Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

Yurt said:
lets see a post then....because all you've done in this thread is whine that i would bring it up. if you agree with me, why are you whining about it? your words indicate you disagree with me. try honesty, it makes things clearer.
Click to expand...

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=589586&highlight=disgusted#post589586

There's a bunch; I'm sure there is one in a conversation with you, also.

And YOU were the one who made the accusation, the onus of proof should be on you. Why am I running around trying to find posts for you?

And your whole position is BS, anyway. You KEEP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE. Why is the reverse side of this ruling "Obama's money"? Why does anyone who takes the position against the SCOTUS ruling have to condemn Obama too? Is the SCOTUS ruling a "Republican" ruling?

Like I said - full blown idiot. Keep it up...

:cof1:
 
Ice Dancer said:
OK~~~I am being persuaded to be pro-SCOTUS on this ruling. Ahzhat brought up the question of "foreign" corporate owners in American companies being able to influence the elctorate more due to this ruling; can anyone address this?
Click to expand...
What stops them from donating to a 527? Those same companies have for centuries donated money to our elections, the only difference is that the SCOTUS made a direct ruling on how it can be controlled. You can make disclosure laws, make them with teeth, but this is a right that cannot be infringed just because a company has some foreign shareholders any more than a union can have its rights infringed because some of its members are not citizens.

Now I believe you could argue compelling interest if the company were wholly or mostly foreign owned, but a few shareholders? I don't believe your argument would withstand scrutiny in the courts at that point.
 
Onceler said:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=589586&highlight=disgusted#post589586

There's a bunch; I'm sure there is one in a conversation with you, also.

And YOU were the one who made the accusation, the onus of proof should be on you. Why am I running around trying to find posts for you?

And your whole position is BS, anyway. You KEEP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE. Why is the reverse side of this ruling "Obama's money"? Why does anyone who takes the position against the SCOTUS ruling have to condemn Obama too? Is the SCOTUS ruling a "Republican" ruling?

Like I said - full blown idiot. Keep it up...

:cof1:
Click to expand...

you're a liar onceler....

Onceler said:
I know about all that, but the fact is that a large portion of his donations HAVE come from small individual donors, and that the man has not committed one action as President yet for you to imply he's already corrupt & in Wall Street's pocket.

No one can win the Presidency without a huge inflow of cash. I'm sure you knew this back when you were gaga about Obama, but it didn't matter to you then. Just because you're all jealous & consumed by hate now doesn't really change the dynamics of that.
Click to expand...

yeah, you really had a problem with obama's campaign funds...:rolleyes: you're sitting there defending obama's funds....your dishonest is once again disappointing

i have never made this a partisan issue. that is an outright lie. as i keep repeating for you, because apparently you're too much of a simpleton to figure it out, if the issue is money, then obama's campaign is wholly relevant as he had the largest campaign war chest in history and he was about 7 to 1 in funds against mccain. thus, if the issue is that corps have more money than the average citizen, obama also had more money than the average candidate and 7 to 1 against his opponent.

if people don't want corps unfairly influencing our elections with their vast wealth, how can you possibly not see the issue with obama's near 1 billion dollar campaign war fund?
 
"No one can win the Presidency without a huge inflow of cash."

And that's a fact. It is not "defending Obama's funds."

Look it up, idiot. I have said at least a dozen times in this whole conversation over the past few days that I'm disgusted by how much Obama had, and by how much Presidential campaigns in general cost.
 
yeah right

how funny you ignore your frantic and angry statement that i am making this a partisan issue...you put the whole thing in caps....yet you ignore your lie

you ignore my repeated explanations of how obama's funds matter, you can't even address it, all you have is some lame bogus excuse about your defense of obama's large campaign war chest.

sucks to get caught huh
 
Yurt said:
yeah right

how funny you ignore your frantic and angry statement that i am making this a partisan issue...you put the whole thing in caps....yet you ignore your lie

you ignore my repeated explanations of how obama's funds matter, you can't even address it, all you have is some lame bogus excuse about your defense of obama's large campaign war chest.

sucks to get caught huh
Click to expand...

"I hated the money Obama had this past campaign, and the amount that it takes to run a Presidential campaign in general"

That's a quote from a conversation I had directly with you. Search it.

How many times do I have to say that about Obama to satisfy you? It's ridiculous. Again, you made the accusation against me. Then, you search the sight - and disingenously ignore what I'm sure were the other quotes you found - to post a quote where I say that yes, surprise surprise, it takes a ton of money to run a Presidential campaign.

If you want to do a few more searches, you'll also find that I think this is a deplorable thing, and have a lot to say about what it does to 3rd parties. Again, this is also a conversation I've had with you.

But you are so caught up in the "gotcha" moment, you're blind to it. No one has treated this issue with less partisanship than I have, but you're desperate to make me some sort of Obama hack.

Not much more I can do. I can say it disgusts me about a dozen more times, I guess...
:cool:
 
then why are you continually whining about me mentioning obama's huge campaign war chest? everytime you do you act as if i am wrong to claim he had an unfair spending advantage similar to the fear people have of corps.....

you won't address that, you run from it and then whine constantly that i bring it up. perhaps if you honestly addressed what i am talking about, there wouldn't be this contention. i can't find any posts from you during the obama campaign where you stated you were against his funds compared to mccain. saying you're against it a few days ago is not the point. if you say you were against obama's funds in 08', ill believe you and disregard the post that indicates you support his large funds because that is what it takes to win.

now, why don't you give me the same courtesy and stop this bullshit and honestly address the issue of obama's funds, since you seem to believe, like corporations, obama's funds gave him an unfair spending advantage.
 
Yurt said:
then why are you continually whining about me mentioning obama's huge campaign war chest? everytime you do you act as if i am wrong to claim he had an unfair spending advantage similar to the fear people have of corps.....

you won't address that, you run from it and then whine constantly that i bring it up. perhaps if you honestly addressed what i am talking about, there wouldn't be this contention. i can't find any posts from you during the obama campaign where you stated you were against his funds compared to mccain. saying you're against it a few days ago is not the point. if you say you were against obama's funds in 08', ill believe you and disregard the post that indicates you support his large funds because that is what it takes to win.

now, why don't you give me the same courtesy and stop this bullshit and honestly address the issue of obama's funds, since you seem to believe, like corporations, obama's funds gave him an unfair spending advantage.
Click to expand...


I've said, I think all organizational money should be diminished in politics, in a huge way - unions, PAC's, corps, the works. And I think campaigns should have set limits on what they can spend. There should also be a certain amount of free public access on TV & radio.

I responded to you the first 2 dozen of so times that you brought up the war chest, but then, yeah - I started whining about it.
 
I have said at least a dozen times in this whole conversation over the past few days that I'm disgusted by how much Obama had, and by how much Presidential campaigns in general cost.
Click to expand...

See, what you have to remember Yurt, is even though Onzies is disgusted, he's not a "one issue" voter, so his undying support for everything Obama will continue! Just because he is "disgusted" with Obama about this, doesn't mean he has to stop supporting him... don't you see, that's what makes Onzies such a forward-thinker!
 
Onceler said:
I've said, I think all organizational money should be diminished in politics, in a huge way - unions, PAC's, corps, the works. And I think campaigns should have set limits on what they can spend. There should also be a certain amount of free public access on TV & radio.

I responded to you the first 2 dozen of so times that you brought up the war chest, but then, yeah - I started whining about it.
Click to expand...

great, here is an idea, when i bring it up to other people, you can remain silent. we are tired of your whining onceler. i'll keep saying it until those other people man up and speak out against obama's campaign funds. as i said earlier, only you and asshat have. nigel hasn't. and if you hadn't whined about me asking him about it, you could have saved this thread probably 2 dozen posts. :pke:
 
Onceler said:
I've said, I think all organizational money should be diminished in politics, in a huge way - unions, PAC's, corps, the works. And I think campaigns should have set limits on what they can spend. There should also be a certain amount of free public access on TV & radio.

I responded to you the first 2 dozen of so times that you brought up the war chest, but then, yeah - I started whining about it.
Click to expand...

But it's never going to be! That is the point here! No matter WHAT you do, unless you ban all forms of political speech in America, will ever give you the desired result! You are chasing a pipe dream, and along the way, destroying people's right to free speech!

What you and others have expressed as your major complaint, is corruption in politics. If corruption is what you want to fix, you can't do it by passing more regulations on those who follow the rules, that is pointless in battling corruption, it never works. You have to have transparency and disclosure, strictly enforced, and punish those who fail to, or those who engage in corruption, to the fullest extent of the law.
 
Dixie said:
See, what you have to remember Yurt, is even though Onzies is disgusted, he's not a "one issue" voter, so his undying support for everything Obama will continue! Just because he is "disgusted" with Obama about this, doesn't mean he has to stop supporting him... don't you see, that's what makes Onzies such a forward-thinker!
Click to expand...

And here, once again, Dixie proudly admits why he is a hack.

See, here's the mentality: according to Dixie's statement above, if one or 2 issues bothers me, I should abandon an entire platform & candidate. Ergo, the only way I can truly support a candidate, is to adore them, and every position they have, and everything they do, and not disagree with anything about them. If I disagree with them, I should vote for the other party, who also happen to have dozens of issues in their platform I disagree with.

Which is, of course, how he feels about anyone in the GOP. He likes to "carry water" for them...isn't that the term you & El Rushbo use, Dix?
 
Onceler said:
And here, once again, Dixie proudly admits why he is a hack.

See, here's the mentality: according to Dixie's statement above, if one or 2 issues bothers me, I should abandon an entire platform & candidate. Ergo, the only way I can truly support a candidate, is to adore them, and every position they have, and everything they do, and not disagree with anything about them. If I disagree with them, I should vote for the other party, who also happen to have dozens of issues in their platform I disagree with.

Which is, of course, how he feels about anyone in the GOP. He likes to "carry water" for them...isn't that the term you & El Rushbo use, Dix?
Click to expand...

I fancy the term 'bootlicker'....its closer to the truth....adds a certain umph!

If the spin is just too over the top and ouragious, like Deans ridiculous rave on Chris Matthews show about the Brown win , ...just say, very mildly, I don't agree with that position....but be polite...
 
Damocles said:
What stops them from donating to a 527? Those same companies have for centuries donated money to our elections, the only difference is that the SCOTUS made a direct ruling on how it can be controlled. You can make disclosure laws, make them with teeth, but this is a right that cannot be infringed just because a company has some foreign shareholders any more than a union can have its rights infringed because some of its members are not citizens.

Now I believe you could argue compelling interest if the company were wholly or mostly foreign owned, but a few shareholders? I don't believe your argument would withstand scrutiny in the courts at that point.
Click to expand...

IDK~~~the whole idea of this just screams of electioneering and just seems like such a disgrace no matter where the money comes from.
 
Dixie said:
But it's never going to be! That is the point here! No matter WHAT you do, unless you ban all forms of political speech in America, will ever give you the desired result! You are chasing a pipe dream, and along the way, destroying people's right to free speech!

What you and others have expressed as your major complaint, is corruption in politics. If corruption is what you want to fix, you can't do it by passing more regulations on those who follow the rules, that is pointless in battling corruption, it never works. You have to have transparency and disclosure, strictly enforced, and punish those who fail to, or those who engage in corruption, to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

It could be. Your positions are hostile to democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top