zappaisgod said:

Since when does the Republican Party represent the right?

---

Quote:

Not exactly.  Although I did note that it is the lefty loons which supports this impediment to free speech it is also true that the idiot John McCain helped write the legislation being assaulted.  For an FYI, also opposing this free speech stricture....AFL-CIO.

---

Quote:

The point of campaign contributions is to help get people who you support and who you believe will enact the policies you prefer elected.  Is there something wrong with that?  Just how intolerant of disagreement are you?
The owners of corporations are constituents not nameless faceless drones.  Did you know that it is perfectly legal for you to contribute to the campaign of someone in Idaho even though you don't live there?

---

See, my mistake, here I am thinking that you are supposed to get what you want by voting. Now I know, in order to have a democratic say in this country, all you need is a multi-million dollar corporation in order to bribe the politicians in power! How stupid of me!


Corporations were ruled legally humans by the Supreme Court, of course they did this over a hundred years ago when corporations didn't have nearly the power they have now, the intent was to isolate the corporation to itself, so people could invest without risking personal assets.

This is a good thing, it has been one major factor (along with the industrial revolution) in the great explosion of wealth and innovation over the past century. But it also has its down side.

We are supposed to be a country of one person, one vote. When we don't like what a politician is doing we can vote them out of office. That is how a democratic-republic is supposed to work. Right now (and it'll be worse if this court case goes as expected) lobbyist just fund everyone (On both sides of the isle) so their interest are protected. So we have no recourse, it is nearly impossible to vote someone in who has not received campaign contributions of some kind in any important election. If it was, as you say "to help elect the people they think believe in" then tell me why the usually contribute to opposing candidates in elections?

Its not being intolerant of disagreement, its wanting this country to be run THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE RUN. By the voters, by the American people, not a very select few of extremely rich individuals pulling the strings behind a curtain.

Thats not democracy thats a mix of fascism and despotism.

Sombie said:

zappaisgod said:

Since when does the Republican Party represent the right?

---

My mistake, I thought you hated the healthcare, supported wars, and were for corporate interest?

The Republican party doesn't represent the right, but it does represent you.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Not exactly.  Although I did note that it is the lefty loons which supports this impediment to free speech it is also true that the idiot John McCain helped write the legislation being assaulted.  For an FYI, also opposing this free speech stricture....AFL-CIO.

---

So, again, is left versus right to you.

---

Quote:

Quote:

The point of campaign contributions is to help get people who you support and who you believe will enact the policies you prefer elected.  Is there something wrong with that?  Just how intolerant of disagreement are you?
The owners of corporations are constituents not nameless faceless drones.  Did you know that it is perfectly legal for you to contribute to the campaign of someone in Idaho even though you don't live there?

---

See, my mistake, here I am thinking that you are supposed to get what you want by voting. Now I know, in order to have a democratic say in this country, all you need is a multi-million dollar corporation in order to bribe the politicians in power! How stupid of me!

---

Quote:

Says who?  Not the Founding Fathers who had a very different view about who should get to vote.  Every person, including through any collective group they should choose to be involved in, should have the right to have their say before any and all elected representatives and to support any and all candidates they wish to.
Did you know it is punishable by prison to buy a vote?  The only issue here is free speech, not vote buying.

---

Quote:

Wow, I can't believe I met someone as dumb as you.

---

Quote:

You're a fucking pinata.

---

Quote:

fact that you have a far more closed and simplistic puppet mind than I do?

---

Quote:

Not only are you a leftist, you're a fascist, too.

---

Quote:

Unlike foolish 12 year olds. . .

---

Sombie said:

Wow, I can't believe I met someone as dumb as you.

although, I suppose its not your fault, to busy drinking the GOP kool-aid to see whats going on around you.

---

Quote:

First you said they contributions were to elect the politician they believe in, now its to cover their bases. So what one is it?

---

Quote:

Again, what do they plan to gain with these contributions besides votes in the senate and house?

---

Quote:

If both politicians take contributions then how are we, as the voting public, supposed to vote for someone with our interests in mind?

---

Quote:

Quote:

Says who?  Not the Founding Fathers who had a very different view about who should get to vote.  Every person, including through any collective group they should choose to be involved in, should have the right to have their say before any and all elected representatives and to support any and all candidates they wish to.
Did you know it is punishable by prison to buy a vote?  The only issue here is free speech, not vote buying.

---

Wow, someone completely does not understand how a democracy works huh?

If you buy a politician you buy their votes in office, that is obvious. If everyone has their votes bought, then we have no recourse to change it.

"Vote buying" refers to citizen voting at the booth, not politician voting in Congress.

If people can buy politicians, how are we still a democracy? Tell me.

---

Quote:

zappaisgod said:Wow, someone doesn't know how America works or that it isn't a democracy.  Who knew that in this day and age someone could find an adult who didn't know we were a representative republic?  Who knew that in this day and age somebody didn't know that the vote as originally envisioned was only for white men?

All you can give to politicians is campaign funds which they can only use for campaign expenses.  There are some creative types but their prosecutable malfeasance is no excuse for silencing millions of people (would you accept that kind of "prior restraint" in any other area?) and cutting off funds for hundreds of other politicians. 

I asked this before and you completely ignore it, no doubt because you know it is fatal to your argument.  If you restrict who can give contributions where do you stop?  Why do stockholders have fewer rights?  If you forbid all campaign contributions (and that really is the only alternative to a "some people are more equal than others" argument) you will only have Bloombergs and Corzines in office.  Is that what you want?  Only millionaires with tons of their own money able to run for office.

---

Sombie said:

We do too have the same interest, you do live here in America, right? Ultimately I want a strong America, a good economy, a government that is not corrupt and as much freedom as possible. I assume you want the same? Where we differ is how to get there.


Of course I know we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. That is obvious to anyone, but it is still a democracy, or a type of it at least. Its not a direct democracy, but a representative government, voted on by a democratic election. So "democracy" while not technically valid is often used to describe our system. But I am not telling you anything you don't know, so lets move past that.

Lets be honest, multi-billion dollar corporations are not in it for the good of the country, they are in it to make a buck, as they should be, that is their function. However when campaign contributions were originally thought of, it was assumed that it would be individuals providing funding to candidates that they believed in. NOT corporations looking for connections and influence in the government.

Politicians are beholden to the people who put them into office. When they get hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations to finance their campaign they ultimately owe more to them then to the voting public. Your point about Obama winning because he outspent McCain only helps my point, that because spending is more important then stances you are left with a politician who is more worried about keeping those campaign contributions going then what the American people actually think.

Think about it, if you were a senator and a vote was coming up that would influence a corporation that paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars, would that not effect your vote?

Its a bribe, pure and simple.

Our elected officials should be beholden to us, the American voter, and not to special interests of large corporations.

As I said before this is not a republican or a democrat issue, both sides take money and both sides let it influence their vote.

As for what we do about it, I am not really sure, I don't have all the solutions. Taking away regulation is not the way to go. Hopefully a solution that allows individuals donate to campaigns without allowing corporations to use that as a way to do it themselves presents itself. Otherwise publicly funded campaigns or something might be the way to go, but its tough because then a lot of people get excluded, then again, its pretty hard to be poor and running for POTUS anyway, so I don't know.

Maybe making all the politicians wear company logos on their sleeves so we instantly know where they stand?



I don't know, I think the only true solution is to let the states figure it out first, let each of them be their own experiment and then pick what system works best for our national election.

Otherwise we will continue to be left with politicians (again, on both sides) who are more beholden to campaign contributions then the voters.

---

Quote:

That picture gave me wood.  Finally a job he isn't qualified for but won't do too much damage in.

---

Quote:

Don't let candidates donate their contributions to other candidates.  Make the penalties for misappropriation of campaign funds draconian.  Like three fingers draconian.  I'm sure I could come up with other things.  But telling people they can't contribute because there are too many of them or they have too much money is ludicrous and anti-Democratic.

---

Quote:

"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1796

---

Redstorm said:

They are spending their own money. By owning a portion of a company, any revenue spent on lobbying is money which is not returned to shareholder wealth.

Not to mention that my utilizing economies of scale, s single voice for all stockholders of a company is more efficient and effective than each voicing separately.

To recognize these things, however, you would have to use reason and rationality, which doesn't seem to be a big skill of the screeching loons who want to restrict free speech.

---

Sombie said:

Quote:

That picture gave me wood.  Finally a job he isn't qualified for but won't do too much damage in.

---

You sure about that? Those cars are driving in excess of 200 mph, that can be pretty dangerous, and there are a lot of other people on that track and in the stands.

---