|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: zappaisgod]
#12045083 - 02/17/10 07:03 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So you guys don't think that it's a huge conflict of interest to allow corporations to contribute as much money as they want to politicians.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12045154 - 02/17/10 07:30 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Learyfan said: So you guys don't think that it's a huge conflict of interest to allow corporations to contribute as much money as they want to politicians.
They can't. Neither can individuals. That isn't what the decison was about. And no, there is no conflict of interest.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12045191 - 02/17/10 07:42 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Learyfan exhibits the standard Libbie tendency to go nuclear over an issue of which he has no actual knowledge. The ruling in question did not "allow corporations to contribute as much money as they want to politicians".
You might want to take the time to, you know, read the decision before making your next post on it.
Like that will ever happen.
Phred
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Phred]
#12045267 - 02/17/10 08:05 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure that's a libbie tendency, necessarily, but more so a human one.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12045908 - 02/17/10 10:09 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Learyfan said: So you guys don't think that it's a huge conflict of interest to allow corporations to contribute as much money as they want to politicians.
I wasn't aware they could. Is this some new ruling nobody but you has heard of?
As for corporations being allowed to finance campaign ads, the corporations are taxed, are they not? If they are taxed, should they not be able to register their opinion as to how the taxes are spent? As well as their opinion on who they think might tax them more wisely, or less?
Does the phrase "taxation without representation" ring a bell?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
|
Hell, lots of people get representation without taxation.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: zappaisgod]
#12046078 - 02/17/10 10:37 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Hell, lots of people get representation without taxation.
Even I can't argue with that.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Phred]
#12047857 - 02/17/10 03:06 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
From LDS' link.......
Quote:
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as November's congressional elections.
The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
dr_gonz
Registered: 08/18/03
Posts: 44,654
|
|
.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: dr_gonz]
#12047954 - 02/17/10 03:17 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Link
Quote:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
dr_gonz
Registered: 08/18/03
Posts: 44,654
|
|
.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: dr_gonz]
#12048264 - 02/17/10 04:01 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The problem is, with the way corporations are legally individuals, the decision was right. They're either going to have to pass a Constitutional amendment or change the legislation regarding corporations as persons.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12048298 - 02/17/10 04:07 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
From LDS' link.......
Your point being?
In what way do you think that anything at all you have posted here is evidence that the ruling allows - and here I quote you -
"... corporations to contribute as much money as they want to politicians."
The ruling said no such thing. All the ruling did was to put the SCOTUS imprimatur on what pretty much everyone knew already - the fact that certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold act were a clear violation of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. The ruling came as no surprise to constitutional scholars or even to anyone who can read the English language properly. It was apparent from the beginning that McCain-Feingold attempted to insert government power into areas the Constitution specifically prohibits. The only surprise about it was that the vote was not unanimous.
Phred
--------------------
|
dr_gonz
Registered: 08/18/03
Posts: 44,654
|
|
.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: dr_gonz]
#12048346 - 02/17/10 04:17 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12048470 - 02/17/10 04:38 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Learyfan said: From LDS' link.......
Quote:
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as November's congressional elections.
The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
See the difference yet? They still can't contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns any more thn an individual can. Further, why should news corporations have been exempted?
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Learyfan]
#12048520 - 02/17/10 04:46 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Learyfan said: Link
Quote:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12048433#12048433
Much longer post at the link but this is enough:
Quote:
There are two problems with this question: (1) All spending must be independent of candidates and parties, whereas the opposite is implied by the question; and (2) Most political observers, lawyers and campaign finance experts expect these ads to be largely critical of candidates-especially incumbents. In a time of increasing frustration with incumbents (the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows a 71 percent disapproval of Congress) implying these ads will aid candidates and incumbents inherently imposes a negative bias.
The fact that even Laryfan doesns't undertsand what the ruling said kind of illustrates the point that the WaPo has deliberately framed the question to prey on ignorance of the decision. Oh well, not a surprise. Most people don't even know what it was.
Quote:
A recent example: A University of Texas YouGov/Polimetrix online poll in October 2009 of 2,100 adults contained remarkably contradictory results and evidence that most Americans have little knowledge of campaign finance laws.
Excerpted findings: Only 20 percent knew John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 51 percent said they didn't know enough about McCain-Feingold to have an opinion; another 10 percent had no opinion anyway or refused to answer. Only two percent knew what the federal contribution limit was (although the "correct answer" is arguably incorrect because a person may give $4,800 to a candidate in a "single election cycle"—including the primary and general elections). 60 percent erroneously thought corporations could legally contribute directly to federal candidates.
--------------------
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice
Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: zappaisgod]
#12051268 - 02/17/10 11:29 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent example: A University of Texas YouGov/Polimetrix online poll in October 2009 of 2,100 adults contained remarkably contradictory results and evidence that most Americans have little knowledge of campaign finance laws.
Excerpted findings: Only 20 percent knew John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 51 percent said they didn't know enough about McCain-Feingold to have an opinion; another 10 percent had no opinion anyway or refused to answer. Only two percent knew what the federal contribution limit was (although the "correct answer" is arguably incorrect because a person may give $4,800 to a candidate in a "single election cycle"—including the primary and general elections). 60 percent erroneously thought corporations could legally contribute directly to federal candidates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You trust the University of Texas online polls? I'm not sure about any source from that state! I can tell you the good ol' boy system is alive and well here.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
If you have a problem with the methodology of the survey, please state it. Saying "it's no good because it's from Texas" is not a valid criticism.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Annapurna1 must be in tears [Re: Redstorm]
#12052429 - 02/18/10 07:37 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: If you have a problem with the methodology of the survey, please state it. Saying "it's no good because it's from Texas" is not a valid criticism.
Perhaps it's all she's got?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
|