Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your understanding is your understanding, That is all.
Citizens United = dark money
Read some history about money involved in any.........campaign.
You say all that, but you offer no backing whatsoever. When someone responds to a complete argument with statements that they don't bother qualifying, it's usually because that person is incapable of logical debate or completely unequipped for the topic at hand, but I'm willing to make a leap of faith and ask you to clarify.
What has citizens united done to this country?
What is it about citizens united that is ethically wrong?
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
If it's not about money, then could it be about power, egos, influence, some form of self-service, or maybe the attention? What motive, other than money drives them?Charles Koch: We're not in politics to boost our bottom line
Charles Koch We re not in politics to boost our bottom lineCharles Koch and his industrial empire are mounting an aggressive new defense of his company and his political advocacy, with the billionaire insisting his work to help elect Republicans is rooted in his decades-long quest to "increase well-being in society."
"We are doing all of this to make more money?" Koch said of charges that his drive to limit government's power will increase his bottom line. "I mean, that is so ludicrous."
He isn't being disingenuous as my thread title would lead you to believe if you were a stupid liberal, but the fact is that if liberal policies are rolled back, government encroachment is reversed, and free markets are no longer interfered with by bureaucrooks and crony capitalists (fascists) the entire country will prosper, and so would the Kochs. The top priority is defeating the regressives. Not "compromising" with wrong, just defeating it and giving it no quarter.
Since when is making money and being your own boss evil?
No it isn't, what makes you say that??
What is the difference between Unions and Corporations?
None
If it is leagal for Unions, it is legal for Corporations.
They are all citizens (unions and corporations) who are voicing their opinions and backing the people who they want to vote for, as quoted by boilermaker55 - to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
And of course they don't realize that the biggest donors in the country are the unions...far and above everyone else.....
Union exist to keep employers in check. Need evidence, read some history.
How do you know Union are the diggest donors in the country, and why should anyone believe you. Provide credible and probative evidence.
They all have to make them public for the people to see, It's the law.
Top Organization Contributors OpenSecrets
Hey, a very interesting link. First, thanks, it is very informative. A review settled the question as to which party represents the interests of he working person, and which party represents the monied class.
Your understanding is your understanding, That is all.
Citizens United = dark money
Read some history about money involved in any.........campaign.
My understanding of Citizens United is quite clear and quite understandable.
If you have no real conscious about what it has done to this country and its electability on candidates then keep on trucking
It is ethically wrong.
You say all that, but you offer no backing whatsoever. When someone responds to a complete argument with statements that they don't bother qualifying, it's usually because that person is incapable of logical debate or completely unequipped for the topic at hand, but I'm willing to make a leap of faith and ask you to clarify.
What has citizens united done to this country?
What is it about citizens united that is ethically wrong?
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a decision that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a decision that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Your understanding is your understanding, That is all.
Citizens United = dark money
Read some history about money involved in any.........campaign.
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
No it isn't, what makes you say that??
What is the difference between Unions and Corporations?
None
If it is leagal for Unions, it is legal for Corporations.
They are all citizens (unions and corporations) who are voicing their opinions and backing the people who they want to vote for, as quoted by boilermaker55 - to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
And of course they don't realize that the biggest donors in the country are the unions...far and above everyone else.....
Union exist to keep employers in check. Need evidence, read some history.
How do you know Union are the diggest donors in the country, and why should anyone believe you. Provide credible and probative evidence.
They all have to make them public for the people to see, It's the law.
Top Organization Contributors OpenSecrets
Hey, a very interesting link. First, thanks, it is very informative. A review settled the question as to which party represents the interests of he working person, and which party represents the monied class.
Your understanding is your understanding, That is all.
Citizens United = dark money
Read some history about money involved in any.........campaign.
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
Your understanding is your understanding, That is all.
Citizens United = dark money
Read some history about money involved in any.........campaign.
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
Soooo, do you think the people with the most money in the world should be the ones who decide for all of us, what is best for us?
Do you think government apparatchiks should?
The idea behind the Koch philosophy is that YOU should be deciding what is best for you, not the government.
