Wolf-Pac.........For It Or Against It?

I thought this would be a thread about the next Hangover movie...

Anyway, I am opposed to these proles, because I am tired of people trying to pass laws limiting people's ability to contribute money to the candidate they support. I mean, the people I support have been getting wildly outspent in recent elections, but that's no reason for me to lash out at free political speech.
 
I'd have to see more of what they are about.

I don't support Citizen's United....however, if we put the brakes on corporate sponsored PACs, then all PACs should have the brakes put on. Union PACs, civil group PACs....etc

Heck, I'm for publicly funded elections if we can figure a way to make it fair.
 
One of the areas that I used to find almost unanimous agreement on was taking the money out of politics. I used to diffuse heated political arguments by introducing the subject. It was my "go to" way to end things on good terms.

I'm talking just a few years ago. But this opportunity for consensus has rapidly faded. Now, "conservatives" will rigorously defend the right of corporations and wealthy people to spend as much as they want to get their candidate elected.
The hyper-partisan nature of our political discourse has resulted in "conservatives" taking the opposite side of liberals when
it comes to CU...........and thus.......that little oasis of agreement was lost.
 
LoneLaugher said:
One of the areas that I used to find almost unanimous agreement on was taking the money out of politics. I used to diffuse heated political arguments by introducing the subject. It was my "go to" way to end things on good terms.

I'm talking just a few years ago. But this opportunity for consensus has rapidly faded. Now, "conservatives" will rigorously defend the right of corporations and wealthy people to spend as much as they want to get their candidate elected.
The hyper-partisan nature of our political discourse has resulted in "conservatives" taking the opposite side of liberals when
it comes to CU...........and thus.......that little oasis of agreement was lost.
Click to expand...

Man, you ain't kidding.
 
If citizens were really concerned about the money in politics they’d demand a constitutional amendment prohibiting all collective donations to politicians and political parties and restrict all donations there-to-for be only ”individual donations be made by only individual people and all donations above some particular amount be publically reported and easily observed.

I totally oppose publically funded elections. That would simply be another way for government to tax us and I’ll be damned if I want my tax $ to be supportive of any fucking politician seeking a job. Let the bastards fund their own job seeking efforts.
 
LoneLaugher said:
I used to diffuse heated political arguments by introducing the subject. It was my "go to" way to end things on good terms.

Now, "conservatives" will rigorously defend the right of corporations and wealthy people to spend as much as they want to get their candidate elected.
The hyper-partisan nature of our political discourse has resulted in "conservatives" taking the opposite side of liberals when
it comes to CU...........and thus.......that little oasis of agreement was lost.
Click to expand...

Yeah right! It’s them fucking “conservatives.” No fucking wonder your fucking “diffusing” tactics have fallen by the fucking wayside, huh?
 
Carlos Danger said:
I thought this would be a thread about the next Hangover movie...

Anyway, I am opposed to these proles, because I am tired of people trying to pass laws limiting people's ability to contribute money to the candidate they support. I mean, the people I support have been getting wildly outspent in recent elections, but that's no reason for me to lash out at free political speech.
Click to expand...
Since when have corporation or big business become people? Citizens United was the dumbest SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott.
 
Free airtime for all the candidates who can get a certain number of signatures.

The Tv airtime is what makes them so expensive.

The people own the airwaves.


We can do with them what we want
 
Carlos Danger said:
Since the same court ruled they are persons. This court also gave us Kelo and some other brainy decisions recently.
Click to expand...
That was my point 3 D. Why aren't these libertarians out there screaming t hat SCOTUS gave soulless corporation individual person status? What could possibly go wrong!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That was my point 3 D. Why aren't these libertarians out there screaming t hat SCOTUS gave soulless corporation individual person status? What could possibly go wrong!
Click to expand...
probably because the courts gave corps individual rights long before the CU decision. but don't let facts get in your way of screaming about righties
 
Lots of talk about the subject to catch up on. The Left who posted seemed to throw in the towel. The Right who posted seemed to have different views and looked for older law to prove this isn't new news.

To be a Board member in a small city no matter what branch, you generally have to state that you do not have monetary interest. It's one of the first questions in the lowest level of politics.

No group is legally allowed to force votes. It's as simple as the question, "Is a corporation a group"
 
Let's look at last election and top ten donors;

Romney- Big oil, sin city, coal, toxic waste dump, military weapons manufacturers

Obama- Education, gays, wind energy, computers, and US Government.

Currently, you can tell what a politician is going to do by the campaign donors. Easy to predict. Check out Obama's donors and what he has done. Imagine what would have been done if CEO Romney would have sold America for profit like he does in his profession.

Sadly, Obama and the Left started taking contributions from military weapons manufacturers too. As many noticed Obama wanted to end the wars and then did a 180 once elected. My guess is if he didn't 180 he/his family would have ended up like JFK. LOTS of Corporate money in war. War is goooooood business for America.
 
Last edited:
How was JFK bad for the war business? He lied in his campaign and claimed we had a missile and bomber gap with the USSR. He created some new special forces units, such as the SEALs, and engaged forces in Vietnam and against Cuba.
 
Carlos Danger said:
How was JFK bad for the war business? He lied in his campaign and claimed we had a missile and bomber gap with the USSR. He created some new special forces units, such as the SEALs, and engaged forces in Vietnam and against Cuba.
Click to expand...

He was about to expose a driving force that had a demanding role in politics. Most know at this point he was about to end the war and expose the Corporate driven Federal Reserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top