Author Topic: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.  (Read 10237 times)

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2014, 12:58:29 PM »
Regardless of who supplies what, if Americans don't participate, the profit will no doubt go to the enemy, China, Russia, NK etc.
But then you try and wrap it up under a lie, the lie that PACS don't have to reveal where the money comes from.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

Either we become an isolationist nation, or we freely participate in the free mkt is the question, there is no gray area here.

I didn't intend to lie, I was just misinformed.  Really though it doesn't matter.  A company is not going to invest millions for some idealistic reason.  They're going to do it because they know it's going help them make money in the future.  You know, "someday I'm going to ask you to return the favor."  That's just the way the real world works.
If you don't have a problem making money by helping people sponsoring terrorism and who want to destroy you, then you really are a free market capitalist.  Maybe you should find a way to sell shoulder fired missile to Al Qaeda.  They seem to have a lot of cash.  I mean if you don't do it then the North Koreans might and they'll make all the money.

The point I'm trying to make is that the infusion of big money into campaigns, on both sides, promotes back door quid pro quos that I don't think have any place in our government.  And, there are issues where there is common ground between libertarians and progressives (even though we disagree on 99% of everything else).  Common ground where neither side has to compromise, in the least, their deeply held values.  But you have to look hard for that 1%, and when you find it you can make a real change for the better.  It's not compromise, it's common ground and it does exist.  For most people it's much easier just trash everything the other side says.  That's why nothing really gets done. 

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62118
  • Gender: Male
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2014, 02:10:13 PM »
I didn't intend to lie, I was just misinformed.  Really though it doesn't matter.  A company is not going to invest millions for some idealistic reason.  They're going to do it because they know it's going help them make money in the future.  You know, "someday I'm going to ask you to return the favor."  That's just the way the real world works.
If you don't have a problem making money by helping people sponsoring terrorism and who want to destroy you, then you really are a free market capitalist.  Maybe you should find a way to sell shoulder fired missile to Al Qaeda.  They seem to have a lot of cash.  I mean if you don't do it then the North Koreans might and they'll make all the money.

The point I'm trying to make is that the infusion of big money into campaigns, on both sides, promotes back door quid pro quos that I don't think have any place in our government.  And, there are issues where there is common ground between libertarians and progressives (even though we disagree on 99% of everything else).  Common ground where neither side has to compromise, in the least, their deeply held values.  But you have to look hard for that 1%, and when you find it you can make a real change for the better.  It's not compromise, it's common ground and it does exist.  For most people it's much easier just trash everything the other side says.  That's why nothing really gets done.
I'm neither condemning nor condoning PACS, I'm just pointing out where SCOTUS merely leveled the playing field.
Unions were already allowed to funnel money, a majority of which is Marxist based.
Allowing the common man to form PACS, whether it be corporate, Christian, or a voice to those of us wanting to support Founding values, it was a move towards Liberty, in that anyone now has Right to influence as a concerted voice.
#WWG1WGA

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2014, 03:26:07 PM »
I'm neither condemning nor condoning PACS, I'm just pointing out where SCOTUS merely leveled the playing field.
Unions were already allowed to funnel money, a majority of which is Marxist based.
Allowing the common man to form PACS, whether it be corporate, Christian, or a voice to those of us wanting to support Founding values, it was a move towards Liberty, in that anyone now has Right to influence as a concerted voice.

OK, I'll buy into that.  I guess it's corporations that I'm most concerned about.  I don't think they're the common man.  Far from it.  Once again, their not going to invest their money in anybody unless they know it's going to pay off.  If you limit the amount that can be contributed by any entity, it levels the playing field even more.

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2014, 03:28:03 PM »
We are still awaiting an answer if you feel the same way about union contributions to candidates and parties.

Sorry, I missed your post.  The answer is yes, I feel the same way about unions.

zewazir

  • Guest
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2014, 04:43:20 PM »
OK, I'll buy into that.  I guess it's corporations that I'm most concerned about.  I don't think they're the common man.  Far from it.  Once again, their not going to invest their money in anybody unless they know it's going to pay off.  If you limit the amount that can be contributed by any entity, it levels the playing field even more.
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.


Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2014, 08:47:41 PM »
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.

Great reply.  I've only read it once, so I'm going to have to take some to time to think it over and get back to you.  Thanks again.

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11971
  • Gender: Male
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2014, 06:08:36 AM »
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.


"Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with."

I differ with this view and here is why. Joe Common Citizen does have some influence with this ruling he previously did not have. If one does their homework they can find PAC's that support their values. Hence, by supporting those organizations their "small" voices can be heard. As Solar posted it does level the playing field from what it was.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2014, 08:46:24 AM »
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.

First let me say, I'm not a lawyer and I couldn't possibly argue before the Supreme Court.  The court has decided and so that's the way things are for the moment.  Whether their decision for Citizens United was correct I have to defer to the legal scholars.  I know how I feel about it, however.

1.  I don't like the idea of unions spending a member's union dues on candidates or propositions the member may not approve of.  In the same vein, I don't like the idea of for-profit corporations spending money I've invested with them on candidates or propositions I don't approve of.  You may say my stock ownership is voluntary, but I have a stake through my 401K and my mutual funds in hundreds of companies.  It would be a nearly impossible task for me to research and keep up with what they're doing.  Why the court decided to include for-profits along with non-profits in their decision is something I don't understand.

2.  While a large political contribution may not actually involve a quid pro quo, it creates the perception there could be one which undermines my faith in the system.  In addition, there's always the threat of either you vote the way we want you to or we're going to spend you into oblivion.  This threat becomes more palpable as you work your way down from national to state and local offices and becomes problematic in the case of judges.

3.  Big money may actually limit free speech by monopolizing the airways and effectively gagging those with lesser resources.

4.  The decision seems to me to side with the Federalist point of view over the Jeffersonian.  That is, the power of the wealthy merchants over the common man.  This is reinforced when I read quotes from Jefferson like the following:

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." Letter to Larkin Smith 1809

"Merchants have no country.  The mere spot they stand does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." Letter to H.G. Spafford 1814

Finally,

"I hope we shall take warning from the example (of England) and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  Letter to George Logan 1816

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24583
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2014, 03:24:51 PM »
IF your going to have Freedom you must take the shit that goes with it.  Walks 12/15/2014



A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2014, 05:03:08 PM »
IF your going to have Freedom you must take the shit that goes with it.  Walks 12/15/2014




Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62118
  • Gender: Male
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2014, 05:22:53 PM »
Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wait, you were serious? Since when did money trump ideology?
TEA (an ideology) isn't even a party, yet look at the changes the last two midterms have accomplished, even up against billions of Establishment cash coupled with that of the GOP slush fund, and we still kicked their socialist collective asses.
#WWG1WGA

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2014, 05:34:43 PM »
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wait, you were serious? Since when did money trump ideology?
TEA (an ideology) isn't even a party, yet look at the changes the last two midterms have accomplished, even up against billions of Establishment cash coupled with that of the GOP slush fund, and we still kicked their socialist collective asses.

Really?   http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24583
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM »
Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.

Your going to have to decide what side your pulling for.  Do you wish to be free or controlled. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline AlfredDrake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2014, 06:00:25 PM »
Your going to have to decide what side your pulling for.  Do you wish to be free or controlled.

I've already decided a long time ago I want to be free, which means I have a voice, and I'm not squashed by powerful forces that  don't give a damn about me unless I can make them some money. 

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62118
  • Gender: Male
Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2014, 06:27:44 PM »
Really?   http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms
You do realize, TEA is an ideology, not a party, right?

Tea Firebrand Wins Big in Iowa. Republican Joni Ernst, an outspoken right-winger, is the new Senator-elect from Iowa. In 2014, it appears, the key to winning in a swing state is to avoid talking about issues and emphasize pig castration.
Search domain www.thedailybeast.comthedailybeast.com

Tea Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins
Big Government; Big Journalism; Big ... Breitbart Sports; The Conversation; The Wires; Location Specific Navigation. Breitbart London; Breitbart Texas; Breitbart California; Tea Party Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins. Print article Send a Tip. by Merrill Hope 4 Nov ...
www.breitbart.combreitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/04/Tea-Party-Take...More results

Tea wins big in Texas runoff elections | Human Events
Bare-knuckle political brawls end in Tea Party wins for Lt. Governor, U.S. House, and Attorney General. POLITICS. RedState; ... The Tea Party counted another big win in Texas by unseating 91-year-old incumbent Rep. Ralph Hall, ... © 2014 EAGLE PUBLISHING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Search domain humanevents.comhumanevents.com
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal