Forum Index » Chaff » 21 Citations at Grand Canyon National Park for entering during Gov't Shutdown


Display Avatars Sort By:
just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear)
Re: Re: Hired Goons at Independence Hall???? on 10/10/2013 23:37:30 MDT Print View

As long as we stay stuck in and over identify with the binary mind set of Democrats vs Republicans, or liberals vs conservatives, and all that manipulated, chess game, acting non sense, we won't ever fully wake up and see the real issues.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Re: Hired Goons at Independence Hall???? on 10/10/2013 23:43:39 MDT Print View

Well spoken, Justin.

Matt

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Hired Goons at Independence Hall???? on 10/10/2013 23:59:07 MDT Print View

#1 issue is we have the best government money can buy

maybe we can agree to make giving money to politicians illegal. Or buy TV ads. or...

just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear)
Re: Re: Hired Goons at Independence Hall???? on 10/11/2013 00:04:57 MDT Print View

Thank you Matt.

True enough Jerry.

How can we expect to fix this? Can we really vote our way out of it? Can we protest our way out of it? Can we just hope the younger generation will be more idealistic and less materialistic?

Do we just keep bending over?

I don't have a solution, and even armed rebellion would be mighty tough against the kind of technology and weaponry that those in power have access too, not too mention you and i are being "tapped" as we speak so it would be hard to make well organized plans in secret--not too mention there are not enough of us willing to die or worse be tortured for a true change.

So where does that leave us? Creative Forces help us.

Edited by ArcturusBear on 10/11/2013 00:11:00 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Hired Goons at Independence Hall???? on 10/11/2013 08:01:46 MDT Print View

https://movetoamend.org/ advocates making a constitutional ammendment "that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights"

The "Occupy" movement talks about undue political enfluence

both of these are somewhat dormant

maybe we're waiting for people to become more angry about this and some organization will catch fire and be able to do something

It seems like in lieu of the Supreme Court decisions (another one is in process) we need a constitutional ammendment

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Hell froze over, again. on 10/11/2013 13:55:57 MDT Print View

Hey, what's that on the horizon? Is that Satan building a snowman?

Jesus Christ, jerry, we're AGREEING again, you bed-wetting pinko! :)

I have to say, the vast majority of what people tend to complain about regarding our government would be solved by this one, simple move. SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations and other organizations must be permitted to bribe politicians due to their constitutional First Amendment rights. They are about to make a similar ruling for individuals- a rich guy who doesn't like that he cannot openly buy his politicans due to campaign donation limits has taken his case to SCOTUS. And he's going to win (if he hasn't already)- arguments ended Tuesday.

So, our only recourse is to change the constitution. Screw Citizens United. PACs should be illegal, and no for-profit corporation should be able to contribute to any politician or to post or in any other way enable a political advertisement. Despite the legal fiction, corporations are clearly NOT people- witness that they cannot vote. Allowing them the perogatives of human beings on the argument that "corporations are people, too" is farcical. They shouldn't have First Amendment rights, either, since presumably their interests would be supported by their shareholders- human beings!- who do have such rights. I personally hate that just because I own stock, some of my money is almost certainly being funneled to politicians and causes that I find reprehensible.

Edited by acrosome on 10/11/2013 14:08:23 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Hell froze over, again. on 10/11/2013 14:08:20 MDT Print View

It's cheating - all I have to do to get approval from Dean is bring this up : )

Do you know this is also a main issue of Bernie Sanders, socialist senator from Vermont?

I've been hearing people talk about this forever. Moveon.org has been around for a while. The Occupy movement seemed promising. Yet nothing is happening.

Is this just wishful thinking or is it possible something will actually happen at some point (constitutional ammendment to allow regulation of political spending)?

What might actually make this happen?

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Hell froze over, again. on 10/11/2013 14:14:37 MDT Print View

Honestly, jerry, I think it would take a revolution or a constitutional convention, and neither is going to happen.

Really, what do you think would happen to the first politician to seriously propose such an amendment? Answer- all of his funding would immediately disappear and all of his political opponents would suddenly get millions of dollars in donations from various corporations, who would also be funneling tens of millions into PACs dedicated to destroying him. Every speck of advertising airtime in his district would be bought out and filled with "Congressman X is a Satanist who dislikes puppies, molests children, and wants to cancel Social Security"" attack ads. Plus every other congressman in existence would be offered millions to vote the amendment down.

That's a hell of a lot to overcome. Thus, no politician could possibly be involved. Thus, revolution or constitutional convention- which ain't happening.

Citizens United = worst SCOTUS decision since Plessy v Fergusun. I've thought about that quite a bit and, yes, I'd rate it worse than Korematsu v U.S.

Edited by acrosome on 10/11/2013 14:19:18 MDT.

Christopher Chupka
(FatTexan) - M

Locale: NTX
We are all blind on 10/11/2013 14:20:57 MDT Print View

So from both sides embryos aren't people but corporations are, something twisted and evil and manipulative is present.

I may be a simple man but this is how I see it.

And by the way, it's in the low 80's here, I'm on the front porch with an Oskar Blue G'Knight Imperial Red IPA enjoying the h-e-double hockey sticks out of it.

Edited by FatTexan on 10/11/2013 14:24:03 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: We are all blind on 10/11/2013 14:27:12 MDT Print View

and to walk out to your car you have to squish all these bugs under foot : )

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Hell froze over, again. on 10/11/2013 14:36:18 MDT Print View

"all of his funding would immediately disappear and all of his political opponents would suddenly get millions of dollars in donations..."

That is the problem. That is how we got here, it just sort of evolved.

But with other hysterias, suddenly a critical mass of people figure it out and then some event breaks the hysteria.

Like with Joe Mcarthy and the anti-communist hysteria. Anyone that crossed him became a target. Mcarthy was very effective ruining people. Then, there were enough people aware of the problem, Ed Morrow called him out, and it was over.

Karl Rove in the last election spent zillions of dollars and produced few results so maybe we're close to the breaking point.

Grover Norquist has been pretty effective "primarying" Republicans that aren't conservative enough (that is, corporate enough) so that doesn't seem that close to breaking.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
While I'm fantasizing... on 10/11/2013 14:49:29 MDT Print View

While I'm fantasizing, lets make it a "runaway convention" and also cover some degree of balanced budget amendment, term limits for all congress members, mandate direct election of the president rather than the farce that is the electoral college, and ban congressional procedures that require a supermajority vote to make it harder for minorities or even radical fanatical individuals to block legislation.

Dream, dream, dream...

Edited by acrosome on 10/11/2013 14:52:41 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Contributions on 10/11/2013 14:52:26 MDT Print View

Corporations are a special interest group.

But there are lots of other special interest groups.

Are you guys advocating for ONLY individual contributions?

How would that work? Only an individual's personal money and only up to a certain amount? What would prevent George Soros or David Koch from distributing money for others to contribute? Obviously the SEIU would be prevented from making contributions as well, right?

The New York Times and MSNBC are corporations, they shouldn't be allowed to publish political editorials and their content would have to be carefully monitored to ensure equal treatment.

I'm honestly trying to figure out how it would work.

Also the idea that corporations are right-wing is more than a little archaic these days.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Contributions on 10/11/2013 14:56:45 MDT Print View

@Dave

All of the issues you've raised can be addressed in the amendment or subsequent legislation. I don't see how they are problems at all. But really the amendment we're talking about is only meant to make it clear that "money as free speech" is NOT an absolute right protected by the First Amendment, and that thus laws can be enacted to limit it. (I don't think that political contributions by HUMAN BEINGS should be banned- but I also don't think that the Koch brothers are entitled to "more free speech" than I am just because they are rich. In fact I think that is self-evident.) The amendment isn't about every detail of such proposed laws. Presumably those would evolve, they'd be optimized over time to close loopholes, etc.

I'm 99.999% certain that it is already illegal to disburse funds to individuals as you described to avoid campaign contribution limits, so that's a no-brainer. Personally I'd say "Yes, only personal money, and that with a limit," for the reason I stated above, but that's just me- that would be up to the lawmakers. I'd argue that even nonprofit organizations like The Sierra Club shouldn't be allowed to donate to politicians- just like any other corporation they can petition their members/shareholders to do so and explain why. Likewise, a media editorial is not the same as a paid advertisement, and this can be specified. If Fox News or MSNBC step over the line- and they may well- that's an issue for the courts. The U.S. media already has to contest with libel laws, so this is not much different. And yes ABSOLUTELY I would say that unions should be prohibited from contributing or buying ads- they can also petition their members to contribute and explain why. But, again, that's just me- ultimately those details would be up to the subsequent legislation that is made legal by the amendment.

Because, really, all that this proposed amendment says is "It is OK to regulate how politicians get their contributions, since money is not the same thing as free speech."

So IMHO none of the problems you mentioned are remotely difficult.

And where did you get "right-wing" from? Seems that you're reading into things, there. I'm a CONSERVATIVE.

I have to go- I may be offline for a bit...

Edited by acrosome on 10/11/2013 15:16:36 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Contributions on 10/11/2013 15:32:32 MDT Print View

Hey Dean -

You can self-identify as you wish, of course. Sometimes I refer to myself as a Liger. But I certainly wouldn't describe you as right-wing and don't think I did.

You didn't clarify whether you think it should be individual contributors only. And you don't have to.

I don't understand why giant media organizations that openly, consistently and aggressively advocate for a point of view get a pass. Doesn't seem fair.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
RMNP is open on 10/11/2013 16:10:14 MDT Print View

Apparently Hickenlooper had a bake sale and the park is now open.

It's now under state control and has been leased to BP so they can horizontally drill under Long's Peak.

He also removed all restrictions on green back trout, fishfry!!!

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Statue of Liberty, Grand Canyon, Mount Rushmore to reopen during shutdown on 10/11/2013 19:37:34 MDT Print View

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/11/20926440-statue-of-liberty-grand-canyon-mount-rushmore-to-reopen-during-shutdown?lite

Good news.

Matt

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Contributions on 10/13/2013 10:04:52 MDT Print View

@"You didn't clarify whether you think it should be individual contributors only."

Well, while we're being critical of one another's interwebs manners, you didn't read my post very closely... :)

I very clearly did endorse only allowing private individuals to be political contributors. (Or at least I thought it was clearly.) But I also pointed out that that was my personal position and not what this propsed amendment is about.

And I'm pretty moderate, leaning a tad right. That's why I describe myself as conservative. But the modern Republican party isn't really about conservativism- it's about corporate interests, luddism, and attempting to establish a theocracy in the United States.

Edited by acrosome on 10/13/2013 11:15:37 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Contributions on 10/13/2013 17:58:26 MDT Print View

"and attempting to establish a theocracy in the United States."

Isn't that what we're trying to prevent over in Afghanistan? I say bring the military home and go after our own Taliban. They may be beardless and turbanless, but there's not a whit of difference beween them when it comes to theology.

Isn't there something in the Constitution about defending the it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? ;0)

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Contributions on 10/13/2013 19:39:18 MDT Print View

" I say bring the military home and go after our own Taliban. They may be beardless and turbanless, but there's not a whit of difference beween them when it comes to theology."

Wow.

I'm not surprised you feel this only that you'd write it down.

You want to put the military on to which group of US citizens?

Who in this country has a theology to the Taliban?