Lets elect moderates that aim to keep America number 1#

[Troubled_CA]

We've had nothing but moderates and libs as president and look where it's gotten us.

I think you should put down the peace pipe and wake the fuck up.

talk about DIM, Grampa!

GW and his band of Neocons were moderates?
Delusional cons.

I think you should put down the Jack Daniels and wake the fuck UP!

 

[kaz]

Those soup lies were created from right wing greed by those idiots Coolidge and Hoover. FDR put america to work which pulled the nation out of the great depression, created the interstate highway system, the hoover dam, and other icons that are still used to this day.

It's amazing how the soup lines didn't go away for the 9 years between when FDR became President and WWII started, yet they aren't his fault and he solved the problem. I'm a classic liberal, you're a run of the mill one.

 

[dblack]

We the People formed a government OF the people and BY the people FOR the people. WE are the government according to the Constitution. It is up to US to use OUR power to ensure that the OUR government reflects OUR values and not those of corporate special interests.

But what about when the majority of 'we the people' support laws that give special perks to corporations (or any other special interest group)? Really that's the case with most of the problems we face. We the people vote for, and keep re-electing, the representatives who are catering to special interests.

I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure if you were holding up democracy alone as the solution for eliminating special interest government (ie corporatism). I don't think we can rely on it for that. Arguably, democracy is what's driving it.

What we need, perhaps counter-intuitively, is solid limitations on the power of 'we the people' to implement their will via government.

The abuse of the system came about with the right to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in my opinion. It was intended for individuals to be able to make their case to their elected representatives. It has subsequently been perverted by corporate special interests into the cabal of lobbyists. The real problem stems from elections being won by whomever has the biggest war chest. Whomever provides those funds then owns the politician in question. The "wall of separation" between corporations and politicians should include all election funding of any nature, any "favors" or other perks, gifts, etc and most of all there must be a 10 year moratorium after leaving office and a politician taking a private sector job in any area where he has cast a favorable vote. So yes, we are talking about certain limitations that will stem the tide of corruption.

Well, you're suggesting limitations on individual rights, rather than on government, so it's actually quite different than what I was talking about.

Of course I'm looking at it from a different perspective, but to me the problem isn't with the relative influence people (or corporations) have over government. It's what that influence can buy. As I've noted, often these special interest perks are actively supported by the majority, but they are just as wrong and just as destructive to liberal democracy.

The problem is with our dismissal of equal protection as a general principle. We seem to be giving up on the idea of equal rights for all, instead pursuing government that treats everyone differently depending on which interest group they belong to. The 'wall of separation' I'm talking about is, essentially, just a reaffirmation of equal protection, something that will state in no uncertain terms that government shall not pass laws designed to grant special privileges.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Kaz: : I'm a classic liberal, you're a run of the mill one."

Please explain how exactly how your "classic liberal" definition is at variance with the current dictionary definition of a liberal.

 

[bripat9643]

We the People formed a government OF the people and BY the people FOR the people. WE are the government according to the Constitution. It is up to US to use OUR power to ensure that the OUR government reflects OUR values and not those of corporate special interests.

"Of the people, by the people and for the people" is from the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution, numskull. Nothing in the Constitution exempts corporations from enjoying the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

Corperations are legal entities, not people. Legal entities that states and federal governments should be able to put an end to whenever they become the enemies of the people of this nation.



I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

 

[bripat9643]

No hate for corporations at all. They just need to be removed from any and all influence in politics. We the People are supposed to have a government FOR the people themselves. That is not happening while corporations are able to buy politicians. What I want to see is a "wall of separation" between politics and corporations.

How about a wall between unions and politicians? How about journalists not being allowed to hob nob with government officials, cover up scandals or invent them?

You bed wetters seem to think a Corporation is a self aware entity with an evil soul. The people who own corporations are not all evil, they're not all inclined to use government to crush competition but since bed wetting liberals have given government so much power it has become a tool some rich people use to do nefarious things.

Strip that power from the government. Don't give it MORE POWER to "regulate itself". These assholes can't even build a wall to keep out illegal aliens. Do you think they'll build a wall to seperate themselves from money?

The leaders of the corperations that insisted that asbestos and tobacco were harmless in spite of the evidence to the contrary that was century old were not evil? Their lies caused millions of early deaths in this nation alone. Corperations that engage in that kind of evil should be terminated, and their officers imprisoned.

The idea that people who smoked didn't know cigarettes were dangerous is propagated by morons who hate capitalism. People were calling cigarettes "coffin nails" in the 19th century. Blaming their resulting health problem on tobacco companies simply isn't honest.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there a first world nation on earth that doesn't use the system I'm talking about????

Pure capitalism is brutal
Pure socialism is idiocy

Being on one side or the other is idiocy.

That's not a "system," It's a complaint. It's also not true. There's nothing particularly "brutal" about capitalism. Society was simply brutal in the 19th Century.

Spoken by one that knows so little of history.

Yeah think? In what country was life better in the 19h century, China?, Congo? India?

 

[dblack]

"Of the people, by the people and for the people" is from the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution, numskull. Nothing in the Constitution exempts corporations from enjoying the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

Corperations are legal entities, not people. Legal entities that states and federal governments should be able to put an end to whenever they become the enemies of the people of this nation.



I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

You can, however, remove the special privileges granted to them by the corporate charter. That's really what's underlying all this. Corporations were created, as a concept, by government, to supercharge our ability approach large projects - specifically to gather funding for such projects. It's essentially a collectivist concept that grants special rights to certain types of group ownership. It's a legitimate question whether those special rights are warranted or just.

 

[bripat9643]

Corperations are legal entities, not people. Legal entities that states and federal governments should be able to put an end to whenever they become the enemies of the people of this nation.



I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

You can, however, remove the special privileges granted to them by the corporate charter. That's really what's underlying all this. Corporations were created, as a concept, by government, to supercharge our ability approach large projects - specifically to gather funding for such projects. It's essentially a collectivist concept that grants special rights to certain types of group ownership. It's a legitimate question whether those special rights are warranted or just.

What "special privileges" do you think should be revoked?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But what about when the majority of 'we the people' support laws that give special perks to corporations (or any other special interest group)? Really that's the case with most of the problems we face. We the people vote for, and keep re-electing, the representatives who are catering to special interests.

I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure if you were holding up democracy alone as the solution for eliminating special interest government (ie corporatism). I don't think we can rely on it for that. Arguably, democracy is what's driving it.

What we need, perhaps counter-intuitively, is solid limitations on the power of 'we the people' to implement their will via government.

The abuse of the system came about with the right to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in my opinion. It was intended for individuals to be able to make their case to their elected representatives. It has subsequently been perverted by corporate special interests into the cabal of lobbyists. The real problem stems from elections being won by whomever has the biggest war chest. Whomever provides those funds then owns the politician in question. The "wall of separation" between corporations and politicians should include all election funding of any nature, any "favors" or other perks, gifts, etc and most of all there must be a 10 year moratorium after leaving office and a politician taking a private sector job in any area where he has cast a favorable vote. So yes, we are talking about certain limitations that will stem the tide of corruption.

Well, you're suggesting limitations on individual rights, rather than on government, so it's actually quite different than what I was talking about.

Of course I'm looking at it from a different perspective, but to me the problem isn't with the relative influence people (or corporations) have over government. It's what that influence can buy. As I've noted, often these special interest perks are actively supported by the majority, but they are just as wrong and just as destructive to liberal democracy.

The problem is with our dismissal of equal protection as a general principle. We seem to be giving up on the idea of equal rights for all, instead pursuing government that treats everyone differently depending on which interest group they belong to. The 'wall of separation' I'm talking about is, essentially, just a reaffirmation of equal protection, something that will state in no uncertain terms that government shall not pass laws designed to grant special privileges.

Not all rights are exactly equal. If you hold elected office your right to privacy becomes subject to the right of the people to know certain things about you. Like how much did you pay in taxes and do you hold dual citizenship? Where I am going is to hold those who are entrusted with the reins of power to a higher standard. Your all expenses paid vacation in the Bahamas as an individual citizen is a private matter between you and whomever is footing the bill for it as long as no violation of the tax code is involved. However if you hold elected office then that vacation can have a direct impact on how you vote on a piece of legislation so you no longer have a right to privacy as far as that is concerned. The voters have a right to know who paid for it and if it swayed your vote you should be removed from office in my opinion.

 

[dblack]

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

You can, however, remove the special privileges granted to them by the corporate charter. That's really what's underlying all this. Corporations were created, as a concept, by government, to supercharge our ability approach large projects - specifically to gather funding for such projects. It's essentially a collectivist concept that grants special rights to certain types of group ownership. It's a legitimate question whether those special rights are warranted or just.

What "special privileges" do you think should be revoked?

I think limited liability goes too far. If I own a business and hire a sociopath to run it, I'm civilly, perhaps even criminally, liable for what that person does to make a profit for my business. Stockholders, on the other hand, can do the same and get off scott-free. Something's not right with that picture.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Of the people, by the people and for the people" is from the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution, numskull. Nothing in the Constitution exempts corporations from enjoying the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

Corperations are legal entities, not people. Legal entities that states and federal governments should be able to put an end to whenever they become the enemies of the people of this nation.



I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

It happens on a daily basis that corporations go bankrupt or are shut down. Some of the more prominent examples being Arthur Anderson and Lehman Bros. Corporations are NOT people and do NOT have the same rights as people. They are merely legal constructs for the purposes of conducting business. They have no inherent Constitutional rights like people do.

 

[dblack]

Not all rights are exactly equal. If you hold elected office your right to privacy becomes subject to the right of the people to know certain things about you. Like how much did you pay in taxes and do you hold dual citizenship? Where I am going is to hold those who are entrusted with the reins of power to a higher standard. Your all expenses paid vacation in the Bahamas as an individual citizen is a private matter between you and whomever is footing the bill for it as long as no violation of the tax code is involved. However if you hold elected office then that vacation can have a direct impact on how you vote on a piece of legislation so you no longer have a right to privacy as far as that is concerned. The voters have a right to know who paid for it and if it swayed your vote you should be removed from office in my opinion.

Yeah, when I mentioned limiting individual rights, I was referring to limiting the rights of people or businesses to lobby government. I think it's an important right.

Anyway, keeping tabs on the financial activities of elected officials is reasonable, but I still think it misses the mark in a number of ways. Even if we could somehow reliably monitor all the interactions between legislators and lobbyists, it doesn't really address the problem. In my view, the problem isn't with their motivation - it's with the laws they pass. When they pass a law, for example, that grants special favors to the insurance industry, it doesn't matter whether they're doing it because they were bribed by insurance lobbyists, or whether they're simply responding to a mandate from their constituency. Such a law is a violation of equal protection and bad government in either case.

 

[bripat9643]

You can, however, remove the special privileges granted to them by the corporate charter. That's really what's underlying all this. Corporations were created, as a concept, by government, to supercharge our ability approach large projects - specifically to gather funding for such projects. It's essentially a collectivist concept that grants special rights to certain types of group ownership. It's a legitimate question whether those special rights are warranted or just.

What "special privileges" do you think should be revoked?

I think limited liability goes too far. If I own a business and hire a sociopath to run it, I'm civilly, perhaps even criminally, liable for what that person does to make a profit for my business. Stockholders, on the other hand, can do the same and get off scott-free. Something's not right with that picture.

Sorry, but corporations couldn't exist without limited liability. If every stock holder was criminally liable for the actions of the directors, then millions of people would have to go to prison. Such a proposition is absurd.

The directors of a corporation are personally responsible for their actions. I fail to see any reason to make anyone else responsible for them. What you propose is the idea of group responsibility, which the Nazis were quite enamored with. We all know the consequences of that idea.

 

[bripat9643]

Corperations are legal entities, not people. Legal entities that states and federal governments should be able to put an end to whenever they become the enemies of the people of this nation.



I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

It happens on a daily basis that corporations go bankrupt or are shut down. Some of the more prominent examples being Arthur Anderson and Lehman Bros.

No ones rights are violated when a corporation can't make enough money to pay its bills. That's totally the fault of the corporation. However, when government shuts down a profitable corporation, it is stealing money from American citizens. It violates their 5th Amendment rights.

Corporations are NOT people and do NOT have the same rights as people. They are merely legal constructs for the purposes of conducting business. They have no inherent Constitutional rights like people do.

Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

 

[P@triot]

Lets elect moderates that aim to keep America number 1#

How about in 2014=Fix, rebuild and cut waste!!!
-Build our infrastructure...Yes this is mostly a local issue but since our cities rely on the feds...Let's fund it at 2009 levels(another 60 billion) for a decade.
-Lets work to move science and technology forward. The life blood of our serious economy Because the government wastes money on giving everyone welfare or the banks doesn't mean we should be cutting our science programs. That's just plain fucking stupid.

Give choices within education and working on lowering the cost of college. Yes, conservatives the trade school should be a clear path way for our children.

-I'd cut back to 2009 levels for disability, food stamps and welfare. I believe that people should be helped but abled bodied people probably should be advancing themselves. Above is part of my plan to do so...

-Lastly I'd cut aid to the rest of the world and end all the wars. BUILD AMERICA....

America can do better and must. A lot of this can be done at the local level....

The problem is your definition of "moderate". When you start a thread by stating "I know infrastructure is a local issue, but lets unconstitutionally fund it at the federal level" - well - I know right away you are a liberal wing-nut radical.

The ONLY true "moderates" in politics are the Tea Party. The Dumbocrats are just radical marxists/socialists/communists. The Republicans are just Kennedy-era liberals who are left of ground zero (ie the Constitution). And the libertarian whack-jobs like Ron Paul are right of ground zero.

The ONLY moderates who are advocating we play by the Constitution is the Tea Party.

 

[dblack]

Sorry, but corporations couldn't exist without limited liability. If every stock holder was criminally liable for the actions of the directors, then millions of people would have to go to prison. Such a proposition is absurd.

Bah.. strawman. I didn't propose anything so extreme. Don't you think there's some middle ground between mass imprisonment and zero accountability?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not all rights are exactly equal. If you hold elected office your right to privacy becomes subject to the right of the people to know certain things about you. Like how much did you pay in taxes and do you hold dual citizenship? Where I am going is to hold those who are entrusted with the reins of power to a higher standard. Your all expenses paid vacation in the Bahamas as an individual citizen is a private matter between you and whomever is footing the bill for it as long as no violation of the tax code is involved. However if you hold elected office then that vacation can have a direct impact on how you vote on a piece of legislation so you no longer have a right to privacy as far as that is concerned. The voters have a right to know who paid for it and if it swayed your vote you should be removed from office in my opinion.

Yeah, when I mentioned limiting individual rights, I was referring to limiting the rights of people or businesses to lobby government. I think it's an important right.

Anyway, keeping tabs on the financial activities of elected officials is reasonable, but I still think it misses the mark in a number of ways. Even if we could somehow reliably monitor all the interactions between legislators and lobbyists, it doesn't really address the problem. In my view, the problem isn't with their motivation - it's with the laws they pass. When they pass a law, for example, that grants special favors to the insurance industry, it doesn't matter whether they're doing it because they were bribed by insurance lobbyists, or whether they're simply responding to a mandate from their constituency. Such a law is a violation of equal protection and bad government in either case.

Can you please provide an example of these "special favors" that you referring to? I just want to be certain that I understand exactly what you mean.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Corporations are simply groups of people. You can't put an end to the corporation without violating the rights of the people who own them or belong to them.

It happens on a daily basis that corporations go bankrupt or are shut down. Some of the more prominent examples being Arthur Anderson and Lehman Bros.

No ones rights are violated when a corporation can't make enough money to pay its bills. That's totally the fault of the corporation. However, when government shuts down a profitable corporation, it is stealing money from American citizens. It violates their 5th Amendment rights.

Corporations are NOT people and do NOT have the same rights as people. They are merely legal constructs for the purposes of conducting business. They have no inherent Constitutional rights like people do.

Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

Please explain exactly which aspect of the 5th amendment is allegedly being violated?

 

[dblack]

Not all rights are exactly equal. If you hold elected office your right to privacy becomes subject to the right of the people to know certain things about you. Like how much did you pay in taxes and do you hold dual citizenship? Where I am going is to hold those who are entrusted with the reins of power to a higher standard. Your all expenses paid vacation in the Bahamas as an individual citizen is a private matter between you and whomever is footing the bill for it as long as no violation of the tax code is involved. However if you hold elected office then that vacation can have a direct impact on how you vote on a piece of legislation so you no longer have a right to privacy as far as that is concerned. The voters have a right to know who paid for it and if it swayed your vote you should be removed from office in my opinion.

Yeah, when I mentioned limiting individual rights, I was referring to limiting the rights of people or businesses to lobby government. I think it's an important right.

Anyway, keeping tabs on the financial activities of elected officials is reasonable, but I still think it misses the mark in a number of ways. Even if we could somehow reliably monitor all the interactions between legislators and lobbyists, it doesn't really address the problem. In my view, the problem isn't with their motivation - it's with the laws they pass. When they pass a law, for example, that grants special favors to the insurance industry, it doesn't matter whether they're doing it because they were bribed by insurance lobbyists, or whether they're simply responding to a mandate from their constituency. Such a law is a violation of equal protection and bad government in either case.

Can you please provide an example of these "special favors" that you referring to? I just want to be certain that I understand exactly what you mean.

Wow... there's so much to choose from. Discrimatory tax policy is a biggie (targeted tax incentives, exemptions, rebates, etc...). The entirety of the ACA. Most government intervention in the economy falls under this category (outside of maintaining property rights and basic rules for transparent transactions.)