User Tag List

First 9101112 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 118

  1. #101
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaunward View Post
    I don't much like democracy anyway. It neither fits with my sense of fairness nor my sense of reason.

    What is your take on the issue? Or campaign finance?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    What is your take on the issue? Or campaign finance?
    My take on the issue is that I agree with the recent ruling by the USSC. Furthermore, I don't think there should be limits on campaign contributions.

    I don't personally like the idea of corporate personhood; however, it remedies a lot of problems I have with democracy. It, along with lobbying, are therefore preferred in a "democracy".

  3. #103
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Lets just call it a new feudal society with a facade of a democratically elected republic form of government

    Its clearly a new feudal society with the mega corporations, the extremely rich (mixed with a little bit of reasonably rick blueblood), and worsly foreign powers as the nobility of the U.S. and everyone else as serfs (some more self content and comfortable but nevertheless masses of peasants that work the land and are taxed for the benefit of the nobility and royalty)

    The decision could have been written less broadly but then again McCainľFeingold's "The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" wass intentionally drafted to fail constitutional security.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Lets just call it a new feudal society with a facade of a democratically elected republic form of government

    Its clearly a new feudal society with the mega corporations, the extremely rich (mixed with a little bit of reasonably rick blueblood), and worsly foreign powers as the nobility of the U.S. and everyone else as serfs (some more self content and comfortable but nevertheless masses of peasants that work the land and are taxed for the benefit of the nobility and royalty)

    The decision could have been written less broadly but then again McCainľFeingold's "The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" wass intentionally drafted to fail constitutional security.
    Yes, this is the way I see it.

  5. #105
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    The ruling upset me more than anything else that has happened politically in my lifetime. I do think this will lead to the end of democracy in the U.S., and I'm not being dramatic.
    The system is completely poisoned.
    If you're not being dramatic, you're being alarmist. Tell me, how is outlawing political commercials from groups such as Emily's List and National Right to Life conducive to a free and democratic system, much less necessary for the same?

    Like I said, limit direct contributions to candidates and political parties all you want (so long as its done in an even-handed fashion), but leave free speech (ESPECIALLY free political speech!) alone.

  6. #106
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    I'm with Lurker on this one. This is (using an admittedly dramatic term), an abomination.

    Even if you accept the "corporate personhood" ideal, which I *heartily* reject, here are the limits on a person's contributions, from Citizens' Guide

    Contribution Limits

    An individual may give a maximum of:

    * $2,400 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
    * $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.
    * $10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
    * $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.
    * $115,500 total biennial limit. This biennial limit places a ceiling on your total contributions, as explained below.
    * $100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument.
    Do you really think that corporations will be expected to conform to the limits that an actual citizen is legally obligated to abide by?

    This is pretty much saying "Corporations, and the ideal of wealth extraction for the already wealthy at all costs that they represent, shall have unfettered ability to dictate election results and governmental policy at a practical level." One could argue that it's just formalizing what's been true for a while now via indirect means, but it's no less discouraging, and to me, repugnant.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #107
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    If you're not being dramatic, you're being alarmist. Tell me, how is outlawing political commercials from groups such as Emily's List and National Right to Life conducive to a free and democratic system, much less necessary for the same?
    If someone wants to contribute, do it as an individual. Otherwise, more money = more speech and that is something I oppose in the political process.
    "We grow up thinking that´╗┐ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are´╗┐ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of´╗┐ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #108
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If someone wants to contribute, do it as an individual. Otherwise, more money = more speech and that is something I oppose in the political process.
    I would be OK with limiting political donations to voting-eligible human persons and setting a reasonable limit, or considering corporations, unions, and the like to be "people" in this regard, with the same limits as individuals. Those are the only two scenarios that would seem to be both constitutional and sensible.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #109
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If someone wants to contribute, do it as an individual. Otherwise, more money = more speech and that is something I oppose in the political process.
    In practice, shutting out interests groups (remember, ALL interests are "special" interests) and requiring people to participate purely as individuals actually limits the capacity of most people to participate within and influence the political process. This applies both to a regular voter (who has to effectively disperse his money towards various ends, some of which he might oppose and some of which are simply not priorities for him, rather than concentrate his contribution towards issue-areas that are actually important to him and unambiguously bringing his preferences to the attention of political candidates in the process) and to a potential candidate (who would be dependent on party leadership for funds and support without the capability to appeal for support from organized interests groups through which to either challenge primary opponents or simply retain independence from party bosses).

    In short, what you propose would actually lead to a corporatist version of representative democracy rather than a pluralist model-you would be strengthening the forces of oligarchy by decreasing accountability to constituents and concentrating political power to a smaller group of people rather than maximizing political accountability and dispersing political power as far as realistically possible!

  10. #110
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    In practice, shutting out interests groups (remember, ALL interests are "special" interests) and requiring people to participate purely as individuals actually limits the capacity of most people to participate within and influence the political process. This applies both to a regular voter (who has to effectively disperse his money towards various ends, some of which he might oppose and some of which are simply not priorities for him, rather than concentrate his contribution towards issue-areas that are actually important to him and unambiguously bringing his preferences to the attention of political candidates in the process) and to a potential candidate (who would be dependent on party leadership for funds and support without the capability to appeal for support from organized interests groups through which to either challenge primary opponents or simply retain independence from party bosses).

    In short, what you propose would actually lead to a corporatist version of representative democracy rather than a pluralist model-you would be strengthening the forces of oligarchy by decreasing accountability to constituents and concentrating political power to a smaller group of people rather than maximizing political accountability and dispersing political power as far as realistically possible!
    I disagree with your conclusion, completely. Of course, neither of us can prove our conclusions to be true. We can only wait and see what happens.
    "We grow up thinking that´╗┐ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are´╗┐ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of´╗┐ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. What is the source of class distinction?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 11:04 AM
  2. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  3. Bank of America getting bail out money AGAIN
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 08:08 PM
  4. Another one of those crazy INFPs
    By BrendenTheMendicant in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 09:54 PM
  5. Evaluating sources of science facts and what is the current scientific viewpoint
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 08:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO