on behalf of its members. As such, I would not support any union who uses membership dues arbitrarily to put financial support behind a candidate no matter which party.

    Now, if the Union members hold a vote and the majority agrees to it, that's a different story. Same goes for corporations with either their Board of Directors or the entirety of their employee compliment. But you don't do it arbitrarily and you must have full disclosure which should include identifying the ownership and the Board membership. Same goes for unions, i.e., Union President, Board, etc.

    It's about full disclosure and fairness. I see neither in this W Spann/Restore Our American matter.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-05-11 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #164
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It's your tax dollars they're buying with their contributions.
    march 24: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...pagewanted=all

    The head of GE's tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

    That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

    The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.
    jan 21: Obama Picks Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, To Run New Jobs-Focused Panel As GE Sends Jobs Overseas, Pays Little In Taxes

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Yes, that's what it means. No unions, no corporations, no individuals. 100% public financing of elections.
    Including free airtime, as a requirement of FCC licensing. Awarded by lot to the top 3 candidates. Issue ads should be forbidden to use deceptive names, disclosing which GROUP is advocating the position. Employer groups against unions can't call themselves "Workers for a Better America" for instance.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I said campaigns. Not elections.

    But, if you meant, "campaigns", then...oh hell no! Not with my money they ain't. **** that! If they want to run for office, they can come up with the jack on their own.
    You do understand that public financing would mean

    A) politicians would spend more time doing their jobs instead of hustling campaign contributions.

    B) they would be less prone to sell us out for said contributions.

    There are states that do this now. And from what I remember, they like it that way.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #167
    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
    So can we assume that you would feel the same way about judges? It wouldn't bother you if you were being sued by someone, and that someone happened to have made a recent, one million dollar donation to the judge hearing your case?
    I imagine people face off all the time in courts where one has contributed to the judges campaign. I believe that the vast majority will do the correct thing and in the rare case they don't, we have an appeal process.

    You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.

  8. #168
    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
    An invisible and out of business entity needs evidence of being a citizen holding those rights, or your argument fails. Currently there is far from any evidence of this.
    I see where you use this line of reasoning further on so I'll only address it here. A union, corporation, or any group of people is only that. A group of people aligned with similiar beliefs.

  9. #169
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I imagine people face off all the time in courts where one has contributed to the judges campaign. I believe that the vast majority will do the correct thing and in the rare case they don't, we have an appeal process.

    You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.
    You didn't answer the question. Would it bother you if the judge hearing your case had recently received a $1 million donation from the guy suing you?

  10. #170
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    P.P.? What's that? Sounds like what people do to relief themselves.

    More to the point, it sounds to me like you're being partisan, not practical, by constantly bringing up George Soros and his contributions to Democrats/Obama.
    I've discussed both sides. Just showing that it matters none what side they are promoting. You are looking at is from the view that it's wrong, I'm not. I'm saying that Soros is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

    As I've said a few times now, I have no problem with an individual or a corporation making a campaign contribution to anyone or any party as long as there is full disclosure. That's NOT what we're getting with this W Spann/Restore Our America/Mitt Romney issue. Still, to answer the unasked question yet again, if President Obama's campaign committee either in 2008 or for 2012 accepts donations from questionable sources and they either refuse to reveal who the true source was or provide refunds, then I'd press the issue just as hard. But neither yourself or anyone else has been able to provide concrete evidence that such has ever happened. All you've provided were links to articles where such was questioned but his campaign responded appropriately, i.e., full disclosure or refunds. I don't see that ahppening here.
    I've answered this MANY times. You are discussing two different things. If Obama, Romney or any candidate recieves a donation and they refuse to disclose where it came from, that would be illegal and actions should be taken.

    Just so we can start making tally's, how many more times will I have to answer this before it's not asked again?

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •