Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 84

Thread: Every Democrat in the Senate Against Free Speech

  1. #41
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,276
    Amen (Given)
    1646
    Amen (Received)
    1452
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    That's an outright lie, Jim -- but no surprise from you whatsoever. But feel free to play your stupid moronic games.
    A lie, what are you talking about, it's right there in your post.

  2. #42
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,578
    Amen (Given)
    11882
    Amen (Received)
    25311
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    A lie, what are you talking about, it's right there in your post.
    That I gave up trying to reason with you, and said, basically, "yeah, whatever"? Are you really THAT stupid? Or dishonest?

    I have already expressed my concern about money in politics, and that I think every contribution should be identified as to who gave it.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. #43
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,276
    Amen (Given)
    1646
    Amen (Received)
    1452
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    That I gave up trying to reason with you, and said, basically, "yeah, whatever"? Are you really THAT stupid? Or dishonest?

    I have already expressed my concern about money in politics, and that I think every contribution should be identified as to who gave it.
    No that's not what you said, you implied that you wanted special interest money in politics because the only reason democrats were trying to reform the system by getting special interest money out was because it gave them an advantage. In other words, you want it to remain corrupt because you know that republicans have the advantage with the corrupt system remaining as is because it is to their advantage.

  4. #44
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,578
    Amen (Given)
    11882
    Amen (Received)
    25311
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No that's not what you said, you implied that you wanted special interest money in politics because the only reason democrats were trying to reform the system by getting special interest money out was because it gave them an advantage. In other words, you want it to remain corrupt because you know that republicans have the advantage with the corrupt system remaining as is because it is to their advantage.
    Post my exact quote where I said that.

    I IMPLIED no such thing, though, in your incredibly biased ignorance, you may have erroneously INFERRED that.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  5. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  6. #45
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,565
    Amen (Given)
    8430
    Amen (Received)
    5373
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No that's not what you said, you implied that you wanted special interest money in politics because the only reason democrats were trying to reform the system by getting special interest money out was because it gave them an advantage. In other words, you want it to remain corrupt because you know that republicans have the advantage with the corrupt system remaining as is because it is to their advantage.
    Cut it out, Jim - you're gonna get yourself in trouble with the mods for unsupported accusations of lying.

    Opposing a law that maliciously gives one side an advantage is not the same thing as supporting laws that maliciously gives your side an advantage.

    Democrats come and go with this one - and it does follow whether or not they are the recipients (with unions in decline it's not surprising they are back at this). Conversely, historically Democrats benefit from small actor donations (until Trump ) be they businesses or individuals. But the small actor cannot legitimately be said to not be attempting influence - influence is the purpose of donations. And they too, act collectively (PACs, interest groups, et al) - so should they be barred as well?

    Better question, why should donations be allowed across state lines AT ALL? Parties are themselves political actors so why should they be given a pass to interfere with local elections or to support lobbyists (yep, really a thing).

    Opposing an unfair advantage isn't the same as asking for an unfair advantage - you know it as well as the rest of us.

    The weird thing? Your present position is the same as CP's usual position - you actually agree with each other on the major issue of unfair financing of special interests.

  7. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #46
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,633
    Amen (Given)
    1091
    Amen (Received)
    18774
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Cut it out, Jim - you're gonna get yourself in trouble with the mods for unsupported accusations of lying.

    Opposing a law that maliciously gives one side an advantage is not the same thing as supporting laws that maliciously gives your side an advantage.

    Democrats come and go with this one - and it does follow whether or not they are the recipients (with unions in decline it's not surprising they are back at this). Conversely, historically Democrats benefit from small actor donations (until Trump ) be they businesses or individuals. But the small actor cannot legitimately be said to not be attempting influence - influence is the purpose of donations. And they too, act collectively (PACs, interest groups, et al) - so should they be barred as well?

    Better question, why should donations be allowed across state lines AT ALL? Parties are themselves political actors so why should they be given a pass to interfere with local elections or to support lobbyists (yep, really a thing).

