Hey dumbass, they own the freaking government! PAC money decides who gets elected Lobbyist write laws The Party Bosses/Donation Whores pick the judges Fox decides the issues
LOL MC you really don't have a clue do you. You either give every organization, corporation, etc... free speech or you take it away from all groups and keep it on an individual basis. I personally don't like limiting free speech at all.
No they don't. McCain didn't lose because of lack of funds. McCain lost for obvious reasons involving the economy. Gore and Kerry didn't lose because of lack of funds either. No it doesn't. That's just being willfully ignorant. No argument here. That's why I promote free-markets I agree campaign finance won't fix that
McCain wasn't even in touch with the corporate developed base of the Republican party The Corps bailed on battling an obvious winner in Obama and try to just buy him wherever they can ...with too much damn success. Look more at the State, Senate and Congressional level to see the effect PACs have on who is 1.even nominated and 2. elected. Look at Wisconsin to see the battle close up. Free-markets are as humanly impossible as communism. Idealism will always be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. Trust but Regulate -Ronald W. Dubious- Information will fix disinformation, people will quickly become jaded to anything that is not transparent Follow the source, follow the money -Edward R. Dubious-
I'll have to research it, and I won't tonite, Thursday starts my work week. But I would start with the Union Busters, then look at the swing states. The hard part will be in States like Texas where the party win is presumptive. The money men here have their say at the nomination level (one insane side note: we elect our judges by party). Somewhere pages back I've listed four or five of the largest Super Pacs and given the absurdist example that one could be funded by the CCP to 'promote' Free Trade, and you would never know, by law. And that's why they need to be out of politics.... no accountability for their actions. Just google it, it would take like.0000023 seconds. Right-leaning outside groups outspending opposition by $40.8 million By Anupama Narayanswamy Oct 18 2010 2:16 p.m. Republican-leaning Super PACs and non-party political organizations have reported spending $40.8 million more on mid-term elections than those supporting Democrats, an analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows. Overall, there are 202 organizations spending money to influence the 2010 mid-terms, of which only 93 have disclosed their donors to the Federal Election Commission so far. Additional groups may disclose donors later this week, and some organizations known as 527 committees after the section of the tax code under which they are organized might disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service. The top spenders are three party committees--the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, followed by two Super PACs--American Crossroads and American Future Fund. Most of the money is being spent to oppose candidates. Groups opposing Democratic candidates, for example, have reported spending nearly $100 million, including $20 million over the last weekend. Including party committees, Republican-leaning groups still outspend Democratic-leaning groups by $37.6 million.
What????? You are letting the entitlement, handout-loving b****es known as the elderly off the hook? I'm only going after the group that gets the most government welfare. Why are you wasting your time on the OWS crowd that gets miniscule amount of welfare compared to the elderly. One would think you aren't really against entitlement programs just against people that represent something you are against. F**K the elderly!
A free-market is not anarchy. Citizens still have to honor contracts. Laws are still enforced. In fact, Hong Kong is recognized as the freest market in the world and it has some of the strictest anti-corruption laws you can find. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
What do you mean? I would take my chances. There are more sane people out there than you think. If you took corporations out of politics and also stopped the big union / democrat circle jerk as well as all the many political wings of Soros then I would take my chances any day. The majority of people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. In the real world there are more right leaning people than left. I actually have no problem with the way it is now but if corporations were banned from political contributions then all the "527" groups and unions should be silenced too.
I don't think the fraud he was referring to was betrayal of contractual obligations. Free marketers ignore the inevitablity that greed becomes the invisible hand and will only feed so many. Do I really have to make a Hobbesian state of nature argument here to combat your link to wikipedia's page on free markets? Libertarians really tend to overlook some of the most basic, even recent lessons, our own country's history has taught us. I'd post a link to wikipedia's page on the Industrial Revolution but I'm sure you can find it on your own.
So all night, no one that wants to bash OWS wants to defend Citizens United when they are the opposite sides of the the issue at hand? No one can make a case for it, or another strategy to counter it, other than a libertarian fantasy? Hop on the OWS train, it's the only one running. And again. The Corporatocracy is not evil, it's just a souless system; designed by men to efficiently make money. It's so successful that turned self-propagating, it makes more money, so it has more money to spend, to make more money: return on investment. Whether that is R&D, lobbying down tax rates, reducing regulation or, sending jobs overseas; whatever increases the bottom line, whether it is generally good for the American People or not. It's run from the top down down and the more money the top makes the more compromises they are willing to accept, the more allegiance they hold to making money for the company than keeping their nation strong. http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-love-the-ows-protests-20111110#ixzz1dNdkxIPb How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the OWS Protests Much more than a movement against big banks, they're a rejection of what our society has become. By Matt Taibbi November 10, 2011 8:00 AM ET I have a confession to make. At first, I misunderstood Occupy Wall Street. The first few times I went down to Zuccotti Park, I came away with mixed feelings. I loved the energy and was amazed by the obvious organic appeal of the movement, the way it was growing on its own. But my initial impression was that it would not be taken very seriously by the Citibanks and Goldman Sachs of the world. You could put 50,000 angry protesters on Wall Street, 100,000 even, and Lloyd Blankfein is probably not going to break a sweat. He knows he's not going to wake up tomorrow and see Cornel West or Richard Trumka running the Federal Reserve. He knows modern finance is a giant mechanical parasite that only an expert surgeon can remove. Yell and scream all you want, but he and his fellow financial Frankensteins are the only ones who know how to turn the machine off. That's what I was thinking during the first few weeks of the protests. But I'm beginning to see another angle. Occupy Wall Street was always about something much bigger than a movement against big banks and modern finance. It's about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. This is a visceral, impassioned, deep-seated rejection of the entire direction of our society, a refusal to take even one more step forward into the shallow commercial abyss of phoniness, short-term calculation, withered idealism and intellectual bankruptcy that American mass society has become. If there is such a thing as going on strike from one's own culture, this is it. And by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it's flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left. The right-wing media wasted no time in cannon-blasting the movement with its usual idiotic clichés, casting Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of dirty hippies who should get a job and stop chewing up Mike Bloomberg's police overtime budget with their urban sleepovers. Just like they did a half-century ago, when the debate over the Vietnam War somehow stopped being about why we were brutally murdering millions of innocent Indochinese civilians and instead became a referendum on bralessness and long hair and flower-child rhetoric, the depraved flacks of the right-wing media have breezily blown off a generation of fraud and corruption and market-perverting bailouts, making the whole debate about the protesters themselves – their hygiene, their "envy" of the rich, their "hypocrisy." The protesters, chirped Supreme Reichskank Ann Coulter, needed three things: "showers, jobs and a point." Her colleague Charles Krauthammer went so far as to label the protesters hypocrites for having iPhones. OWS, he said, is "Starbucks-sipping, Levi's-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters [denouncing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over." Apparently, because Goldman and Citibank are corporations, no protester can ever consume a corporate product – not jeans, not cellphones and definitely not coffee – if he also wants to complain about tax money going to pay off some billionaire banker's bets against his own crappy mortgages. Meanwhile, on the other side of the political spectrum, there were scads of progressive pundits like me who wrung our hands with worry that OWS was playing right into the hands of assholes like Krauthammer. Don't give them any ammunition! we counseled. Stay on message! Be specific! We were all playing the Rorschach-test game with OWS, trying to squint at it and see what we wanted to see in the movement. Viewed through the prism of our desire to make near-term, within-the-system changes, it was hard to see how skirmishing with cops in New York would help foreclosed-upon middle-class families in Jacksonville and San Diego. What both sides missed is that OWS is tired of all of this. They don't care what we think they're about, or should be about. They just want something different. We're all born wanting the freedom to imagine a better and more beautiful future. But modern America has become a place so drearily confining and predictable that it chokes the life out of that built-in desire. Everything from our pop culture to our economy to our politics feels oppressive and unresponsive. We see 10 million commercials a day, and every day is the same life-killing chase for money, money and more money; the only thing that changes from minute to minute is that every tick of the clock brings with it another space-age vendor dreaming up some new way to try to sell you something or reach into your pocket. The relentless sameness of the two-party political system is beginning to feel like a Jacob's Ladder nightmare with no end; we're entering another turn on the four-year merry-go-round, and the thought of having to try to get excited about yet another minor quadrennial shift in the direction of one or the other pole of alienating corporate full-of-****ness is enough to make anyone want to smash his own hand flat with a hammer. If you think of it this way, Occupy Wall Street takes on another meaning. There's no better symbol of the gloom and psychological repression of modern America than the banking system, a huge heartless machine that attaches itself to you at an early age, and from which there is no escape. You fail to receive a few past-due notices about a $19 payment you missed on that TV you bought at Circuit City, and next thing you know a collector has filed a judgment against you for $3,000 in fees and interest. Or maybe you wake up one morning and your car is gone, legally repossessed by Vulture Inc., the debt-buying firm that bought your loan on the Internet from Chase for two cents on the dollar. This is why people hate Wall Street. They hate it because the banks have made life for ordinary people a vicious tightrope act; you slip anywhere along the way, it's 10,000 feet down into a vat of razor blades that you can never climb out of. That, to me, is what Occupy Wall Street is addressing. People don't know exactly what they want, but as one friend of mine put it, they know one thing: **** THIS ****! We want something different: a different life, with different values, or at least a chance at different values. There was a lot of snickering in media circles, even by me, when I heard the protesters talking about how Liberty Square was offering a model for a new society, with free food and health care and so on. Obviously, a bunch of kids taking donations and giving away free food is not a long-term model for a new economic system. But now, I get it. People want to go someplace for at least five minutes where no one is trying to bleed you or sell you something. It may not be a real model for anything, but it's at least a place where people are free to dream of some other way for human beings to get along, beyond auctioned "democracy," tyrannical commerce and the bottom line. We're a nation that was built on a thousand different utopian ideas, from the Shakers to the Mormons to New Harmony, Indiana. It was possible, once, for communities to experiment with everything from free love to an end to private property. But nowadays even the palest federalism is swiftly crushed. If your state tries to place tariffs on companies doing business with some notorious human-rights-violator state – like Massachusetts did, when it sought to bar state contracts to firms doing business with Myanmar – the decision will be overturned by some distant global bureaucracy like the WTO. Even if 40 million Californians vote tomorrow to allow themselves to smoke a joint, the federal government will never permit it. And the economy is run almost entirely by an unaccountable oligarchy in Lower Manhattan that absolutely will not sanction any innovations in banking or debt forgiveness or anything else that might lessen its predatory influence. And here's one more thing I was wrong about: I originally was very uncomfortable with the way the protesters were focusing on the NYPD as symbols of the system. After all, I thought, these are just working-class guys from the Bronx and Staten Island who have never seen the inside of a Wall Street investment firm, much less had anything to do with the corruption of our financial system. But I was wrong. The police in their own way are symbols of the problem. All over the country, thousands of armed cops have been deployed to stand around and surveil and even assault the polite crowds of Occupy protesters. This deployment of law-enforcement resources already dwarfs the amount of money and manpower that the government "committed" to fighting crime and corruption during the financial crisis. One OWS protester steps in the wrong place, and she immediately has police roping her off like wayward cattle. But in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes. This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat – and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities. It's not that the cops outside the protests are doing wrong, per se, by patrolling the parks and sidewalks. It's that they should be somewhere else. They should be heading up into those skyscrapers and going through the file cabinets to figure out who stole what, and from whom. They should be helping people get their money back. Instead, they're out on the street, helping the Blankfeins of the world avoid having to answer to the people they ripped off. People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It's about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a "beloved community" free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn't need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.
You know we got to sit around at home And watch this thing begin But I bet there won't be many live To see it really end 'Cause the fire in the street Ain't like the fire in the heart And in the eyes of all these people Don't you know that this could start On any street in any town In any state if any clown Decides that now's the time to fight For some ideal he thinks is right And if a million more agree There ain't no Great Society As it applies to you and me Our country isn't free And the law refuses to see If all that you can ever be Is just a lousy janitor Unless your uncle owns a store You know that five in every four Just won't amount to nothin' more Gonna watch the rats go across the floor And make up songs about being poor Blow your harmonica, son! FZ
Personally I think that lobbying should be outlawed because it's just legalized bribery. But that can only happen if you elect people who agree with that and getting someone to elected who agrees with that is the problem. Elected officials think it takes boatloads of money to keep them in office. I think if you have an excellent track record, you will stay in office with very little need for cash. On the other hand, if I’m out there voting like my lobbyists want then I will most likely create opposition to attack me and I will need to use my lobbyist’s money to defend myself on reelections. But personally I don’t see anything coming from the OWS movement except for giving the people a place to vent.
How do you outlaw lobbying? If a politician listens to a big company owner tell him why his company will have to layoff thousands of employees if some legislation is passed, is that what you wish to outlaw because that is lobbying?
Which is why I'm in favor of candidates all having an equal amount of money to use on their campaign. They can't use more, and they only have a certain amount of time in which to spend it on the campaign... something like 2 months. I don't know how much change will come from OWS, but it's certainly shining a light on the issue, and that's a good thing. It also has the right people showing signs of fear, and that's a good thing.
