Home Non Cigar Related

Maybe you will... Maybe you wont...

Read it!
Article talks about a couple of people who have put millions of dollars in elections while hiding. Another reason why campaign finance reform needs to happen.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
«1

Comments

  • I see no problems here. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    C'mon, dude. This is old news. These guys have already been called to the carpet and did a pretty good job of disclosing their motives and agenda..... Here's a good interview done by Left-wing talk show host Rachael Maddow with Tim Phillips, the president of American's for Prosperity: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/16/rachel_maddow_faces_off_with_americans_for_prosperity.html

    I don't think someone with a lot to hide will go on the enemy's turf and respond to the critics. Tim Phillips does a good job, in my opinion, of standing up to the attacks at his organization.

    For an extra chuckle, check out the comments posted about the interview......
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Why try Squirrel----what did you exoect here?
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Why try Squirrel----what did you exoect here?
    I guess we're just a bunch of ignorant lost causes, huh?

    Would this response have been more to your liking:

    OMG!! Rich people have political interests and fund their respective parties????? Say it ain't so!!!! Oh the humanity!!!! Any one who makes over $250K a year should be in prison!!!! End of story!

    Too much?

    C'mon, Vulch...... based on your logic, we should all just bury our heads in the sand and wait till the apocalypse of 2012.

    I, for one, commend squirrel for his efforts. At least he tries.....
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • wwhwangwwhwang Ottawa, ON, CanadaPosts: 2,878 ✭✭✭
    For some reason, I can't get that site address to work. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the article said?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    No one said ignorant or lost causes----just have your own opinions and are unwilling to bend on them and make sure everythign fits into your current set of thinking and dismiss that which does not.....That isnt a criticism per se, everyone does that to some degree----myself included.

    Also, no need to lecture me on Squirrels efforts...he and I have discussed matters on several occasions. Also, didnt say those making over 250K should be in jail, so please lets at least be logical here...which doesnt involve me and 2012 predictions either. Both repubs and dems have donors like this---just so happen these Bros. are the most known and talked about. If no one has a problem with the ultra wealthy throwing around gobs of money to influence politics without trying to use their intellect or ideas, just money to influence....for ANY SIDE of the political spectrum, I think we are in sad shape. Lets just think of the Hollywood donors and musical acts for Dems over the past several years...that did draw ire?
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    mrpillow:
    I see no problems here. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
    +1

    This is their money, they can do with it as they see fit. Why is it anyone's business where and how money is spent? Why is their freedom of speech any less important than anyone else just because they have money and can buy commercial air time and fund think tanks?? Where is the outrage over George Soros for doing the exact same thing?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I have the same outrage....they are not buying time---their buying elections. Say what you will...but more money, more ad's, more face time generally means wins. If people did their homework, this would not be so---but unfortunately the TV ads often decide the winner. As Ive said on other posts, money is this countrys god and this is proof of it.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Vulchor:
    I have the same outrage....they are not buying time---their buying elections. Say what you will...but more money, more ad's, more face time generally means wins. If people did their homework, this would not be so---but unfortunately the TV ads often decide the winner. As Ive said on other posts, money is this countrys god and this is proof of it.
    What would you say if these same brothers went around the country talking to people face to face instead of buying commercials? If they spent their money to travel around and say the exact same things to people in person that we hear on the TV and they had the same results? Would say this shouldn't be allowed?
  • lilwing88lilwing88 ChitownPosts: 2,812 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I have the same outrage....they are not buying time---their buying elections. Say what you will...but more money, more ad's, more face time generally means wins. If people did their homework, this would not be so---but unfortunately the TV ads often decide the winner. As Ive said on other posts, money is this countrys god and this is proof of it.
    Vulch, are you swayed by ads, face time or by who's throwing around the most money? Personally, with the advent of the DVR, I can't remember the last time I saw a political ad.

    The fact is, people are fed up with whatever it is they're fed up with. The politician that can mold his campaign the best around these frustrations will win........
    Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I think people would be able to question them then, and it would show a conviction for what they believe. It would not be mindless advertising meant to sink in jsut enough to fill in the oval atthe voting booth. So no, I would not have the same issues with a more seemingly genuine approach to their convictions...not just trying to ascertain the price of a vote and using enough ad time to achieve that goal.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Vulchor:
    I think people would be able to question them then, and it would show a conviction for what they believe. It would not be mindless advertising meant to sink in jsut enough to fill in the oval atthe voting booth. So no, I would not have the same issues with a more seemingly genuine approach to their convictions...not just trying to ascertain the price of a vote and using enough ad time to achieve that goal.
    Ok, so free speech depends on how the views are expressed? I missed that article in the Constitution... Hmmmm... That is interesting. I'll have to go back and re-read that whole "free speech" amendment again.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Not going to get into free speech---I know already...corporations are free speech, buying elections are free speech, ect. Islamic speak, flag burning, ect-----not so free.......but the others most certainly.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Vulchor:
    Not going to get into free speech---I know already...corporations are free speech, buying elections are free speech, ect. Islamic speak, flag burning, ect-----not so free.......but the others most certainly.
    You've never heard me say Islamic speech is not free speech, and you've never heard me say any form of peaceful protest isn't free speech. That's where you fail in your arguments. You lump me into some preformed group of right wing nuts that exists in your mind, that you like to attack. I truly believe in our Constitution and the rights of all citizens.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Fair enough----that was not fair to you and was a grouping. However, I also take offense saying I do not believe in our constitution...because I do. What I do not believe however is that it is a black and white document...especially in areas where our founding fathers could not have imagined life and society 200 years later. I think that is what is at play here and where the defintion of freedom of speech as well as who/what/where/when/why its covered is up for some interpretation.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Vulchor:
    Fair enough----that was not fair to you and was a grouping. However, I also take offense saying I do not believe in our constitution...because I do. What I do not believe however is that it is a black and white document...especially in areas where our founding fathers could not have imagined life and society 200 years later. I think that is what is at play here and where the defintion of freedom of speech as well as who/what/where/when/why its covered is up for some interpretation.
    I never said you don't agree with or believe in our Constitution, and never implied that you don't. I understand you may think there needs to be a change in the Constitution, but as it stands and as it was written, the Supreme Court upheld the law. It is a very black and white issue. Free speech is free speech. If it is going to be granted to people, organizations, churches, the KKK, the Democratic Socialists of America, and every other group, then it applies to the Koch brothers as well.

    When I said the Democratic Socialists of America, I was not referring to the Democrats. I was referring to the actual Socialist party. Just wanted to clarify before anyone got mad because I was calling people names. Was using the organization to make a point.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I understand the court has ruled on it...but that doesnt make it something I have to agree with. Roe v Wade as an example of the court making a ruling that while it is black and white for legal purposes---not everyone agrees with the interpretation by the court. Same idea here for me.
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    Wow that's a pretty good read Pheebs.

  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    A simple idea to curtail many things that I think ALL of us here on these forums hate would be to pass the bill making it illegal to add "pork" spending onto any bill. A bill exists, but certainly will never pass with either this current Congress or the previous ones. If the Tea Party had their way, it would be the first bill to pass. No Pork Spending, please! It would be huge in preventing at least some Big Business, Union, etc influence on politics. Not to mention it would immediately cut spending, ha! That'll be the day - when our Federal government actually cuts spending.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,172 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tricky stuff. Personally, I'd love to see campaign finance reform take place in order that ideas and rights might become as important as money in the political realm. I like the idea of no pork, too. And, of course, free speech is a touchy area requiring finesse and a great deal of respect.

    To analogize this arguement though, it seems that squirrel is pointing to the boxing ring, where Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier, (the Koch bros.) at their peak, are squaring off against Don Knotts and Lou Costello (99% of us) and saying: "hey, that's not fair", to which Puro replies: "Hey, it's 2 against 2, what couldn't be fair?" Of course, I'm lower middle class, and would like someone representing my interests, but hey, maybe the Koch brothers will trickle on me. Is that Rain?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    TatuajeVI:
    A simple idea to curtail many things that I think ALL of us here on these forums hate would be to pass the bill making it illegal to add "pork" spending onto any bill. A bill exists, but certainly will never pass with either this current Congress or the previous ones. If the Tea Party had their way, it would be the first bill to pass. No Pork Spending, please! It would be huge in preventing at least some Big Business, Union, etc influence on politics. Not to mention it would immediately cut spending, ha! That'll be the day - when our Federal government actually cuts spending.
    +1
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Amos Umwhat:
    Tricky stuff. Personally, I'd love to see campaign finance reform take place in order that ideas and rights might become as important as money in the political realm. I like the idea of no pork, too. And, of course, free speech is a touchy area requiring finesse and a great deal of respect.

    To analogize this arguement though, it seems that squirrel is pointing to the boxing ring, where Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier, (the Koch bros.) at their peak, are squaring off against Don Knotts and Lou Costello (99% of us) and saying: "hey, that's not fair", to which Puro replies: "Hey, it's 2 against 2, what couldn't be fair?" Of course, I'm lower middle class, and would like someone representing my interests, but hey, maybe the Koch brothers will trickle on me. Is that Rain?
    LMAO. More trickle down economics huh? I remember when Regan was almost able to convince people that trickle down economics were a good thing. He could almost make it sound like you were lucky to be at the bottom, where eventually everything "trickles" down.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    PuroFreak:
    Vulchor:
    Fair enough----that was not fair to you and was a grouping. However, I also take offense saying I do not believe in our constitution...because I do. What I do not believe however is that it is a black and white document...especially in areas where our founding fathers could not have imagined life and society 200 years later. I think that is what is at play here and where the defintion of freedom of speech as well as who/what/where/when/why its covered is up for some interpretation.
    I never said you don't agree with or believe in our Constitution, and never implied that you don't. I understand you may think there needs to be a change in the Constitution, but as it stands and as it was written, the Supreme Court upheld the law. It is a very black and white issue. Free speech is free speech. If it is going to be granted to people, organizations, churches, the KKK, the Democratic Socialists of America, and every other group, then it applies to the Koch brothers as well.

    When I said the Democratic Socialists of America, I was not referring to the Democrats. I was referring to the actual Socialist party. Just wanted to clarify before anyone got mad because I was calling people names. Was using the organization to make a point.
    I'm just going to say that they did not uphold the constitution. There has been around 100 years of court rulings that suppressed corporations as having free speech (meaning they can use money). Free speech is for people, corporations are not people. they are institutions with people running them. Also the court is not suppose to make law, however they have basically become politicians in robes. They are not elected and are in for life. Which makes our country at the whim of mad-people. At the very least the free speech for corporations should only be for American businesses. No foreign money, however no, that isn't the case. I don't get how you can say it's their money?
    Well yes however when it is being used to undermine this country I find it very disturbing. to each his own I guess however if you love how things have been over the last 10 years get ready for more of it and even worse. Many future novels focus on laws and nations being ruled by a court or corporations and it's not pretty. Fiction they may be, it is getting very close to reality. I look to the turn of the 20th century in America with the barons and I shiver. Seems as though progress has been made but the barons have gotten larger and smarter. Behind the scenes is much worse.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    laker1963:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Tricky stuff. Personally, I'd love to see campaign finance reform take place in order that ideas and rights might become as important as money in the political realm. I like the idea of no pork, too. And, of course, free speech is a touchy area requiring finesse and a great deal of respect.