    Opposing an unfair advantage isn't the same as asking for an unfair advantage - you know it as well as the rest of us.

    The weird thing? Your present position is the same as CP's usual position - you actually agree with each other on the major issue of unfair financing of special interests.
    As I've noted before the Democrats are now the ones who benefit from the big money donors

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Until relatively recently Republicans enjoyed an advantage in getting support from the ultra-rich but this has flipped. In the last election an examination of the data provided by OpenSecrets found that of the 22 billionaires pumping money into campaigns and causes over half (13) gave money to the left with the remaining 9 donating to conservatives or equally splitting donations between the left and right. And of those giving the most, liberal billionaires easily led the list way outspending conservatives[1].

    If you have any doubts keep in mind how often Bernie Sanders blasted Hillary Clinton’s reliance on the support of the "1%" (it was one of his campaign's biggest themes in the Democratic primaries).

    And the same was true in the 2014 election where the 100 biggest donors during that election cycle gave approximately $174 million to Democrats in comparison to $140 million to Republicans.

    Much of this has been brought up previously when starlight complained about billionaires giving money to Republicans:

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Not just George Soros (who made much of his money trying to wreck the British economy[1] and convicted of breaking inside trader laws) but James Simons, Peter Lewis and Warren Buffett. And then there are Tom and Jim Steyer.

    Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to rarely let a day go by without wringing his hands about the influence that the Koch brothers supposedly had over the Republican party while remaining silent over the influence that folks like the Steyers wield over Democrats. For instance, in 2014 Tom Steyer gave $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, the pro-Democratic Super PAC run by former Reid aides. The New York Times reported that as of April 2014 "Mr. Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, were the top source of super PAC money in the country this election cycle, contributing a total of more than $11 million."

    Steyer offered $100 million to Democrats that promised to support his energy agenda, chiefly blocking the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (which would cost him financially if it were built) but also includes massive new energy taxes and support for various "green energy" schemes that he is invested in.

    But it's only Republicans who have a problem with billionaire donors















    1. Even liberal economic icon Paul Krugman has been highly critical of how Soros gets wealthy wrecking economies and financial markets writing "[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi'."











    1. The two top liberal donors in 2016 each gave more money than all the conservative donors did combined! Tom Steyer gave in excess of $11 million (and gave a whopping $74 million in 2014) and has pledged to spend at least another $50 million whereas the top conservative donor contributed a comparatively paltry $2.5 million.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  9. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  10. #47
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,578
    Amen (Given)
    11882
    Amen (Received)
    25311
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Post my exact quote where I said that.

    I IMPLIED no such thing, though, in your incredibly biased ignorance, you may have erroneously INFERRED that.
    And, as per usual, little Jimmy runs away.

    He'll probably return with some idiot rant, but no actual quote.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. #48
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,578
    Amen (Given)
    11882
    Amen (Received)
    25311
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    As I've noted before the Democrats are now the ones who benefit from the big money donors
    Jimmy actually agreed... BUT!!!!
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  12. #49
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,759
    Amen (Given)
    221
    Amen (Received)
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.
    Whether or not companies are legal people had nothing to do with the decision, though.

    The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Does it say anything about people there? No. It says that Congress can't abridge those freedoms. Whether or not a company legally counts as a person or not is irrelevant to the question of the First Amendment because there's nothing about individual persons there. Heck, the idea it applies only to individual persons rather than companies doesn't make sense even in its own context. Newspapers--i.e. the press--were very frequently produced by companies. The whole "freedom of the press" line makes little sense if this was somehow not supposed to apply to companies, unless someone is actually trying to argue that newspapers produced by one individual are free to say whatever they want but any newspaper printed by a group can be censored.

    Citizens United may or may not have been the correct decision--but it did not turn at all on the question of corporate personhood.

  13. #50
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,276
    Amen (Given)
    1646
    Amen (Received)
    1452
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    As I've noted before the Democrats are now the ones who benefit from the big money donors
    And as I noted, it is only the democrats who want to rid the system of big money special interests donors.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •