| Author |
Message |
    
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:38 pm: | 
|
This administration, and really all those before it, in both white house, congress and senate are playing tether ball. It is the political equivelant of policy masturbation. They push the ball to one side, the opponent pushes it to the other, maybe someone misses a shot and the thing spools up tight and almost strangles itself, until collapse.
There is NOTHING transformative about it. At worst you will get the ball tangled and strapped to the pole - at least you will spend all recess pounding the ball (issues) back and forth and at the end of it, the pole still stands, and the ball is still wrapped to the cord.
And this is why I know this guy aint a Marxist. A true Marxist would have the Dialectic Down, - it is the MOST basic concept to drive the evolution away from capitalism to socialism from federalism to communism with a nice pit stop at anarchy revolution inbetween. (and if he figures it out- that is when all shiat breaks loose)
The dialectic is Thesis - its Polar Opposite (AntiThesis) 'Inspiration' to new Synthesis. What Lenin added was that instead of 'thinking outside of the box to get a new paradigm with inspiration - was CONFLICT/VIOLENCE/REVOLUTION instead - he posed that the same change could be caused not by creation and insight - which took a bit of intelligence, but by total destruction of what was, and to 'restart' or 'reset' the status quo.
and if they figure it out - that is when all hell breaks loose
The Marxist sees the political tetherball, and decides to cut the ball from the cord and put it on the soccer field - a new use for the ball, more participants, but still a battle of left and right, a different venue of conflict, and a step away from the original. A Leninist shoots, one of the players, subjugates the other, and enshrines the ball as the ultimate goal of the game and takes it out of the notion of play all together.
Enjoy your 'Transformation' it smells more Lenin than Marx is coming. |
Honolulu_blue_esq
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:07 pm: |
|
"I'm not sure how you curb their political spending while not trampling on their rights of free speech."
You don't allow corporations to make campaign contributions. If the folks who make up the corporations want to make contributions, they can do so individually. I'd venture to guess that when Corporation X makes a political contribution, there are a large number of folks who make Corporation X tick (employees, shareholders, ect) that would have preferred to make it to the other candidate. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:18 pm: |
|
What about unions? |
Honolulu_blue_esq
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:47 pm: |
|
No distinction, in my opinion. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 11:18 pm: |
|
>>Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalized youngsters
Send your spawn off to typical college, to lectures they will never remember, about nonsense, given by people without a clue. Don't let them work for their money before they go out in the real world. Make sure they major in gender politics or underwater basket weaving. Don't talk to them about anything but popular culture, nor take them out in the real world and offer them a broad spectrum of experience. And when they become psychologically androgynous and completely egalitarian narcissists, bring them home to put their trotters back in the family trough until you someday remind them you wiped their butts as children only to find out they have no interest in wiping yours in old age.
Just a thought. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 09:49 am: |
|
What about unions?
No distinction, in my opinion.
Glad to see the consistency in your view so far. How about 501(c)3 organizations? |
Honolulu_blue_esq
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 10:23 am: |
|
Sifo: Individuals. People. Real ones, not constructs. That is all. And I wouldn't be opposed to a cap on those. Say $200 per person per candidate. That way, those with the big bucks don't have any more say than the rest of us if the idea is that money is power. |
Spiderman
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Well i'm sorry MTJM2 I didn't know you were working at that law office and had access to the records and or worked with the clients. Your right I must be stupid not making generalizations and all.
DEEEEEERRRR |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 12:39 pm: |
|
HBE, Just trying to understand where you are on this. So you would be against groups like GreenPeace for example from lobbying if I understand you correctly. I kind of agree with you but it would require an amendment to the Constitution to implement. I just don't see that happening. |
Honolulu_blue_esq
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Sifo: I wouldn't go so far as to say that organizations can't lobby. They can write all the letters and give all the speeches they want. They just shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions.
I don't see why such a restriction would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court just needs to reverse Citizens United - which also might never happen. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 12:55 pm: |
|
And how would reversing Citizens United get unions out of making campaign contributions? You are sounding less consistent all of a sudden.
