Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 232

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

  1. #191
    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 didn't feel it was so let's revisit it.

    When I worked for J-M they had a PAC, and all but told us how much to "donate" and how to vote "for the good of the company and to keep our jobs". Corporations are very different from, say, a grassroots group of like minded people voicing support for a person or an ideal.

    Unions are compromised of different people with differing opinions. Yet, once their money is in a PAC their individual voice may be ignored by the PAC in favor of a differing one.


    This doesn't negate the point that all are simply a group of people. What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?

    What happened here to strip them of their rights?
    Yes, they are a group of people, but in many cases they are not of a single opinion, but due to the nature of the corporations controlling the PAC's it is politic to contribute, thereby in some way being forced to set aside your real voice financially in order to possibly be considered for that nice promotion or a raise.

    What we are/should be discussing are the rights of the individual voters. The OP and subsequent conversation has shown that large contributions from corporations, unions and PAC's can offset any potential financial voice that I may have by overshadowing it. My case is that the individuals rights are being endangered by this, you seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction.

    I an an AARP member, and as such the AARP has a very loud and distinct financial voice. I don't agree lockstep with every single decision they make, same as many NRA members don't agree lockstep with them, but in order currently to have any financial voice I have no other alternative.

    If entities like this were prohibited from participating from the process then my small financial voice could possibly carry much more weight.

    Again, this should be about the rights of individuals being swept away by things listed in the OP.

  2. #192
    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
    Yes, they are a group of people, but in many cases they are not of a single opinion, but due to the nature of the corporations controlling the PAC's it is politic to contribute, thereby in some way being forced to set aside your real voice financially in order to possibly be considered for that nice promotion or a raise.
    So there is something in it for you?

    What we are/should be discussing are the rights of the individual voters. The OP and subsequent conversation has shown that large contributions from corporations, unions and PAC's can offset any potential financial voice that I may have by overshadowing it. My case is that the individuals rights are being endangered by this, you seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction.
    I have to note, you didn't address my question.

    What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?


    I an an AARP member, and as such the AARP has a very loud and distinct financial voice. I don't agree lockstep with every single decision they make, same as many NRA members don't agree lockstep with them, but in order currently to have any financial voice I have no other alternative.
    Of course you do. My wife is mad at me because I won't join AARP. (I'll turn 50 in October). She says they provide all sorts of discounts. I say that I disagree with their politics and that I want no part of them.

    If entities like this were prohibited from participating from the process then my small financial voice could possibly carry much more weight.

    Again, this should be about the rights of individuals being swept away by things listed in the OP.
    Not only can you not restrict speech you can't restrict ones rights of association.

  3. #193
    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
    So there is something in it for you?



    I have to note, you didn't address my question.

    What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?




    Of course you do. My wife is mad at me because I won't join AARP. (I'll turn 50 in October). She says they provide all sorts of discounts. I say that I disagree with their politics and that I want no part of them.



    Not only can you not restrict speech you can't restrict ones rights of association.
    Um...have I been wasting my time with you by thinking we were having a reasonable conversation?

    Something in it for me? Like keeping or advancing in a job? Yes, your point?

    The first part of my quote addressed your question, in detail.

    As a person dependent on SS and Medicare, no, I don't really have a choice.

    I do not want to restrict any persons rights. Unlike you though, I am not willing to extend individual rights to corporations, unions or PAC's.

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,454
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Our rights are not unlimited, and you haven't shown any evidence of even opinion of what the alternatives are. The liberals and other lefties have proposed numerous suggestions and all you have done in response in point to the dems and complain about "Our rights! Our rights!"
    I've been in similar threads with 1perry and he's consistent in his first amendment stance. With which I partially agree. Dangerous ground that must be tread carefully.

    The difference is our posistions is that I think not addressing these issues is more dangerous than doing so. Just very carefully, with an eye on the First.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #195
    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

    Things to do, so I'll be away for a while.

  6. #196
    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
    Um...have I been wasting my time with you by thinking we were having a reasonable conversation?

    Something in it for me? Like keeping or advancing in a job? Yes, your point?
    There was something in it for you.

    The first part of my quote addressed your question, in detail.
    I disagree. You said that you believed they all didn't actually think the same. In the case provided here you have nothing to back up this accusation. I believe that those who join NARAL or the NRA basically all believe alike. Are you saying that some may have minor differences is what causes the group to lose their constitutional protections?

    As a person dependent on SS and Medicare, no, I don't really have a choice.

    I do not want to restrict any persons rights. Unlike you though, I am not willing to extend individual rights to corporations, unions or PAC's.
    You have no choice in the matter.

    Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  7. #197
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,454
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Exactly what is wrong with requiring disclosure? You keep implying that the alternative is worse, but you never say what you mean. Why not disclose what you think will happen if we require disclosure from everyone who contributes to a political campaign?
    Retaliation is a legitimate concern. That's where a sticky wicket is.

    I think I should be able to withhold my custom from a business that does things I don't approve of, including making donations to candidates or issues I'm against.

    However, some might use this information to harass or vandalize an individual or business, which actually has happened. Addressing this facet of the issue is where the trouble lies. But I think it is something that could be dealt with appropriately.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,454
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    Rove-Backed Groups, U.S. Chamber Build Winning Record in Midterm Election - Bloomberg

    hey, at least you still got the unions...

    except they're all being decimated

    and by the likes of andrew cuomo in new york, rahm the ram emanuel in the city of shoulders, moonbeam out here on the coast...

    the state assemblies of massachusetts and illinois and jersey...

    seeya at the polls, progressives
    There ARE Republicans in unions you know.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #199
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    They are nothing more than a group of citizens aligned with similiar beliefs.
    Similar beliefs...that depends...

    People who work for large corporation can and do have different religious, political and social backgrounds. For example, where I work we're all public servants, but you'd be surprised to learn that many of my peers and co-workers have strong concervatives values. Some are very professional at what they do; others just come to collect a paycheck. Some employees come to work and do their jobs while others tend to gather around the water cooler in the breakroom to talk about current events or politics, grievences in the workplace or the latest rumors. And yet, although we see the struggles of ordinary citizens each and every day - some well-off, others dirt poor - we don't all share the same beliefs or values.

    Another example, few of us like the fact that our State government has hiked up our insurance and retirement contributions out of our pay, but some see it as "okay" while others think it's "unfair" considering we haven't had a raise in 4-years and costs for health care had been increasing for the last 3-years (before ObamaCare was even on Congress' mind!). I work with people who are Christian, Morman, Methodist...I even know a guy whose an Atheist. As such, it is impossible for every employee to think, belief, and behave the same way. To think that everyone who works for a company are "aligned with similar beliefs" is a ridiculous notion. To put it simply, traders of a commodities firm may all be motivated by money, but they may differ on just how to go about earning or investing it.

  10. #200
    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 What if...? View Post
    There ARE Republicans in unions you know.
    there sure are

    LOL!

    but not many in leadership

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •