# Your Congressman Takes Bribes



## Twalbert (Oct 26, 2011)

Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.

Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.

Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 26, 2011)

Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.

Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.

Yes the money needs to be heaved out of the process or we will lose this country


----------



## konradv (Oct 26, 2011)

Twalbert said:


> Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> 
> Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.
> 
> Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga



When posting on this topic, always remember to include this url.  They're not going to listen to us, unless steps are taken to lessen the influence of money.

Get Money Out


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 26, 2011)

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious.  The basic dishonesty remains.  If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.


----------



## konradv (Oct 26, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> 
> You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious.  The basic dishonesty remains.  If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.



You're conflating two different arguments.  This actually allows the rich to keep more of their money.  Since they'd be barred from contributing to campaigns, they'd have more money to create jobs.  That's what y'all wanted, right?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.
> 
> Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.
> 
> Yes *the money needs to be heaved out of the process* or we will lose this country


Yet you always call for ever larger gov't and regulations that are causing the problem you are always complaining about. The lobbyists only go to where the money is. 

If gov't were small and the people wealthy *THEY WOULD LOBBY US!*


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 26, 2011)

konradv said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> ...



Dishonest politicians will find some way of getting it.  What you are suggesting is to stop dishonesty by eliminating a financial incentive which leaves the dishonesty completely in place.


----------



## konradv (Oct 27, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



What's the payoff for dishonesty, if grubbing for money is taken out of the system?  Are you saying they're dishonest, just to be dishonest?  If that's the case, there really is no solution.  Thanks for playing, but I can't give you anything but a FAIL!!!


----------



## konradv (Nov 2, 2011)

Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

Our political system is really a one-party plutocracy masquerading as a two-party republic.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

Everybody is a lobbiest. Would you have it any other way? Save the whales and save the earth and save the 2nd Amendment. Promote understanding for muslems, Jews, Christians and athiests. It's all lobby. Make it illegal if you want to but quit whining about it.


----------



## Leweman (Nov 8, 2011)

So no one should be able to give money to any campaigns?  What about politicians using tax payer dollars to buy votes to stay in power?  How can anyone compete with that?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.


----------



## konradv (Nov 8, 2011)

whitehall said:


> The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.



That could still happen.  There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist talking to a representitive, it's when money changes hands that the trouble starts.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.
> ...



Of course, the money does not usually exchange hands directly, it is filtered through the party boss and then into the campaign treasury of the poltician being lobbied.

This is the problem with campaign financing.  It is indirect bribery, _though bribery nontheless_, and it effectively squelches the voice of the people as it amplifies the voice of the lobbyist.

The solution is quite simple:  Each candidate should be allotted a fixed stippend of campaign funding from a single, non-partisan treasury that is funded _exclusively_ by public tax dollars.  No private contributions allowed (_and before anybody says it_, we should thus amend the Constitution).


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.
> ...





Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

> Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.



From a moral and practical perspective:  

There is legal bribery, and then there is illegal bribery, and both amount to the same thing.

The issue is certainly not "phony."  Indeed, it is anything but phony.  What is phony is calling one act of bribery legitimate and another illegitimate for no other reason than legal loopholes, when the effect is still the same.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

SigTurner said:


> > Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

whitehall said:


> No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.



So, you're saying that if some entity in the private sector makes a direct cash payment to a specific public official in order to procur a lucrative contract for the provision of widgets to the government at three times their fair market value, it is "illegal bribery" but if the same private entity employs a lobbying firm to make a direct cash payment to the party boss who then deposits a portion of the payment into the campaign chest of the same public official as a laundered general political contribution, with the unwritten (perhaps, not even  directly spoken) understanding that said public official will direct said contract to said private entity in exchange for said contribution, it is ....

_...what?_

Please answer the question, if you don't mind, because if this is not bribery I do not know what it is.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

SigTurner said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.
> ...



It's assumption piled on assumption. If you used the same logic on the "health care law" you would be busy for years and years. The point is that lobbyists are regulated by federal law. The issue is phony.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

whitehall said:


> SigTurner said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Regulated from what?

...making political contributions to the party, or direct cash payoffs to a specific public official?

We all witnessed the enormous influence that lobbying and campaign financing can have over our elected officials with the attempt at healthcare reform during Obama's first years in office:

_Liberal Democrats suddenly transformed into Objectivist Republicans, like a focking spell was cast over them!_


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

SigTurner said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > SigTurner said:
> ...



What are you looking for? Lobbyists ..r..us. Campaign donations are monitored. Bribes are illegal. The system is regulated. Americans can hire and fire representatives every two years. The lobbyist issue is phony.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 8, 2011)

whitehall said:


> SigTurner said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Campaign donations to specific candidates are monitored.  Campaign donations to the specific parties are not so monitored, nor are the _sit downs_ which the party bosses have with specific candidates and specific special interests.  This is where the bribery takes place.  No money is exchanged.  No promises are directly made.  Everything is tacitly understood, and nothing of any substantial evidentiary value toward establishing an indictment of "official misconduct" is transpired during the entire sit down.

...and yet a definite _quid pro quo _is made between all so interested.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 8, 2011)

The post says "your congressman takes bribes". It's obviously a lie but intended to focus on alleged lobbyist abuses except there ain't no lobbyist abuses, only emotional reaction to imagined abuses. Lobbyists ..r...us. We reserve the right to chip in our hard earned taxpayer funds to try to influence the decisions of elected representatives. It's a constitutional right. Whether there are loopholes in the gigantic campaign finance law that allow certain donations to parties rather than candidates has nothing to do with the issue. The lobbyist threat is bogus.


----------



## konradv (Nov 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



The issue is money going from the lobbyists' hands to campaign coffers in return for support.  That's where the trouble starts.  That's not making people aware of an issue.  It's not a phony concern.  Lobbyists would still be able to lobby; they'd just have to check their wallets at the door.


----------



## editec (Nov 9, 2011)

NONE _dare_ call it _bribery_.​ 
Its's _ah_...campaign contribution, see?  Yeah!  that's what it is, see?

Totally legal so just bend over and our political process will show you where the wild goose goes, citizen.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> The post says "your congressman takes bribes". It's obviously a lie but intended to focus on alleged lobbyist abuses except there ain't no lobbyist abuses, only emotional reaction to imagined abuses. Lobbyists ..r...us. We reserve the right to chip in our hard earned taxpayer funds to try to influence the decisions of elected representatives. It's a constitutional right. Whether there are loopholes in the gigantic campaign finance law that allow certain donations to parties rather than candidates has nothing to do with the issue. The lobbyist threat is bogus.



We need to amend the Constitution.  This is the point.  Plutocracy was never the political system intended by the Founding Fathers.  You cannot seriously argue that the finance lobby does not enjoy an enormous advantage over the average middle class citizen in terms of influencing the decisions of our elected representatives, regardless of which candidate from which party is elected.  (Truth is that the finance lobby typically hedges their bets by backing both horses.)  

Lobbyists are much more than a threat.  They are a virulent usurper of democracy.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> SigTurner said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You and your right-wing brethren are some of the biggest moaners, whiners and whingers about the govt.

Reading your posts on this topic, I realise not are you part of the problem, you are an enabler of everything you claim to despise...

If you want a fair and transparent govt, lobbying should be outlawed period (and I'm talking the way it is currently run, not about having an opinion on something and making it an election issue)....


----------



## whitehall (Nov 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > SigTurner said:
> ...



Yeah right, short sighted lefties think we should outlaw lobbyists until they want to save the earth. What they mean is that they want to outlaw conservative lobbyists. Dishonest lefties are a dime a dozen. They took civics 101 and now they want to outlaw everything they disagree with. "Moderate" republican John McCain teamed up with left wing Russ Feingold and announced that they fixed the "campaign finance law". Dumb assed McCain didn't realize that Feingold fixed it so that left wingers like George Soros would now be tax exempt to pump liberal propaganda through "media matters" and a dozen other venues. Meanwhile Americans would be restricted from buying air-time to support the candidate they liked during a period McCain and Feingold decided was too close to the election. If left wingers get their way everything but liberal propaganda will be outlawed. Lobbyists...R...us. We have a Constitutional right to petition the government. The left only becomes hysterical about it when it seems that they might lose an election.


----------



## SigTurner (Nov 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Yeah right, short sighted lefties think we should outlaw lobbyists until they want to save the earth. What they mean is that they want to outlaw conservative lobbyists. Dishonest lefties are a dime a dozen. They took civics 101 and now they want to outlaw everything they disagree with. "Moderate" republican John McCain teamed up with left wing Russ Feingold and announced that they fixed the "campaign finance law". Dumb assed McCain didn't realize that Feingold fixed it so that left wingers like George Soros would now be tax exempt to pump liberal propaganda through "media matters" and a dozen other venues. Meanwhile Americans would be restricted from buying air-time to support the candidate they liked during a period McCain and Feingold decided was too close to the election. If left wingers get their way everything but liberal propaganda will be outlawed. Lobbyists...R...us. We have a Constitutional right to petition the government. The left only becomes hysterical about it when it seems that they might lose an election.



This is NOT a Left v. Right issue.  Shirley, there is enough lobbying from the Left to make everyone sick, including the most moonbat of liberal pansies.

The point is that there is no Left v. Right anymore, not as far as the average citizen is concerned.  All of our elected officials are beholden to upper class nabobs who employ lobbying firms to get whatever they want, over the interests of the middle class citizen, whether he be liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between.

_The middle class vote doesn't count anymore!  Don't you get it?_


----------



## editec (Nov 10, 2011)

ANYBODY STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THIS IS A *LEFT V RIGHT* PROBLEM ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

How blindly partisan does one have to be to see the problem of K STREET as unique to one party or the other?


----------



## konradv (Nov 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> *Dumb assed McCain didn't realize that Feingold fixed it so that left wingers like George Soros would now be tax exempt to pump liberal propaganda through "media matters" and a dozen other venues. *Meanwhile Americans would be restricted from buying air-time to support the candidate they liked during a period McCain and Feingold decided was too close to the election. If left wingers get their way everything but liberal propaganda will be outlawed. Lobbyists...R...us. We have a Constitutional right to petition the government. The left only becomes hysterical about it when it seems that they might lose an election.



So what's your problem with getting Soros out, too?  You'd think you'd be jumping all over this.  *No one* would be able to buy media time, except the candidates themselves in a period before the election.  After all, they're the ones running.


----------



## editec (Nov 10, 2011)

If we truly want to get BIG CAPITAL out of the election process we're going to have to completely change the way we currently oversee and fund elections.

And NOT JUST elections, either, because most of the money that is perverting our election process isn't spend DIRECTLY by the elections committees.

Most of the money spent is being spend by allied to but not directly controlled by the campaigns.

And THAT money is according to he SCOTUS, merely FREE SPEECH manifesting itself.

And, as much as it pains me to admit it, *the SCOTUS is techically and legally right about that.*


So if we are going to change_ this problem?_

We're not going to do it with the US Constitution we currently have.


----------



## konradv (Nov 28, 2011)

Why are health care costs going up?  Is it "Obamacare" or the fact that the health care companies have to recoup their bribes to the Tea Party Caucus in Congress?  They have to keep firing up the brainiacs that carry signs saying "Stop Socialism" on one side and "Don't Touch My Medicare " on the other and that takes dough, brother!!!

Tea Party Caucus Members Bankrolled by Health Professionals, Retirees, Oil Interests - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets


----------



## konradv (Dec 1, 2011)

Looks like Newt WASN'T a registered lobbyist!!!  So, I guess nothing he did really counts.  I think I won't register my vehicle.  Since it won't really be a car then, I can drive it on the sidewalk, right?!?!


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

Who bought Iowa?  What will it really cost us?  All depends what the deals we weren't in on were, right?  Hope you enjoy not having a say.  The results have already been bought and paid for.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 2, 2012)

Lobbyists.. r.. us. Whether it's the greenie Sierra club or the NRA most of us chip in and hire people to speak to elected representatives  for us regarding matters we think are important. That's the way it works. The problem is that we hate the lobbyists who work for the other guy. Grow up people.


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Lobbyists.. r.. us. Whether it's the greenie Sierra club or the NRA most of us chip in and hire people to speak to elected representatives  for us regarding matters we think are important. That's the way it works. The problem is that we hate the lobbyists who work for the other guy. Grow up people.



...OR a constitutional amendment calling for public financing of elections.  Do that and all lobbyists can do is pitch their position, NOT their money.  We need to level the playing field or our representitives will never listen to us, just to those with the deepest pockets.


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.
> 
> Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.
> 
> Yes the money needs to be heaved out of the process or we will lose this country



Chamber of Commerce targets Republicans 9 to 1 for a reason.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Lobbyists.. r.. us. Whether it's the greenie Sierra club or the NRA most of us chip in and hire people to speak to elected representatives  for us regarding matters we think are important. That's the way it works. The problem is that we hate the lobbyists who work for the other guy. Grow up people.
> ...



"Public" financing of elections? You know what "public" means don't you? You want taxpayers to fund ads for politicians against their will? You think the politicians who wrecked Fannie Mae should be able to wreck the electoral system too? It goes back to my original statement. People who complain about lobbyists really like their own lobbyist but they hate the other guys lobbyist. Putting the government in complete control of their own elections is a recipe for disaster...or socialism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2012)

Twalbert said:


> Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> 
> Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.
> 
> Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga



Let me take a wild guess it's your attempt to show that republicans takes bribes
And here's why I think you are doing this



> "I kind of liken it to the Tea Party or to Obama's campaign from 200


Comparing the tea party to the obama campaign when the obama campign had big deep money pockets supporting it

Directing attention to two of the supposed conservative Judges on the supreme court.
ad the OWS movement how come the OWS doesn't go and protest in D.C. and the white house?