And sure, lobbyists are not about the money at all. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:54 pm: |
|
Again, there is a cap on campaign contributions for everyone, whether union, private person, or corporation or PAC. Actual contributions to a politician's campaign fund are limited to $2000 last I knew. That may have increased to $2500.
What is not limited is political speech, but that is not the same as a campaign contribution. If there is any connection whatsoever between those advocating political ideas and a particular campaign, then law enforcement will be very interested. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:55 pm: |
|
What I am trying to make clear is that Citizens United had nothing to do with campaign contributions. Y'all are arguing a straw man. |
Strokizator
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 02:51 pm: |
|
If you are going to tax corporations then shouldn't they be able to make campaign contributions? Or do you believe in taxation without representation? |
Honolulu_blue_esq
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Maybe this will help: http://washingtonindependent.com/100121/citizens-u nited-and-campaign-finance-law-summed-up-in-a-char t
Sifo: I think you are starting to see what you want to see in my comments. My position is a simple as it could be. No one but individuals should be able to contribute their money to campaigns.
You asked how that would be constitutional. I said all you'd need to do is reverse C.U., which gives corporations (and, by extension, any other group of folks) the freedoms provided by individuals in our constitution, which include the right to political speech, which covers the right to back political candidates through lobbying and contributions.
If you asked how you then effectuate the restriction, I would tell you that you then need to past the restricting legislation, which would cover unions, corporations, lobyists, ect.
Prior to C.U. those groups could engage in political speech about issues, but by the rules of the Federal Election Commission, they couldn't directly support candidates. So Blake is right on the point that C.U. wasn't directly about campaign finance, in that it didn't allow unlimited checks to be written directly to the candidates. But it did change the rules by allowing corps, unions, etc. to spend unlimited funds backing candidates - which means that they can do what the candidate would have done with the funds themselves. This is the first time its ever been that way, and I think it is a step in the wrong direction. |
Rfischer
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 03:43 pm: |
|
How 'bout the Canadian system where the government [taxpayers generally] funds the political parties?
Think real hard before you decide that's a good idea.... |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2011 - 05:54 pm: |
|
They just shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions.
A good point. back in the 2000 primary season, one of the R's running ( Rev. Alan Keyes ) had a very good concept for election bribery reform. Simple. Any citizen of the US can give as much as he wants. In complete transparency, on the record. Every penny public. No corporations, unions, lobby groups, hidden funds, or Chinese & Indonesian funds...( Bill's fav's ) Period. just Human U.S. Citizens. Your boss "suggests" you fund his guy? He goes to jail.
I really liked that idea. I was less happy with Rev. Keyes as a candidate, since I very firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. But as a man? Liked him.
McCain-Feingold was/is an unconstitutional mess. Denies free speech while allowing nigh unlimited money laundering. The 2008 election cycle is a case of high irony. When your own "bribery reform law" means your opposition can launder 600+ million dollars...... that's just priceless!
Citizens United Vs.... is often misrepresented.
HBE, your link didn't work for me. That site seems a "touch" biased.... but I'd still like to see the chart. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2011 - 09:31 pm: |
|
United States 'citizen' is about to mean D*ck.
they just granted 'dream' amnesty to 300,000 here illegally
You should be worried because
1) that is the number that they have caught and processed, by no means the total number
2) the new 'catch and release' memo is more catch if we get called, and only if they are still there when we show up; and only if they are 'criminals'
3) California has already granted them access to financial funding and tuition options to California colleges/Universities
4) you still cant refuse to see them in the ER because of payment, now you cant even refer them to DHS for 'non citizenship' ; EMTALA is about to cripple and kill the healthcare 'reform'.... if you read the bill you say this one coming.
5) Welcome to America ! Comrade 'Worker' here is your worker visa yep, the only 'jobs' program this administration has going, is for them.
good times. Enjoy the quagmire - this is only the beginning. |
|
