Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

They do. It's called voting.



So let's make a bad situation even worse?

Free speech my ass. This ruling is an abomination and a fucking disaster for this country.

I think some of you people have completely lost your minds. Do you really believe that any entity should have a bigger say in Government than you do, simply because they have more money than you do?

Everyone favor of this ruling, please PM me your address, and I'll send you a free "I'm A Moron, Please Ass Rape Me" t-shirt.

Any hope we may have had, of turning around the corrupt and bullshit way our government is run, has died, and you're all yelling hooray for free speech.

Fucking unbelievable.

JC

Problem one. Voting is not a right and can be taken away, even from CEOs.

Also you are wanting to be a dickhead and dictate who can give money to whom. You want to put a gun to the head of someone and tell them how to live their life and what to do with THEIR money. Do you want to do it personally? No, but you want to have someone do it for you instead which I think is even more pathetic and cowardly.

You're probably the type of person who believes that Kelo vs New London was a good decision because it can "help the tax base". Infact I love how liberals and democrats have gone apeshit because a person can express themselves by helping pay for a candidate of their choice but Kelo vs New London is jus tto help us. Its all good till they come knocking on your door to rape you and not even give you a T-shirt.

Want to get companies out of the business of government? Well then get the government out of the business of companies. How hard is that one to figure out.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Problem one. Voting is not a right and can be taken away, even from CEOs.

Only from CEO's who happen to be in prison, whom I don't give a fuck about anyway, and WTF does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Also you are wanting to be a dickhead and dictate who can give money to whom. You want to put a gun to the head of someone and tell them how to live their life and what to do with THEIR money.

Wow. You're so right! All this time I was thinking that legalizing bribery was a bad idea, but now I see what a dickhead I am, because keeping bribery illegal is telling people who they can and can't give their money to. Hallelujah Brother, I have seen the light!

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Do you want to do it personally? No, but you want to have someone do it for you instead which I think is even more pathetic and cowardly.

OK, now you're rambling incoherently. Stop it, it's embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

You're probably the type of person who believes that Kelo vs New London was a good decision because it can "help the tax base". Infact I love how liberals and democrats have gone apeshit because a person can express themselves by helping pay for a candidate of their choice but Kelo vs New London is jus tto help us. Its all good till they come knocking on your door to rape you and not even give you a T-shirt.

Wrong again Bambi.

Kelo vs New London was total bullshit as well. Eminent Domain should only apply to public utilities, and even then, it should used as sparingly as humanly possible, (feel free to embroider that on your little snake flag, with my compliments ).

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is about TRYING to have a government that isn't completely corrupt.

So, here's a deal for you: How about we let corporations donate as much money as they want, with the proviso being that the legislators they give it to, are required to abstain from any vote that would give a competitive advantage to the donor. Run that up your snake flag pole, and see who salutes...

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Want to get companies out of the business of government? Well then get the government out of the business of companies. How hard is that one to figure out.

You really are a babe in the woods aren't you?

I bet you think all those commercials the oil companies make about how they really want to diversify into "green technologies", come straight from their golden love filled hearts.

Wake up Rube, nap time's over.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

So, here's a deal for you: How about we let corporations donate as much money as they want, with the proviso being that the legislators they give it to, are required to abstain from any vote that would give a competitive advantage to the donor. Run that up your snake flag pole, and see who salutes...

I am a fan of this. How do I sign up for your newsletter?

Seriously, I do think that is a good idea, but I would take it a step further. Force any federal legislator to abstain from any vote that affects anything in the district/state from which they were elected. If they could be prevented from introducing legislation that solely effects their district/state I would probably support that as well. Sure, the backroom trading of influence would continue, but it certainly wouldn't make it any worse.

As I stated before, this is a problem with politicians, not a problem with money. Restrictions on how money can be raised and spent are not going to solve anything. How about we get some politicians who can't be bought.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

I am a fan of this. How do I sign up for your newsletter?

Seriously, I do think that is a good idea, but I would take it a step further. Force any federal legislator to abstain from any vote that affects anything in the district/state from which they were elected. If they could be prevented from introducing legislation that solely effects their district/state I would probably support that as well. Sure, the backroom trading of influence would continue, but it certainly wouldn't make it any worse.

As I stated before, this is a problem with politicians, not a problem with money. Restrictions on how money can be raised and spent are not going to solve anything. How about we get some politicians who can't be bought.

That's been my point all along, (your newsletter is on the way).

If you liked that idea, you're going to love this one;

The Federal AMJ One Bill At A Goddamn Time Act of 2010. Whereupon it is written that; It will now be considered unlawful to combine any spending measures that do not directly pertain to the goals of the bill in question.

You want a Tea Pot museum? Fine. Let's vote on it, based on its own merits.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

That's been my point all along, (you're newsletter is on the way).

If you liked that idea, you're going to love this one;

The Federal AMJ One Bill At A Goddamn Time Act of 2010. Whereupon it is written that; It will now be considered unlawful to combine any spending measures that do not directly pertain to the goals of the bill in question.

You want a Tea Pot museum? Fine. Let's vote on it, based on its own merits.

JC

Opposing earmarks isn't new. I supported the guy who said he was going to do it in the last election. That didn't work out so well.

I agree with you that politicians are far too corrupted by money. Where we disagree is on the solution to that problem. Controlling the money is a useless endeavor similar to trying to close all the loopholes in the tax code. It's like a kid in Holland trying to plug a leak. The water will find other ways. It is the politicians that need to be controlled. The problem with that is it is the politicians who decide how they are controlled. I hope we aren't fucked, but we very well could be.

BTW, your newsletter better not junk up my mailbox and if you sell my info to credit card companies I'm going to be pissed!

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

Opposing earmarks isn't new. I supported the guy who said he was going to do it in the last election. That didn't work out so well.

He wouldn't have had a better chance getting it done as President, then he does as a Senator anyway.

Originally Posted by goof2

I agree with you that politicians are far too corrupted by money. Where we disagree is on the solution to that problem. Controlling the money is a useless endeavor similar to trying to close all the loopholes in the tax code. It's like a kid in Holland trying to plug a leak. The water will find other ways. It is the politicians that need to be controlled. The problem with that is it is the politicians who decide how they are controlled. I hope we aren't fucked, but we very well could be.

The problem is so ingrained in our present system, that we would likely have to attack it from both directions, just to keep up with all the lawyers. I'd love to see a public referendum on the issue, but that's not going to happen either.

Originally Posted by goof2

BTW, your newsletter better not junk up my mailbox and if you sell my info to credit card companies I'm going to be pissed!

Shit, there goes my whole plan.

JC