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Your lobbyist!!! 

You ever think what they could be doing with that cash, if they weren't buying elections?  Maybe giving us a discounts to pay for elections ourselves?  Besides, can't you see the savings involved in our representives not being lured by the money tree?  Why do you think the deficit's so high?  It ain't all welfare.


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> > Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> ...



If you did some reading instead of just guessing, you wouldn't look so foolish, IMHO, of course.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



There is nothing to LOL about. Lobbyists are doing what we pay them to do. I think we are drifting into another subject besides lobbying. Lobbyists approach elected representatives on behalf of people who are concerned about issues but they don't finance elections. Usually the major political parties solicit funding. It should be noted that the left snickered when Al Gore violated the campaign finance laws but he was a democrat so it didn't matter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Twalbert said:
> ...



Of course this was a partisan attack on republicans?


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Funding is solicited by candidates in those meetings with lobbyists.  Parties mainly do the grass roots stuff.  Representitives' votes are bought retail.


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Are you making a statement or asking a question?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


just pointing out the obvious


----------



## konradv (Jan 2, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That you can't read?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


It appears you can't read. Go back to the first post I made in this thread I gave my reasons why I said what I did.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 2, 2012)

You like your own lobbyist but you think the other guy's lobbyist is a crook. I expect the libs want the greenies to have access to elected representatives but they want the NRA lobbyists in jail. Here's the secret, pay attention to your congressman. The Founding Fathers made him responsible to the people by having to run for election every two years. If you think he is taking bribes make it known and campaign against him but don't be ignorant enough to think that if you deny a citizens right to petition the government you will be solving the problem.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 2, 2012)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> 
> You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious.  The basic dishonesty remains.  If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.



Yep, the only way to get the money out of politics is to quite sending money to Washington.  That means cut the federal budget by 95%.  When politicians no longer have trillions of dollars to distribute, people will no longer have any incentive to bribe them.


----------



## konradv (Jan 3, 2012)

whitehall said:


> You like your own lobbyist but you think the other guy's lobbyist is a crook. I expect the libs want the greenies to have access to elected representatives but they want the NRA lobbyists in jail. Here's the secret, pay attention to your congressman. The Founding Fathers made him responsible to the people by having to run for election every two years. If you think he is taking bribes make it known and campaign against him but don't be ignorant enough to think that if you deny a citizens right to petition the government you will be solving the problem.



Never said anything an bout not petitioning represemtitives.  It's bribing them, I oppose.  As for who it would apply to, what about a constitutional amendment don't you understand?


----------



## konradv (Jan 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So you made something up in your own head.  It has NO relationship to what I've been saying.  Your reasons are all political, while mine was a non-partisan attempt to give a solution to current problems.  If you just want a partisan "gotcha" session, look for someone else to play with.


----------



## editec (Jan 4, 2012)

The system ENCOURAGES bribery of our elected officials.

They have the system so fine-tuned such that the bribes appear to be something other than that, but in the final analysis, that is EXACTLY what they really are.

Face it, kids.

Our system is DESIGNED for criminals, such that their crimes against this nation are perfectly legal.


----------



## konradv (Jan 4, 2012)

editec said:


> The system ENCOURAGES bribery of our elected officials.
> 
> They have the system so fine-tuned such that the bribes appear to be something other than that, but in the final analysis, that is EXACTLY what they really are.
> 
> ...



It's also NOT a matter of making lobbying illegal.  Lobbyists will still be able to influence legislation.  They'll just have to depend on the strength of their arguments, instead of the size of their checkbooks.


----------



## konradv (Jan 5, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> ...



How's that going to happen, if they're getting bribed not to vote that way?  A constitutional amendment establishing public funding of elections is the ONLY way to go.


----------



## konradv (Jan 6, 2012)

I promise to vote for whichever Republican makes a constitutional amendment to establish public financing of elections, a campaign centerpiece.


----------



## konradv (Jan 6, 2012)

konradv said:


> I promise to vote for whichever Republican makes a constitutional amendment to establish public financing of elections, a campaign centerpiece.



Really, if you don't think it's all about the money, regardless of party, you haven't been paying attention.  How are we going to balance the budget, if the big boys can keep bribing representitives to vote for their favorite program or government project?


----------



## konradv (Jan 11, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > I promise to vote for whichever Republican makes a constitutional amendment to establish public financing of elections, a campaign centerpiece.
> ...



Enjoying the "Battle of the PACS", er..., the Republican primaries?


----------



## konradv (Jan 19, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What's with Mitt holding back his tax returns?  What doesn't he want us to know?  If this isn't proof we need public financing of elections, I don't know what is.


----------



## konradv (Jan 19, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I love how you can pay campaign finance fines with SuperPac money.  SWEEEEEEEET!


----------



## konradv (Jan 20, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The Republicans are so enamored of the unfettered free market system, no wonder they totally approve of the buying and selling of our representitives' votes.  Apparently since we're not a democracy, they've got no problem with a plutocracy as long as the government follows the Constitution to THEIR letter.

SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS and let the Reps know it's "one man, one vote", NOT "one dollar, one vote".


----------



## konradv (Jan 22, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Looks like Newt's going to buy this one, unless Mitt sells his soul one... last... time!


----------



## konradv (Jan 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



This field is so weak, Obama could leave half that billion to Hillary in '16.  How does that sit with you?


----------



## konradv (Jan 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



We haven't raised taxes.  Where are those jobs?


----------



## NOSAMRETSAM (Jan 23, 2012)

don't they all take bribes?


----------



## konradv (Jan 24, 2012)

NOSAMRETSAM said:


> don't they all take bribes?



That's why we need public financing of elections.  We're not paying, so they're not listening.


----------



## konradv (Jan 24, 2012)

konradv said:


> NOSAMRETSAM said:
> 
> 
> > don't they all take bribes?
> ...



I don't see why Mitt doesn't just buy this thing.  He's got the green.  It's the American Way!


----------



## konradv (Jan 24, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > NOSAMRETSAM said:
> ...



HEY!!!  Did Newt think he bought that audience?!?!   What's the going rate for human chattel theses days?  With a billion Obama should be able to buy Florida this fall and lay this silly election thing to rest.  It's the American Way!


----------



## konradv (Jan 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What's wrong with taxing interest money over a million at the same rate as wage earners?


----------



## konradv (Jan 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Newt's a fighter and well bought.  I think he's your man.


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



How much is he raking in from aerospace companies?!?!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 27, 2012)

If you want to see how corrupt our politicians are read this

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146]Amazon.com: Throw Them All Out (9780547573144): Peter Schweizer: Books[/ame]

Then maybe you'll understand that the only reason politicians can be bought is because they pass laws allowing it; Laws that only apply to them.

We have to cut the head off of the snake people


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> If you want to see how corrupt our politicians are read this
> 
> Amazon.com: Throw Them All Out (9780547573144): Peter Schweizer: Books
> 
> ...



Wouldn't not allowing them to solicit campaign funds, do just that?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to see how corrupt our politicians are read this
> ...



The graft goes way beyond campaign funds.

Here's one illustration.

If you were a businessman and walked into your senator's office with 100K in cash and handed it to him while mentioning an upcoming vote that you would want consideration on then you would be committing a crime, correct?

Answer: 100% correct and you'd probably go to jail

But if you walk into said senator's office and say, "Senator, my company is going public in a month now I can sell you 20,000 shares at $5 apiece before the IPO.  We expect the IPO to open at $100 a share.  I'll even let you buy the stock on margin (credit) so you don't have to come up with the 100K.  Now about that bill we were discussing earlier......"

Now your senator can take his stock that he didn't pay for and sell it the day of the IPO for 2 million dollars and it's 100% legal but that type of deal is only legal for members of congress and not for you or me.  We'd go to jail.

So who is more at fault, the people who write laws that apply only to them that are designed solely for their financial benefit or the businessmen who know about the laws and try to use them in their favor?

Haven't any of you people wondered how a congressman making 160K a year can become a multi-miilionaire after just a few terms?

Well now you know.


----------



## editec (Jan 27, 2012)

Bribery is now legal.

Bribery is now a form of free speech.

*We can thank both parties for this.*


----------



## BillyV (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS and let the Reps know it's "one man, one vote", NOT "one dollar, one vote".



George Will - "Beware when the political class preens about protecting us from special interests. The most powerful, persistent and anti-constitutional interest is the political class."

GEORGE WILL: In disclose act, a free speech clamp » Standard-Times



> The Supreme Court has blocked implementation of Arizonas Clean Elections Act. Under it, candidates who accept taxpayer funding of their campaigns receive extra infusions of tax dollars to match funds raised by competitors who choose to rely on voluntary contributions. The law punishes people who do not take taxpayer funds. Its purpose, which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, is to restrict spending  and the dissemination of speech that spending enables  to equalize candidates financial assets. This favors incumbents, who have the myriad advantages of office. And it is patently intended to cripple candidates funded by voluntary contributions: Who wants to give to a candidate when the donation will trigger a nearly dollar-for-dollar gift to the candidate  or candidates  the contributor opposes? Just as the new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the single payer, laws like Arizonas are steps toward total public financing of campaigns  government monopolizing funding for campaigns that determine the control of government.



Public financing simply gives a different person the advantage, mainly the incumbent over any challengers. As for congressional "insider trading", it should rightly be outlawed; those seeking federal office should be required to deposit any personal funds into a blind trust or at least not be allowed to own individual stocks. That's just common sense.


----------



## Full-Auto (Jan 27, 2012)

editec said:


> Bribery is now legal.
> 
> Bribery is now a form of free speech.
> 
> *We can thank both parties for this.*



Can we go with cuss both parties?


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Different question than campaign financing, but 'yes' I don't think insider trading should be allowed either.  Can that be clause #2 in a new Constitutional amendment?


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

BillyV said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS and let the Reps know it's "one man, one vote", NOT "one dollar, one vote".
> ...



The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing.  Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.


----------



## BillyV (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing.  Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.



I think many of those incumbents voted out in 2010 would disagree with you. Mandated public funding is a suppression of free speech, and seems a bit too much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Incumbents have the advantage when things are going relatively smoothly and the electorate becomes complacent. It seems pretty clear that when things aren't going the direction the people want it to go, ultimately they listen to someone else's ideas. Why shouldn't that someone else be allowed to spread that message as widely as they want (or can get support for)?


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

BillyV said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing.  Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.
> ...



Then they should run for office.  Whoever speaks for the candidate, should be working with the candidate.  Why should we allow millions to be given by a few to the people who will write laws for the many?  Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario?  If money is speech, as you seem to imply, why should some get a megaphone while others are on mute?


----------



## BillyV (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I _am_ assuming the "someone else" is running for office. Why do you want him/her to be limited to spending only what the government allows? Who do you see coming out ahead in that scenario? Entrenched bureaucracy will win that every time.

It also seems somewhat cynical to assume in all cases that a candidate votes based on campaign contributions. It seems every bit as likely to me that the campaign contributions come as a result of the contributors' support of policies already espoused by the candidate, not the other way around. Money helps spread that message, but doesn't necessarily imply quid pro quo.


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

BillyV said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention?  _Quid pro quo_ is EXACTLY what's happening.  Why would commercial interests contribute because of policy positions?  They're in it for the money and making sure they get their perks.  Cut off the money and you'd have to get bribed the old-fashioned way with the old-fashioned punishment, prison, instead of the new-fashion, re-election.


----------



## BillyV (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



How can you conclude that with any degree of certainty? The answer is you can't. If Candidate Jones comes out on a green energy platform and has voter support, green companies are going to support him. Why? Because he's already made it clear that if he is elected he will support green energy. Where is the quid pro quo?


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

BillyV said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...



Why would they support a newbie, if an incumbent is already in place?  It doesn't make economic sense to spend money on a "maybe" when a sure thing is practically begging for your attention.  Money talks and I feel that there's only one way to go; we supply the money and they'll have to listen to us instead of special interests.

The degree of certainty I'm aiming for is 100%.  If candidates can't accept contributions, then they'll have to make all those decisions on their merits and not because they need campaign dough.


----------



## BillyV (Jan 27, 2012)

konradv said:


> Why would they support a newbie, if an incumbent is already in place?  It doesn't make economic sense to spend money on a "maybe" when a sure thing is practically begging for your attention.  Money talks and I feel that there's only one way to go; we supply the money and they'll have to listen to us instead of special interests.
> 
> The degree of certainty I'm aiming for is 100%.  If candidates can't accept contributions, then they'll have to make all those decisions on their merits and not because they need campaign dough.



Maybe because the incumbent is for something else? You can't envision a situation where an incumbent supports big oil and a "newbie" supports green energy? Obviously if there is no difference in the policies of two candidates for public office then it's just a beauty contest, and the money means nothing. And in any case, government officials and party faithful will find a way to ensure the incumbents' victory if they have control of a public funding process. Who qualifies for funds? Who decides who qualifies for funds? Does everyone get the same amount regardless of levels of support? Believe me, the maze of rules that would follow would be more twisted than Debbie Wasserman Schultz's gerrymandered district:





No thanks; I'll take the status quo.


----------



## konradv (Jan 27, 2012)

BillyV said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they support a newbie, if an incumbent is already in place?  It doesn't make economic sense to spend money on a "maybe" when a sure thing is practically begging for your attention.  Money talks and I feel that there's only one way to go; we supply the money and they'll have to listen to us instead of special interests.
> ...



There's a maze of rules now.  I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there.  The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.


----------



## konradv (Jan 28, 2012)

konradv said:


> There's a maze of rules now.  I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there.  The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.



I wonder what kind of politics we'd get, if people the people were heard, instead of  special interests.  They still be able to lobby, just not directly or indirectly contribute to campaigns and skew their arguments with cash.


----------



## konradv (Jan 30, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > There's a maze of rules now.  I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there.  The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.
> ...



What, nobody likes my idea?  No one even wants to call me an idiot?


----------



## konradv (Feb 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Feb 4, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Single issue bills, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.


----------



## konradv (Feb 6, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



A good article about what can happen when campaign financing gets out of control.

Forgetting a key lesson from Watergate? - CNN.com


----------



## konradv (Feb 9, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Are we going to see the Pope contributing to a PAC now?


----------



## konradv (Feb 10, 2012)

konradv said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



How is the RCC refusing insurance to its employees not establishment of religious principle and an abridgement of the religious rights of those employees?  No one is asking them to provide birth control or abortions, just insurance.  Tell your Congresscritters that.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 10, 2012)

There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either. 

"The Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress, aptly named "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)."

CREW inventoried the "transgressions" of each member of Congress under the microscope of federal law and congressional rules."

Some highlights:

*- The three most corrupt Senate members are the infamous Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN), and Rick Santorum (R-PA)
- Seventeen of the twenty "Most Corrupt" politicians are Republicans
- Four of the "Five Members To Watch" are Republicans
- All but one of the 25 Members of Congress included on the list are up for re-election*

CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress
Press | CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith


----------



## konradv (Feb 10, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.
> 
> "The Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress, aptly named "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)."
> 
> ...



Thanks, I was getting lonely.


----------



## konradv (Feb 11, 2012)

Sign up and get the money out!  

Rootstrikers


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 11, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.



The market doesn't create corruption, government does.  Corruption can only occur when you're spending other people's money.  When corporations are spending their own money, they create mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the money is spent as intended.  In the case of government, the very people who are responsible for the corruption are the ones you are asking to prevent it.  Only  the terminally gullible believe that's ever going to happen.



midcan5 said:


> The Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress, aptly named "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)."



They are already off on the wrong foot.  Delay wasn't corrupt.  His only crime was whipping the Democrats at their own game.



midcan5 said:


> CREW inventoried the "transgressions" of each member of Congress under the microscope of federal law and congressional rules."



CREW is a leftwing propaganda organ, so we can just ignore anything it has to say.



midcan5 said:


> Some highlights:
> 
> *- The three most corrupt Senate members are the infamous Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN), and Rick Santorum (R-PA)
> - Seventeen of the twenty "Most Corrupt" politicians are Republicans
> ...



Wow!  What a shock!  CREW, a left-wing propaganda organ, decided Republicans are corrupt?  Who would ever have thunk it?!



midcan5 said:


> "This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith



Smith was not God.  He wasn't right about everything.  The universal cause of corruption is spending other people's money, especially when it's obtained through force.


----------



## jillian (Feb 11, 2012)

konradv said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> > Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> ...



Williams is an impressive guy. he's not wrong either.


----------



## jillian (Feb 11, 2012)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> 
> You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious.  The basic dishonesty remains.  If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.



no one is "envious". that is stupid.

no one wants to "redistribute" it... well at least not most of us.

but it doesn't belong in politics. there should be a set amount of federal funds for each campaign. those funds should come from government. it would level the playing field.

eight families shouldn't have more political power than the rest of the country.


----------



## konradv (Feb 12, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.
> ...



Well, they spend their money on campaign contributions, so I guess they're getting what they intended, a corrupt government.  Seems you're tripping on your own argument!!!


----------



## Texanmike (Feb 14, 2012)

Y'all are missing the point here.  The real issue is the jobs/benefits that are promised our politicians after their term in office.  

Mike


----------



## konradv (Feb 14, 2012)

Texanmike said:


> Y'all are missing the point here.  The real issue is the jobs/benefits that are promised our politicians after their term in office.



I don't feel I'm missing the point, just that you've brought up different one.  If we get people in office that aren't selling out to a special interest, maybe they'll change those rules, too.  I agree that public financing doesn't do anything about that situation,_ per se_, just hoping a new breed of representitive would be open to all sorts of reform.  We're already seeing it in the "insider trading" debate.


----------



## konradv (Feb 15, 2012)

konradv said:


> Sign up and get the money out!
> 
> Rootstrikers



It'll cost us less in the long run to finance elections, than having our representitives making promises about what they're going to do with OUR tax money to whomever gives them the biggest campaign check.


----------



## konradv (Feb 16, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2DaTCDsZ0]The PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE song - Jim Terr - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (Feb 16, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a38LnLVX9Ow]Jim Hightower - Why We Need Public Financing for Elections - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CaughtInTheMid (Feb 16, 2012)

konradv said:


> Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!



or which party has the prettiest girls.


----------



## konradv (Feb 16, 2012)

CaughtInTheMid said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!
> ...



Give me some Hillary in '16.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## konradv (Feb 16, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



So, would Jefferson be pro- or anti-public funding, given the situation we have today?


----------



## konradv (Feb 17, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I'd like to think he'd look warily at the creation of a new nobility of those who can afford to pay for access to the people in power.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 17, 2012)

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist,  lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 17, 2012)

*Your Congressman Takes Bribes *

Nah,,say it isn't so!


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 17, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist,  lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?



If that is what it takes to clean up then "ALL OF IT".


----------



## konradv (Feb 18, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist,  lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?



Lobbyists can still lobby.  They just wouldn't be able to have an effect on a campaign.  This is about MONEY, not talking.  Lobbyists need to depend on their arguments, not promises exacted because they can bundle more cash than the next guy.  This is also not a left-right issue, but a budget issue.  Even if we finance elections, I think we come out ahead monetarily, because our representitives don't have as many expensive promises to keep.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 18, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist,  lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?
> ...



 Maybe you have lobbyists confused with campaign donors who want to see their candidate elected. It's a different issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and lefties have been whining about it ever since. Live with it. The Constitution says that the people have the right to petition the government. That's lobbying. Live with that too.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 18, 2012)

Has it even occurred to the radical left that the "occupy" movement is lobbying on steroids? The OWS rabble seems fine to lefties because they always prefer lobbying by intimidation rather than following the rules. OWS gets away with their antics because it's a free speech issue but the Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech doesn't seem to sink into their thick heads. The truly ignorant even have the nerve to suggest that government be in charge of financing elections while the rest of us are tied and gagged on the sidelines. I'm sure the incumbent candidates would love being in charge of doling out funds to their opponents campaigns. The bottom line is that we are all lobbyists. We donate money or or our time or voice our opinions to petition the government to do the things we want them to do within the rules set by the government and monitored by the Supreme Court. Would you rather have fascism or anarchy?