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
I don't think Citizens United holds that congress may not pass a law requiring transparency. However, Kennedy was either the most naïve/gullible observer of politics, or he cynically spun his opinion to make it seem reasonable. First, NEITHER the dems nor the gop want transparency. When Harry Reid, FOR EXAMPLE, gets a superpac, the last thing he wants is for voters to know who's giving him money. (and yes not2besubjected, making ads in a candidate's favor is the same as giving him money, in effect). So, Kennedy made his opinion oh so reasonable in saying if voters know who paid for an ad, they'll be smart enough to know what the superpac wants in exchange for their money buying the ad. What was once McCain Feingold (actually Chris Shay's bill was the one that became law) limited the amount of "dark ad money" that could be aired during the last two months of the campaign.
Second, Kennedy said the amount of money that would be spent was not that much. Apparently, he did not recall that McCain's involvement in CFR came about from being one of the Keating Five.
I didn't mean to call you out so much as just to say I find the distinction between giving money and buying ad time to be one without a difference. My post really went to what I consider to be Kennedy's disingenuous opinion.Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
I don't think Citizens United holds that congress may not pass a law requiring transparency. However, Kennedy was either the most naïve/gullible observer of politics, or he cynically spun his opinion to make it seem reasonable. First, NEITHER the dems nor the gop want transparency. When Harry Reid, FOR EXAMPLE, gets a superpac, the last thing he wants is for voters to know who's giving him money. (and yes not2besubjected, making ads in a candidate's favor is the same as giving him money, in effect). So, Kennedy made his opinion oh so reasonable in saying if voters know who paid for an ad, they'll be smart enough to know what the superpac wants in exchange for their money buying the ad. What was once McCain Feingold (actually Chris Shay's bill was the one that became law) limited the amount of "dark ad money" that could be aired during the last two months of the campaign.
Second, Kennedy said the amount of money that would be spent was not that much. Apparently, he did not recall that McCain's involvement in CFR came about from being one of the Keating Five.
Called out by name. . . kinda. . . on something I never disputed. When I specified that Citizens United wasn't about campaign donations, I wasn't saying that buying ads in their favor is not, in effect, the same as giving them money. What I was saying is that the decision doesn't deal with literal donations of an individual to a candidate, which is a different function legally, regardless of the similarity of the end result.
But. . . thanks for specifying?
How exactly do you define a leftist? Is it the same as a liberal? A Democrat? A progressive? The right wingers have such a wide range of ways to describe people who don't agree with them, but it's hard to know exactly how each term differs from the others, if they differ at all.
For me it's Socialist Liberals in both parties who use the word liberal or progressive to hide behind their political ideology of socialism.
None of them would be elected if they used the word socialist.
The reason that they can't get full socialism is because of our Constitution and that is why they want to get rid of it.
ok, but that really doesn't answer the question though does it?
If you mean the question is- Are they out to just make money, it is no- they are promoting freedom for all Americans to make money through their own businesses with less government interference.
High Corporate Taxes and too many regulations are choking them all.
That's not what I was asking at all. What exactly is a leftist, and how does that differ, if they do differ, from a Liberal, or Democrat, or Progressive? Are those all just different words to describe the same thing, or is there any specific difference between all the different ways right wingers refer to people who they disagree with?
I like how you indignantly ask for an explanation on whether a left-winger is the same as a liberal, a democrat, a progressive, obviously pointing out that it's foolish to try to lump so many different philosophies into one heading. . .
And then let us know that this is a tactic employed by "right wingers". LMFAO.
Now, when you say "right wingers", are you referring to Republicans? Conservatives? Libertarians? Classical Liberals?
Pot, meet Kettle.
Dark money? Please, explain what you mean by dark money.
And don't tell me to go "read history". That's vague as shit and the debate tactic of a 6 year old. "I know the answer, I'm just not gonna tell you." Don't make an assertion and then disguise a flat refusal to qualify it as some sort of moral stance you're taking against my "ignorance". The only thing worse than being a prick is being a juvenile prick.
Dark money as I understand it is reported out as donated by Americans for Apple Pie, Baseball and Motherhood, or, The Swift Boat Veterans.
Citizens United isn't about donations, it's about buying ad time in favor of a candidate or ballot issue. At any rate, that's a big problem? That people can act under the name of their corporation without making their identity directly public? Are we really so brain-dead as a society that we can't determine for ourselves which arguments on TV are compelling and which aren't if we have to research the legal names of the individuals who are proponents?
If we're worried about foreign influences on our elections, which is valid, why would we throw out a law that allows groups of middle class local people to weigh in on elections? Citizens United isn't about disclosure, just spending. If you want to change the disclosure laws, rather than throwing out a law that deals with buying ad time, why not just change the disclosure laws?
Unions have been doing political ads for more than 40 years so corporations can't?
This is why the Supreme Court said yes they can same as unions.
All of the people of this Nation have the right to voice their political opinions not just the unions.
The issue is transparency. We know what a union is and what it supports, the same with professional organizations and charitable foundations. We have no clue who funded "Americans for apple pie, baseball and motherhood"
I don't think Citizens United holds that congress may not pass a law requiring transparency. However, Kennedy was either the most naïve/gullible observer of politics, or he cynically spun his opinion to make it seem reasonable. First, NEITHER the dems nor the gop want transparency. When Harry Reid, FOR EXAMPLE, gets a superpac, the last thing he wants is for voters to know who's giving him money. (and yes not2besubjected, making ads in a candidate's favor is the same as giving him money, in effect). So, Kennedy made his opinion oh so reasonable in saying if voters know who paid for an ad, they'll be smart enough to know what the superpac wants in exchange for their money buying the ad. What was once McCain Feingold (actually Chris Shay's bill was the one that became law) limited the amount of "dark ad money" that could be aired during the last two months of the campaign.
Second, Kennedy said the amount of money that would be spent was not that much. Apparently, he did not recall that McCain's involvement in CFR came about from being one of the Keating Five.
No it isn't, what makes you say that??There is , up to a certain point, your statement is agreeable. However, when the Governor of Wisconsin was fooled by someone pretending to be one of the Koch brothers, that is what makes it completely different.\
When the average citizen and get the ear of their Governor for that length of time, then we have equal representation.
Also on another thought, when Citizens United is overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States, then we this country will making the right move to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
What defense does he need other than he is an American citizen, and he has the right to petition his government for a redress of grievances....and the protection to express his political views....
of course......to a leftist...there is no such freedom.....
If Citizens United is overturned then it is silencing the rights of every citizen.
What is the difference between Unions and Corporations?
None
If it is leagal for Unions, it is legal for Corporations.
They are all citizens (unions and corporations) who are voicing their opinions and backing the people who they want to vote for, as quoted by boilermaker55 - to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
No it isn't, what makes you say that??There is , up to a certain point, your statement is agreeable. However, when the Governor of Wisconsin was fooled by someone pretending to be one of the Koch brothers, that is what makes it completely different.\
When the average citizen and get the ear of their Governor for that length of time, then we have equal representation.
Also on another thought, when Citizens United is overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States, then we this country will making the right move to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
What defense does he need other than he is an American citizen, and he has the right to petition his government for a redress of grievances....and the protection to express his political views....
of course......to a leftist...there is no such freedom.....
If Citizens United is overturned then it is silencing the rights of every citizen.
What is the difference between Unions and Corporations?
None
If it is leagal for Unions, it is legal for Corporations.
They are all citizens (unions and corporations) who are voicing their opinions and backing the people who they want to vote for, as quoted by boilermaker55 - to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
The difference between corporations and union is the way they get their money. Corporations sell goods or services for a profit. Unions require members to pay dues whether they want to or not.
You can refuse to buy the goods or services of a corporation if you dislike their politics but you can't refuse to pay union dues.
No it isn't, what makes you say that??There is , up to a certain point, your statement is agreeable. However, when the Governor of Wisconsin was fooled by someone pretending to be one of the Koch brothers, that is what makes it completely different.\
When the average citizen and get the ear of their Governor for that length of time, then we have equal representation.
Also on another thought, when Citizens United is overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States, then we this country will making the right move to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
What defense does he need other than he is an American citizen, and he has the right to petition his government for a redress of grievances....and the protection to express his political views....
of course......to a leftist...there is no such freedom.....
If Citizens United is overturned then it is silencing the rights of every citizen.
What is the difference between Unions and Corporations?
None
If it is legal for Unions, it is legal for Corporations.
They are all citizens (unions and corporations) who are voicing their opinions and backing the people who they want to vote for, as quoted by boilermaker55 - to give EVERY citizen the same rights to petition their government and their representative, at all levels.
The difference between corporations and union is the way they get their money. Corporations sell goods or services for a profit. Unions require members to pay dues whether they want to or not.
You can refuse to buy the goods or services of a corporation if you dislike their politics but you can't refuse to pay union dues.
