User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 118

  1. #61
    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
    Meanwhile, wasn't 2008 (covered under McCain/Feingold) the most expensive campaign year on record?
    Regardless, the pile of money it takes to win an election just got larger.
    "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."

  2. #62
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Why? That doesn't follow logically at all.
    I'm assuming you can't possibly be questioning the ultimate conclusion, so instead you're questioning one of the key premises, namely that some property regulation is bad, yes?


    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Meanwhile, wasn't 2008 (covered under McCain/Feingold) the most expensive campaign year on record?
    If it was already that expensive, then that just gives one an idea of how much more money is going to be spent in 2012 with this court decision. Further more, it also changes the color of this money. The percentage of it that comes from certain sources and the way it is given will change, which in turn will alter the races a bit. As an example, it probably just reduced Obama's chances, due to his generally anti-corporate rhetoric, and the fact that the few corporations he has clearly been friendly with are not the best heavy-weights. That is to say, whoever his Republican opponent is will almost surely be more appealing to corporations and get way more of this corporate money.

    Now, don't say "Oh good, I can't wait for Obama to lose, hyuck hyuck", because you'd be missing the point. The point is this actually changes the quality of the money in a sense, rather than just the quantity, and that in turn alters the entire political tilt.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #63
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Pretty much, what this ruling has done is changed it so there is no party but the corporate party.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  4. #64
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The best way to remove corruption from the system is to remove the power that causes it.
    Precisely. Corporate welfare is the product of an overactive state. Indignation over it may as well be the work of an agent provocateur, blaming the private sector when the public sector -- and its coveted power -- is at fault.

    Media agencies aren't nearly as restricted despite their influence, biases, and ulterior motives; so the law in question has been an unfair one. Directors of private commercial organizations enjoy the same rights to freedom of assembly and speech as they would individually; so the implied distinction is an artificial one. And finally, election after election demonstrates that funds available to produce media is not a determinant -- George Soros' bullion couldn't win the presidency for John Kerry, nor could John Corzine's two-to-one outspending impact the votes cast for Chris Christie.

    Ironically, we hear remonstrance without much evidence, and often from those perfectly comfortable with trillions of dollars of an amorphous mandate awarded by political decision.

  5. #65
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm assuming you can't possibly be questioning the ultimate conclusion, so instead you're questioning one of the key premises, namely that some property regulation is bad, yes?
    No, that is not what I was arguing. I was arguing your apparent line of reasoning that "well, we already regulate something partly in some circumstances, so of course we can regulate it fully in others." That does not follow logically.


    If it was already that expensive, then that just gives one an idea of how much more money is going to be spent in 2012 with this court decision. Further more, it also changes the color of this money. The percentage of it that comes from certain sources and the way it is given will change, which in turn will alter the races a bit. As an example, it probably just reduced Obama's chances, due to his generally anti-corporate rhetoric, and the fact that the few corporations he has clearly been friendly with are not the best heavy-weights. That is to say, whoever his Republican opponent is will almost surely be more appealing to corporations and get way more of this corporate money.

    Now, don't say "Oh good, I can't wait for Obama to lose, hyuck hyuck", because you'd be missing the point. The point is this actually changes the quality of the money in a sense, rather than just the quantity, and that in turn alters the entire political tilt.
    Obama is anti-corporate? Since when?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #66
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Precisely. Corporate welfare is the product of an overactive state. Indignation over it may as well be the work of an agent provocateur, blaming the private sector when the public sector -- and its coveted power -- is at fault.
    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Corporate power or governmental power? It wasn't until the gilded age, when corporate law fundamentally changed, that corporate power started to become a problem. The people gave the government power to regulate corporations as a reactionary measure. Take away corporate power and much governmental power isn't necessary, but you have to remove corporate power first, not the other way around. And I'm not talking about regulations, I'm talking about things more fundamental, like personhood and limited liability.

    Media agencies aren't nearly as restricted despite their influence, biases, and ulterior motives; so the law in question has been an unfair one. Directors of private commercial organizations enjoy the same rights to freedom of assembly and speech as they would individually; so the implied distinction is an artificial one. And finally, election after election demonstrates that funds available to produce media is not a determinant -- George Soros' bullion couldn't win the presidency for John Kerry, nor could John Corzine's two-to-one outspending impact the votes cast for Chris Christie.

    Ironically, we hear remonstrance without much evidence, and often from those perfectly comfortable with trillions of dollars of an amorphous mandate awarded by political decision.
    Just because George Soros couldn't buy an election does not mean that more money has no effect, I doubt you're even scratching the surface of 2004 campaign contributions. There's already too much money involved in the political process. This is a step in the WRONG direction.
    "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."

  7. #67
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Corporate power or governmental power? It wasn't until the gilded age, when corporate law fundamentally changed, that corporate power started to become a problem. The people gave the government power to regulate corporations as a reactionary measure. Take away corporate power and much governmental power isn't necessary, but you have to remove corporate power first, not the other way around. And I'm not talking about regulations, I'm talking about things more fundamental, like personhood and limited liability.
    It's possible to erode both corporate and government power concurrently. The mainstream left-wing idea that corporate power and government power are oppositional is extremely naive and quite silly.


    Just because George Soros couldn't buy an election does not mean that more money has no effect, I doubt you're even scratching the surface of 2004 campaign contributions. There's already too much money involved in the political process. This is a step in the WRONG direction.
    I loved the website www.billionairesforbushorkerry.com . I believe Goldman Sachs was the 5th-biggest contributor to Bush AND the 5th-biggest contributor to Kerry, so it's clearly not an ideological concern for these businessmen-gangsters. As I said before, I'd be OK with banning ALL donations at the federal level for non-human individuals, but this whole "corporationz! OMG!" outcry is misguided. There are plenty of other interest groups filling the trough every year.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #68
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's possible to erode both corporate and government power concurrently. The mainstream left-wing idea that corporate power and government power are oppositional is extremely naive and quite silly.
    Left-wing, blah blah blah. What a meaningless comment.

    The government was given that power for the purpose of being oppositional, but corporations have been able to turn that power against us.

    Describe for me, in a practical sense, how corporate power could be eroded. Keep in mind, erosion is a slow, steady process.

    I loved the website www.billionairesforbushorkerry.com . I believe Goldman Sachs was the 5th-biggest contributor to Bush AND the 5th-biggest contributor to Kerry, so it's clearly not an ideological concern for these businessmen-gangsters. As I said before, I'd be OK with banning ALL donations at the federal level for non-human individuals, but this whole "corporationz! OMG!" outcry is misguided. There are plenty of other interest groups filling the trough every year.
    Of course it's not an ideological concern! /facepalm They win regardless of which party is in control. This is about buying loyalty and keeping the two party system intact. A two party system is easier to manipulate than a system with 3+ viable parties.

    I agree that only humans should be able to donate to political campaigns, but to discount the effect corporations can have is naive. The amount of money corporations have at their disposal dwarfs what unions (and other types of organizations) have. I'm not saying I'm okay with unions being able to make contributions, only that I don't believe their effect to be nearly as pervasive. It's simply not as pressing of a concern.
    "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."

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    This country has turned into a complete and utter shit hole.

  10. #70
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Corporate power or governmental power?
    The egg came first -- its seed is the desire for power. Rule by force preceded market domination. But origins are beside the point: what matters to this argument is what exists today in America.


    Take away corporate power and much governmental power isn't necessary, but you have to remove corporate power first, not the other way around.
    This is at odds with reality and the resulting convictions of the founding fathers -- the Constitution is so designed because those in government will take rights and privileges away from citizens, including merchants, whenever and wherever they can. Give me an example of American "corporate power," today, that does not involve the government. You can't; because wherever the state's arm doesn't reach, personal technology allows private individuals to publicly indict and chasten (as consumers) or economically undermine (as market competitors) organizations with incredible financial power.

    Back in 1999, I cheered the Clinton administration's harrying of Microsoft until a friend offered this adage: Microsoft is a private organization and therefore accountable to the law; the state is the law, and ultimately accountable to no one. Be very careful about whom you pick to win a fight.


    Just because George Soros couldn't buy an election does not mean that more money has no effect, I doubt you're even scratching the surface of 2004 campaign contributions. There's already too much money involved in the political process. This is a step in the WRONG direction.
    You're making too many assertions without any evidence of how the rights identified in the SCOTUS decision -- corporate electoral advertising, including within 60 days of an election -- have actually affected the democratic process.

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