Jump to content

zachoff

Members
  • Posts

    17,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    Boulder, CO Suburbia

zachoff's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. This, and that money equals speech. Corporations having the rights of people and money equaling speech are, in my opinion, the two biggest hindrances to government, of the people, by the people and for the people. The people still do the voting though... Really, I don't hate this all that much now that I have a better understanding. Running ads with disclosure and all that is different than giving money, IMO. There are definitely situations of which to take advantage, but I think it will happen on both sides of the fence. Heck, maybe some huge company with a crapload of extra money will start heavily endorsing a viable 3rd party candidate!!! One can hope!
  2. From the quality of Mrs. Thrustin's posts I have to say: Thrustin must be remarkably (and I mean diametrically) different in real life than he is here for him to be able to sustain Her attention and affection Maybe he's good at "Thrustin'"?
  3. Corporations can be owned by foreigners. Dey Tk r jrbs!!!
  4. I could be very wrong, but I've never seen any data that showed that corporations were geared more toward republicans. Plenty of major corporations lean democratic as well. Found this... http://www.goodguide.com/contributions#sector=All%20Categories&sort=total&query= Sort by largest contribution and it's pretty interesting. --edit-- Holy crap, search by largest PAC percentage and it's almost all Republican.
  5. Corporations have stakes in the outcome of elections just like average citizens do. They also have a duty to their shareholders to do what is best for the corporation. Shouldn't they be allowed to project their message? Yup, they do. I just fear the outcome. Repub party approaches Coors: "Hey, I know you can't give us money but if you run an ad against so and so I'll make sure the roads are fixed up around your brewery." Or some oil company: "Hey run so and so ad and I'll do my best to tax the crap out of foreign oil.." Not at all saying the left won't pull the same {censored}, but big businesses are generally run by Republicans.
  6. This is why I started this thread. Do you think that we will see even more ads than before? It's already bad. Oh, for sure around here. Focus on the Family and Coors are huge moral right wingers. Can't wait.
  7. My understanding is that the business can spend money independently of a candidate's political campaign to endorse the candidate, so long as they acknowledge that the video/ad/whatever was sponsored by them. The limits on corporate donations directly to campaigns is still in place. I could be wrong, though. Oh, I gotcha now... I misread it. That's not terrible, I guess. It'd be funny to see an ad on HBO that says "Boy, so and so is a real piece of {censored}..." Can't wait to see all of the Focus on the Family campaign ads in 2012.
  8. So businesses can basically give whatever amount of money to the party of choice and then the party gets to divvy it up?
  9. Why are you yelling? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS ARE DOING TO THE SOIL?? [YOUTUBE]5Xuvcpjf1JU[/YOUTUBE]
  10. I'm not sure about this. Do you think that if Exxon, for example, gives a candidate $1 billion for his/her campaign, and everybody knows about it, that will help or hurt them? People are so locked into party lines these days that I don't even think it would matter how much a candidate got and from where. We'll also be hard-pressed to find a candidate that takes the "high road" and won't take this money. In the end we'll be stuck with the same two options... A Republican and a Democrat both of whom took of money from various lobbying companies from their respective side of the fence. Yes, I am politically jaded.
  11. I think it means politicians will care even less for the average person and even more for the folks that line their pockets. Also heard today on NPR that China is about to surpass Japan as the world's second largest economy. How much of our debt does China own, anyway? I think we may witness the fall of the western democracy sometime in the not so distant future.
  12. No, I blame EASY ACCESS to guns. You'd better hope nothing like this ever happens to you: it will shake you to the core and you WILL start asking the tough questions. My cousin killed himself 15 years ago. Shotgun to the face. I've been there dude, and it wasn't the gun's fault, nor the fact that his dad lived on a farm, had guns to kill coyotes, and is a hunter. He was depressed and didn't want to live. If there hadn't been a gun he'd have found another way.
  13. Well, consider that one month ago my sister in law had her head blown off by her nutjob ex husband. Consider that my cousin blew his head off due to easy access to his father's gun. Consider that my old man was killed by a gunshot to the head. Consider that there are people out there GRIEVING, suffering terrible loss, at the hands of some asshole who had easy access to a weapon. Why don't you go to one of those funerals and preach your rah rah rah ideology - see how that goes over. That would be in bad taste. I'm sorry you blame the guns for what happened to the people in your family.
  14. If we dont' know where the {censored}ing guns are coming from, we can't possibly have an informed opinion about gun control, BE IT PRO OR CON. We have INSUFFICIENT DATA TO MAKE A CONCLUSION. GET IT? Nah, we have a basis of understanding from other things that are or have been illegal. Drugs are illegal and people still buy, sell, and use them. When we tried outlawing booze, people still bought, sold, and used it. Cuban cigars are illegal yet people still smuggle, buy, sell, and smoke them. To me, it's the same argument with guns and abortion... If we outlaw them, they will still be bought, sold, and used (with respect to guns) and performed (with respect to abortion). Being that both of these are legal, they can be regulated and for the most part we can ensure they're being procured and performed correctly.
×
×
  • Create New...