    To analogize this arguement though, it seems that squirrel is pointing to the boxing ring, where Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier, (the Koch bros.) at their peak, are squaring off against Don Knotts and Lou Costello (99% of us) and saying: "hey, that's not fair", to which Puro replies: "Hey, it's 2 against 2, what couldn't be fair?" Of course, I'm lower middle class, and would like someone representing my interests, but hey, maybe the Koch brothers will trickle on me. Is that Rain?
    LMAO. More trickle down economics huh? I remember when Regan was almost able to convince people that trickle down economics were a good thing. He could almost make it sound like you were lucky to be at the bottom, where eventually everything "trickles" down.
    Obviously he did a great job of it, I mean even today trying to put a grip on legislation such as re-instituting something like glas-steagal won't pass - and that's even a neutered version. Only super wealthy people and large corporations know what is best. We humble people will cut each others own throats for scraps.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    Well one thing is for sure, this forum is a dichotomy of the current political situation in this nation. We have the ultra left and the ultra right. The American voter will get to choose which should control the purse strings in short order.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Gypsy...I, and I will even say "we"....are not the ultra left. We are middle, to middle left. Its just the pendulum has swung so far to the right at this time that Ronald Reagan would not get the support of the modern Repubs. The middle is the new left, the right is the new middle, and the far right is too often the far wrong.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Gypsy...I, and I will even say "we"....are not the ultra left. We are middle, to middle left. Its just the pendulum has swung so far to the right at this time that Ronald Reagan would not get the support of the modern Repubs. The middle is the new left, the right is the new middle, and the far right is too often the far wrong.
    iduno... im starting to think the pendulum is gone and it is just starting to split. the farthest to the right republicans/conservatives will cite Reagan at every opportunity. lets face it. He was a huge hero to the political right. he is the measuring stick that the "right wing" (as you often put it) such as Beck, Rush, Hannity, Lavin, etc most often uses. weather he was correct in his thinking can be debated all you want but i find it very hard to find a conservative/republican in the "far right" that does not hold Reagan in very high regards.


    as far as where the "middle" actually is...

    "iduno"

    is about all i have for you.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    phobicsquirrel:
    PuroFreak:
    Vulchor:
    Fair enough----that was not fair to you and was a grouping. However, I also take offense saying I do not believe in our constitution...because I do. What I do not believe however is that it is a black and white document...especially in areas where our founding fathers could not have imagined life and society 200 years later. I think that is what is at play here and where the defintion of freedom of speech as well as who/what/where/when/why its covered is up for some interpretation.
    I never said you don't agree with or believe in our Constitution, and never implied that you don't. I understand you may think there needs to be a change in the Constitution, but as it stands and as it was written, the Supreme Court upheld the law. It is a very black and white issue. Free speech is free speech. If it is going to be granted to people, organizations, churches, the KKK, the Democratic Socialists of America, and every other group, then it applies to the Koch brothers as well.

    When I said the Democratic Socialists of America, I was not referring to the Democrats. I was referring to the actual Socialist party. Just wanted to clarify before anyone got mad because I was calling people names. Was using the organization to make a point.
    I'm just going to say that they did not uphold the constitution. There has been around 100 years of court rulings that suppressed corporations as having free speech (meaning they can use money). Free speech is for people, corporations are not people. they are institutions with people running them. Also the court is not suppose to make law, however they have basically become politicians in robes. They are not elected and are in for life. Which makes our country at the whim of mad-people. At the very least the free speech for corporations should only be for American businesses. No foreign money, however no, that isn't the case. I don't get how you can say it's their money?
    Well yes however when it is being used to undermine this country I find it very disturbing. to each his own I guess however if you love how things have been over the last 10 years get ready for more of it and even worse. Many future novels focus on laws and nations being ruled by a court or corporations and it's not pretty. Fiction they may be, it is getting very close to reality. I look to the turn of the 20th century in America with the barons and I shiver. Seems as though progress has been made but the barons have gotten larger and smarter. Behind the scenes is much worse.
    Then by your line of thinking free speech is not extended to churches, unions, political groups, and even political parties because they are not PEOPLE... They are groups run by people... So allll those ads run by the DNC and GOP are all unconstitutional and we should lock them all up immediately. Also, foreigners and foreign companies can NOT contribute to political campaigns already. I know it would be easier to target the "groups" you don't like and limit their speech, but America doesn't work that way. That's why we broke away from Europe.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I agree Kuzi, he is a modern day Jesus to the right (if you pardon the pun)...I am only saying that if that same Reagan ran today with the same ideas in this type of economic times---I think his opinions might be slightly different...and more importantly, I think the furthest on the right would see him as too centrist. When someone dies and historians start writing the books, they become much easier to like and find the best parts of, this is part of the Reagan mystique within modern day politics.
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    The thing I respected most about Reagan was the instead if moving to the center, he moved the center to him.
Sign In or Register to comment.