----------



## konradv (Feb 18, 2012)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Those campaign donors, if they're average, don't have the clout of a few big guys.  It's those big guys that are blowing up the deficit.  I don't even think it's a left-right issue.  We'll never know who really won, if the game is rigged.  I think it would cost the public less in the long run to finance elections.  And once again, I have absolutely nothing against petitioning the government.  It's the bribery and added cost of government, that concerns me.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 18, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



You actually think government financing of elections would work? Look how Social Security turned out. Incumbents would like nothing better than be in charge of financing their opponents campaigns. Meanwhile Americans would be forced to sit on the sidelines while hollywood slipped in some propaganda before the election or we see "trusted" news sources like CBS using forged documents to try to influence an election. The Supreme Court determined that money is speech and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech. The teachers in Wisconsin called in sick and left their classrooms to riot in order to try to lobby the Wisconsin government by intimidation. Their actions were guaranteed by the 1st Amendment even if their conduct broke a couple of state rules. The problem with the left is that they want the 1st Amendment to be about rioting and occupying and burning the Flag but they want to silence everyone else.


----------



## konradv (Feb 19, 2012)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



What part of everybody gets the same, don't you understand.  Enjoying Obama's billion dollar war chest, half of which he'll leave to Hillary for '16, because the current crop of Reps is so pathetic?  I wonder why so many people riot?  Maybe it's because the pols don't listen to the little guy.  This isn't a right-left thing, but the average guy against a rigged game.  If we pay, they have to listen to us.  Right now the 1st amendment isn't really working for you, if your speech isn't being listened to.  Sure it's free, but that doesn't buy you a seat at the table.  CASH does.


----------



## konradv (Feb 20, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEsjDdk8vpg]Rep. Pocan launches 100% public financing bill - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CausingPAIN (Feb 20, 2012)

Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!


----------



## konradv (Feb 21, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!



ME, I'd want a new government.


----------



## konradv (Feb 22, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAKAsdTzbY]Public Financing of Election Campaigns CEPersVid-16 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



If we had real leaders and patriots like Jefferson today the nation would be much better off, instead we have "the legalized version of the first" per his quote.
I do not believe he would be against public funding as long as such would not tilt power away from the people.
Think about why so much is spent on running for a position that doesn't pay nearly what it cost to run for...
The money spent by the lobbyists groups, corporations, and banks on their candidate is "paid back" by the candidate by pushing through legislation that benefits them many times over.
It's a rigged system, a special club, that you aren't a member of.

New York Times writer Eric Lichtblau commented in his article headlined, Economic Downturn Took a Detour at Capitol Hill, saying:
In 1991, Representative Ed Pastor (D. AR) entered Congress with around $100,000 in savings and as much debt owed banks. Now hes a millionaire, one of 250 in Congress.

They do it through stock trades and privileged business deals. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert earmarked funding for a federal highway project on land he owned. He later sold it for $2 million.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi profited from eight IPOs, including some that had business before her House. So have other congressional members, past and present.

Former Senator Bob Dole bought shares in Automatic Data Processing four days before GHW Bush signed legislation with new military data processing rules benefitting the company handsomely.

Former Speaker and Republican presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich bought Boeing stock just before he helped kill amendments to cut International Space Station funding. It helped Boeing secure a lucrative contract.

Money Power Runs America | BobTuskin.com

Perhaps if the little money got together, (the average citizen), instead of bickering over the BS they want us to, to distract us and separate us, we would have a better chance of advancing candidates, and causes that would benefit the average person instead of the elite. Or perhaps disallow the PACS loophole, and enforce the caps on campaign donations.


----------



## konradv (Feb 22, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Perhaps if the little money got together, (the average citizen), instead of bickering over the BS they want us to, to distract us and separate us, we would have a better chance of advancing candidates, and causes that would benefit the average person instead of the elite. Or perhaps disallow the PACS loophole, and enforce the caps on campaign donations.



That's just tinkering.  I think we need a complete overhaul.  Tinkering in the past has often made things worse, e.g. unlimited PAC money.


----------



## Unknown_Soldier (Feb 22, 2012)

If my Congressman isn't taking bribes I'm gonna be pissed.


----------



## konradv (Feb 22, 2012)

Unknown_Soldier said:


> If my Congressman isn't taking bribes I'm gonna be pissed.



So it's been said.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!
> ...




You can get new Congressperson with a little chance of change....

  YOU!  ARE!  STUCK!  WITH!  NO! CHANCE!  IN!  HELL! 
Getting a new Goverment!


----------



## konradv (Feb 23, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CausingPAIN said:
> ...



If you're willing to give up, that's you.  What's cuckoo about wanting a government that isn't bought by the highest bidder?  Got any solutions?


----------



## CausingPAIN (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What's cuckoo, is entertaining any hope of change now or in future. Not possible, see our past history. No way will the so called 1 % be giving anything up or back, that is the reality of the future. When a civil war breaks out, I will entertain thinking over any possible new outcomes or possible changes to this reality of government. As for giving up, or wanting new government. Hmm. Not wasting my time with unrealistic thoughts of impossible changes in the future. These fantasy are not a part of my understanding what the reality is now and into the future! So please keep dreaming and enjoy wasting your time.


----------



## konradv (Feb 23, 2012)

CausingPAIN said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CausingPAIN said:
> ...



Isn't that what we're all doing here or are you just here to be a douchebag?  Might as well just give up, I guess.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

whitehall said:


> The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.



Problem is that almost no one calls up their rep.  Most lobbyists work for industry groups or the extremely wealthy, not for the little guy.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

SigTurner said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Agreed.  I used to think that educating the populace would do the job but things are too complicated and stuff will still get decided in private and snuck through.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

SigTurner said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right, short sighted lefties think we should outlaw lobbyists until they want to save the earth. What they mean is that they want to outlaw conservative lobbyists. Dishonest lefties are a dime a dozen. They took civics 101 and now they want to outlaw everything they disagree with. "Moderate" republican John McCain teamed up with left wing Russ Feingold and announced that they fixed the "campaign finance law". Dumb assed McCain didn't realize that Feingold fixed it so that left wingers like George Soros would now be tax exempt to pump liberal propaganda through "media matters" and a dozen other venues. Meanwhile Americans would be restricted from buying air-time to support the candidate they liked during a period McCain and Feingold decided was too close to the election. If left wingers get their way everything but liberal propaganda will be outlawed. Lobbyists...R...us. We have a Constitutional right to petition the government. The left only becomes hysterical about it when it seems that they might lose an election.
> ...



Sig, no matter how realistic and logical your arguments are, Whitehall will never get it, because she doesn't want to.  When someone falls back to name calling as an argument, as she has, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will change her mind.  Logic or real events don't count.  Don't waste your breathe or your time.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Lobbyists.. r.. us. Whether it's the greenie Sierra club or the NRA most of us chip in and hire people to speak to elected representatives  for us regarding matters we think are important. That's the way it works. The problem is that we hate the lobbyists who work for the other guy. Grow up people.
> ...



This of course is the solution if we want to keep our democracy which is on the borderline of failure.  Gerrymandering, PAC's,  voter disqualification by ARBITRARY identification requirements, and unneeded voting time limits will finish the job.  Push the populace too hard. What comes next? Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

whitehall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Who is "we"?  Industry groups and the very wealthy who can afford to fund the lobbyists so the funders can obtain some financial advantage.  Whirehall, if you're not connected to or are in one of these two groups then you're defending a process that's agianst your own economic interest.


----------



## stans (Feb 23, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever.  But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!
> ...



Cut the budget by 95% and disband the military cause we can't pay for it.  Are you sure that's what you want?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if the little money got together, (the average citizen), instead of bickering over the BS they want us to, to distract us and separate us, we would have a better chance of advancing candidates, and causes that would benefit the average person instead of the elite. Or perhaps disallow the PACS loophole, and enforce the caps on campaign donations.
> ...



I tend to agree with you on that, problem is HTF do we overhaul anything without agreeing how bad things are? I mean we have people still stuck in the left/right paradigm, arguing over bottom tier issues, while everything including our rights are being eroded at the hands of both party's, which is just a two headed snake..

Once we understand that the petty decisive issues coming out of the TV psyop box are just a way of distracting, and dividing us, the country would have a chance at being saved by an overhaul/revolution, mainly by having strength in a larger, hopefully unified voice.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I don't read any change here, just bitch and whine about issues. Or simply one side is right and the other side careless to grow or compromise on any level on just about anything. These threads may change a few minds now a then, but will not change politic overall. This site would have to have 30 million plus in devotees both R & Ds to vote one way that demands change. Isnt going to happen and not here by any means.   

Ref: As this is a sample below of history, and if we cant control it we cant make it change. Just back and forth crap as always. And will not touch the electoral college anyhow as this is the BAD key that needs to be re-cut. We are about 56% Democrat country now and growing, and not for the good. 

Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
United States Elections Project
President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times


----------



## Spectre13 (Feb 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.
> 
> Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.
> 
> Yes the money needs to be heaved out of the process or we will lose this country



We have already lost this country. It has not been a democracy in many years. We play at pretending to be a democracy, but it has not been anything but rich men's play toy.


----------



## Spectre13 (Feb 23, 2012)

stans said:


> SigTurner said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Finally! I have been yelling this for years.  We have to reboot the entire system.  Presidential election is discrimintory against the non-wealthy and we allow it. The ONLY choice we have is one or the other rich guy, who can't even relate to us.
We allow the career politicians to run amock and we wonder what the hell happened.
We need term limits and get rid of the legal money laundering operations, (PACs). Serving in Congress should be like serving in the military. If you want to make money get out and go do it in the private sector.


----------



## konradv (Feb 23, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



It may be a pipe dream, but the Tea Party and Occupy movement need to join forces.  What could be more non-partisan than making sure everyone is heard?  Not only that, IMO we'd save money in the long run, if our representitives don't have a lot of expensive promises to keep.  The bonus prize is, since they wouldn't be spending so much time hunting for cash, our representitives might actually have time to read a bill or two!


----------



## konradv (Feb 23, 2012)

Spectre13 said:


> stans said:
> 
> 
> > SigTurner said:
> ...



Not only that, "outlawing lobbying" is a TOTAL LIE.  This is about the money, NOT speech.


----------



## Spectre13 (Feb 23, 2012)

SigTurner said:


> Our political system is really a one-party plutocracy masquerading as a two-party republic.



Or an economic oligarchy run by tyrants who have bought out the "democratic process".


----------



## Spectre13 (Feb 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Or deciding corporations are people. What an absurd notion. Only a super rich guy can make that turd fly, but with enough money people will say they see little pink elephants tippy-toeing across the living room.

That will never happen because half the tea party are part of the wealthy class trying to subvert everything but their very narrow bandwidth of ideas. Besides, Republicans are not populist and will never support any idea but a fascist leaning philosophy. Anything less will drag out the term "marxist" or whatever ancient term they can, since they don't look to the future...only to the past.


----------



## konradv (Feb 24, 2012)

Spectre13 said:


> SigTurner said:
> 
> 
> > Our political system is really a one-party plutocracy masquerading as a two-party republic.
> ...



Only vote for candidates who are at least open to public financing.  It may take years to convince enough people but, IMO, it's a battle worth fighting.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



_Editor Comment:
This could be a big deal. While progressives have major problems with much of the teaparty's values, I've always felt that if the left and the teaparty could get together on anything, it could prove incredibly powerful. So, this is not the left. It is the Occupy movement, a far less ideological movement, but one with amazing potency and promise. I hope we see a lot more of this, and that this even is wildly successful._

OpEdNews - Article: Occupy & Tea Party Join Forces to Protest NDAA

Hopefully it's a start to unifying both groups on major issues like the NDAA and other similar issues that are extremely important as well.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2012)

Spectre13 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.
> ...



The civil rights movement should give us encouragement and remove some of the apathy. United in overwhelming numbers, and using civil disobedience can turn the tide and create the change we are discussing here.
It takes courage and discipline like the freedom riders and many others of that movement had. They too had different opinions on how to accomplish their goal, and who would be leaders etc.. but they mostly succeeded.

The PTB know if we were unified and displayed our displeasure about the current situation we find ourselves in
shit would really hit the fan, why do you think all the police state laws are being rushed through, and anyone can be labeled a "terrorist" for the most trivial of things we used to take for granted?
A united disgruntled citizenry is a terrifying thought to them.


----------



## konradv (Feb 25, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Spectre13 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



The civil rights movement is a good example.  So many say public financing will never happen, but they said the same thing about integration.  NAACP founded 1909, major civil rights acts enacted in the 1960s.  Don't give up, even if it takes a while.


----------



## konradv (Feb 26, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv1QIhBBKZE]MSNBC: Corruption & the Case for Public Financing of Elections, 12/27/10 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 26, 2012)

Somehow I knew this would turn into the public campaign finance reform nonissue. So, how is getting this measure passed into law working out?


----------



## konradv (Feb 26, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Somehow I knew this would turn into the public campaign finance reform nonissue. So, how is getting this measure passed into law working out?



Unlike libertarianism, at least it has a chance.  NAACP founded 1909, major civil rights acts enacted in the 1960s.  Sorry, if things aren't going fast enough for you, but at least it's more worthwhile to talk about actual solutions, than whining about "corporatism", when the answer is staring you in the face.    (Not "cool" this time, but a symbol of some people's bindness)


----------



## Spectre13 (Feb 28, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Spectre13 said:
> ...



The only problem with that is you get accused by the right of being "Alinskis," like he invented the idea. Just another absurd assertion from the lack of fact right wing fascist types. I guess the Magna Carta just spontaneously appeared from some great parnormal cloud or something. Organizing has been around for quite a while.  The application may be slightly different, but people didn't just wake up feeling particularly pissy one day and decide to organize to promote a greater outcome for a particular society at a particular point in time.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 28, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Spectre13 said:
> ...



This proposed movement, OWS, Tea Party and the likes shouldn't take as long to accomplish as the civil rights movement did, as ALL are being subjected to the current abuses of power and the privileged, not just a small percentage of a minority.
The more of the populace that is effected, the greater the numbers have increased to protest and speak out, and educating others.


----------



## konradv (Mar 1, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> This proposed movement, OWS, Tea Party and the likes shouldn't take as long to accomplish as the civil rights movement did, as ALL are being subjected to the current abuses of power and the privileged, not just a small percentage of a minority.
> The more of the populace that is effected, the greater the numbers have increased to protest and speak out, and educating others.



I hope you're right.  I won't live to see it, if it takes as long as civil rights.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This proposed movement, OWS, Tea Party and the likes shouldn't take as long to accomplish as the civil rights movement did, as ALL are being subjected to the current abuses of power and the privileged, not just a small percentage of a minority.
> ...


If not in our lifetime due to our age, then for the future of our children and grandchildren and so on.
If you study the process of how we wound up in our current situation and mess, one would see that it was a long and calculated process.

The implementation e.g. of a private central bank in the US did not spring up overnight, indeed it was a plan that was implemented and put into motion by many who did not live to see it finally come to pass in 1913, thus in order to reverse such atrocities like the Fed Reserve, the same mindset of perhaps having to endure a long protracted effort, with the goal in mind to rid ourselves of it, should not deter us, for the sake of our country, and future generations.

Education on this and other topics of importance is vital, and it starts, i.e., with adding or subtracting factual caveats when discussing homework, or what our children are learning in school, and explaining to them from an early age, that everything may not be as it seems, of course backing up the interjections with true facts,
soon we will have a more educated youngster, immersed in factual history, instead of indoctrinated 'bots that simply repeat whatever propaganda is told/taught to them that can be dispelled by the truth.

Imagine a majority of educated people questioning the actions of government, and downright angry at being lied to about many things...a mass movement demanding REAL change would spring forth, and only those that are in step with reality, truth, honesty and their constituents who have these values, would be trusted to hold positions of political office.
If only greed would be demonized on the same level as real constitutional values, fairness, and freedom seem to be today, progress would be made more swiftly.

Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch [14-Feb-12 © FoxBusiness] - YouTube


----------



## Spectre13 (Mar 1, 2012)

konradv said:


> CausingPAIN said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



There is a solution. Look at Switzerland's government. It is a direct democracy.  There are a lot of things that would cut out a bunch of Congressional bullshit. The people have the authority to overturn anything that is not in the interests of the people and the country. Here is  one thing I think would help.  Every party gets a shot at governing, so no one is left out.  They say it is a thrifty government that has far less corruption and most of the bills passed, benefit everyone.   I am not totally schooled but I think several countries have this type of government, including parts of Germany, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## konradv (Apr 20, 2012)

_&#8220;We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,&#8221; Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
&#8220;I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,&#8221; said Pelosi. &#8220;Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders&#8217; vision and we want to reverse it.&#8221;_ 

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

I fully support her sentiments and would expand on them by saying "WE should be paying". It's not a right-left thing, but a method to rein in corruption and overspending. I really don't see where the concern over illegality is found in her comments.


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Spectre13 said:


> There is a solution. Look at Switzerland's government. It is a direct democracy.  There are a lot of things that would cut out a bunch of Congressional bullshit. The people have the authority to overturn anything that is not in the interests of the people and the country. Here is  one thing I think would help.  Every party gets a shot at governing, so no one is left out.  They say it is a thrifty government that has far less corruption and most of the bills passed, benefit everyone.   I am not totally schooled but I think several countries have this type of government, including parts of Germany, if I am not mistaken.



How do they fund their elections?  Because Wall St. gives money to both parties, the excesses exposed in 2008 haven't been fixed.  A bank failing in Europe could lead to a bank failing here and then another and we're right back in the predicament we were in four years ago.  

SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS AND GET THE BUYING AND SELLING OF OUR REPRESENTITIVES' VOTES OUT OF THE SYSYTEM.


----------



## Dante (Apr 23, 2012)

Twalbert said:


> Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> 
> Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.
> 
> Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga



stfu please. not every congressman is corrupt.

did you forget, suicide is a viable option?


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> > Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.
> ...



Not everyone is a thief, but we stll have protections against those who are.  Being a Congressman is a privilege.  As our employees, they need to bend to our will or find another job.


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Somehow I knew this would turn into the public campaign finance reform nonissue. So, how is getting this measure passed into law working out?



You're getting boring.  Crawl back into your empty refrigerator box and sleep it off.


----------



## Dante (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Twalbert said:
> ...



We elect Representatives and Senators to represent us. We do NOT hire them to work for us.

reality check

People like you live in a childish make believe world.


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



If they're not working for us, who are they working for?  Isn't that the problem?  They're working for whomever is the biggest bundler of campaign funds.  Thanks for your comment, but "let's enable them" is hardly a solution.


----------



## Dante (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The childish notion that a representative works for you is just that, childish. It's a populist myth. We elect representatives. If you want to advocate rule by ballot initiative and plebiscite, go ahead. 
whack yourself silly


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Dante said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



We pay them; how can they not be working for us?  That doesn't make sense at all.  Ballot initiative?  Plebiscite?  Do you read the threads at all or just shoot from the hip?  Public financing of elections, that's the ticket!


----------



## konradv (Apr 25, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmFZWWWfbnw]Public Financing of Elections - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (Apr 30, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTpd9Nf-uSo]Support the Fair Elections Now Act: Fix Congress to Restore Trust in Our Democracy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (May 2, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjgLv_wKTBM]Change Congress co-founder Larry Lessig makes small-government case for public financing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (May 4, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a26IPMGV07w]Will you support public financing of campaigns? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2012)

He knows what he's talking about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4KnX75qqI]Jack Abramoff on Legalized Bribery in Congress - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2012)

Getting a lot of SPIN from the Reps today.  On the one hand, money is speech.  On the other hand the 7-1 advantage held by the Reps in WI did not effect the voters' reasons for their choice.  Then why all the flack over limiting money?


----------



## signelect (Jun 13, 2012)

As long as our current system is allowed to existg nothing will change.  Congressmen and women make a lot of money at their job.  Their families are employed by the gov't, contractors and lobbist.  Trips are paid for, laws are passed that they don't have to obey and the beat goes on.  My biggest gripe is that my SS money that was suppossed to be in a trust fund was stolen by congress for their on end and I am left with the dregs.


----------



## konradv (Jun 14, 2012)

signelect said:


> As long as our current system is allowed to existg nothing will change.  Congressmen and women make a lot of money at their job.  Their families are employed by the gov't, contractors and lobbist.  Trips are paid for, laws are passed that they don't have to obey and the beat goes on.  My biggest gripe is that my SS money that was suppossed to be in a trust fund was stolen by congress for their on end and I am left with the dregs.



They don't care about you, because you're not the one paying the bills.


----------

