Constitutional Oligarchy?

[Wry Catcher]

So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens

In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice.
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not name those who contributed money to the political ad; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our demoractic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy and eventually America will become an oligarchy.

Fly Catcher a/k/a "Shit" uses ad hominem too, but he (being a complete hypocritical arrogant ass) only objects when others employ that rhetorical tool. Poor little feller.

And while a bombastic and dishonest simpleton like Shit is incapable of appreciating it, the fact remains. Just because a problem exists, has been identified and really does call for some measures to address it (remedy it) does NOT mean that every available law, rule or regulation which can theoretically be brought to bear on it is viable or even desirable.

Sometimes a perfectly effective "remedy" is improper. For example, we might be fully capable of wiping out the threat of al qaeda by nuking the mountainous caves in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we should be launching the nukes. Similarly, if the method for rooting out campaign problems stemming from financing, greed and corruption requires an abridgment of our First Amendment guarantees, then that method MUST be abandoned. Another method has to be found or crafted.

Under these circumstances, the answer is not to just toss up our hands, bemoan our fate and declare that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with. The answer is to find OTHER ways of dealing with it.

Are you always so hysterical?
I call an asshole an asshole; less a personal attack, more like a 'tautology' (I hope that's not too abstract for you, liability? Please explain to CrusaderFrank, he's a bit...slow).

In your rant you fail to acknowledge a problem. Do you deny one exists (deny monied and special interests have the advantage in influencing - many times writing - legislation giving the few benefits at the expense of the many)?
How soon after an Oligarchy - in real terms a monopoly - governs the many and freedom of speech goes away? Look at Iraq, N. Korea or China and consider the consequences of the few controlling the many. Yes it can happen here.

 

[Liability]

In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice.
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not name those who contributed money to the political ad; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our demoractic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy and eventually America will become an oligarchy.

Fly Catcher a/k/a "Shit" uses ad hominem too, but he (being a complete hypocritical arrogant ass) only objects when others employ that rhetorical tool. Poor little feller.

And while a bombastic and dishonest simpleton like Shit is incapable of appreciating it, the fact remains. Just because a problem exists, has been identified and really does call for some measures to address it (remedy it) does NOT mean that every available law, rule or regulation which can theoretically be brought to bear on it is viable or even desirable.

Sometimes a perfectly effective "remedy" is improper. For example, we might be fully capable of wiping out the threat of al qaeda by nuking the mountainous caves in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we should be launching the nukes. Similarly, if the method for rooting out campaign problems stemming from financing, greed and corruption requires an abridgment of our First Amendment guarantees, then that method MUST be abandoned. Another method has to be found or crafted.

Under these circumstances, the answer is not to just toss up our hands, bemoan our fate and declare that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with. The answer is to find OTHER ways of dealing with it.

Are you always so hysterical?
I call an asshole an asshole; less a personal attack, more like a 'tautology' (I hope that's not too abstract for you, liability? Please explain to CrusaderFrank, he's a bit...slow).

In your rant you fail to acknowledge a problem. Do you deny one exists (deny monied and special interests have the advantage in influencing - many times writing - legislation giving the few benefits at the expense of the many)?
How soon after an Oligarchy - in real terms a monopoly - governs the many and freedom of speech goes away? Look at Iraq, N. Korea or China and consider the consequences of the few controlling the many. Yes it can happen here.

Shit. May I call you shit? NO. Ok then Shit, listen up, rtard. Your false labels are tiresome and, like you always are, quite unpersuasive.

As you knew when you lied, nothing I have done or said or posted indicates any form of hysteria.

What has you so upset, shit, is that you have had your retarded arguments demolished. Why? Because you really are just that stupid. You call roses and sunshine "assholes," and you call your asshole "Mr. President." In the latter, you are unintentionally correct.

I didn't rant, fucktard. And I already acknowledged a problem, stupid. You are pathetically slow. You really are retarded. So sad. Next time, get an adult to help you read the posts you are attempting to criticize so you won't merely reconfirm that you don't even understand the words you read, stupid.

But for now, you are too plodding, dim-witted and boring to play with here any more. When you're up to being honest and rational, send up a flare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fly Catcher a/k/a "Shit" uses ad hominem too, but he (being a complete hypocritical arrogant ass) only objects when others employ that rhetorical tool. Poor little feller.

And while a bombastic and dishonest simpleton like Shit is incapable of appreciating it, the fact remains. Just because a problem exists, has been identified and really does call for some measures to address it (remedy it) does NOT mean that every available law, rule or regulation which can theoretically be brought to bear on it is viable or even desirable.

Sometimes a perfectly effective "remedy" is improper. For example, we might be fully capable of wiping out the threat of al qaeda by nuking the mountainous caves in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we should be launching the nukes. Similarly, if the method for rooting out campaign problems stemming from financing, greed and corruption requires an abridgment of our First Amendment guarantees, then that method MUST be abandoned. Another method has to be found or crafted.

Under these circumstances, the answer is not to just toss up our hands, bemoan our fate and declare that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with. The answer is to find OTHER ways of dealing with it.

Are you always so hysterical?
I call an asshole an asshole; less a personal attack, more like a 'tautology' (I hope that's not too abstract for you, liability? Please explain to CrusaderFrank, he's a bit...slow).

In your rant you fail to acknowledge a problem. Do you deny one exists (deny monied and special interests have the advantage in influencing - many times writing - legislation giving the few benefits at the expense of the many)?
How soon after an Oligarchy - in real terms a monopoly - governs the many and freedom of speech goes away? Look at Iraq, N. Korea or China and consider the consequences of the few controlling the many. Yes it can happen here.

Shit. May I call you shit? NO. Ok then Shit, listen up, rtard. Your false labels are tiresome and, like you always are, quite unpersuasive.

As you knew when you lied, nothing I have done or said or posted indicates any form of hysteria.

What has you so upset, shit, is that you have had your retarded arguments demolished. Why? Because you really are just that stupid. You call roses and sunshine "assholes," and you call your asshole "Mr. President." In the latter, you are unintentionally correct.

I didn't rant, fucktard. And I already acknowledged a problem, stupid. You are pathetically slow. You really are retarded. So sad. Next time, get an adult to help you read the posts you are attempting to criticize so you won't merely reconfirm that you don't even understand the words you read, stupid.

But for now, you are too plodding, dim-witted and boring to play with here any more. When you're up to being honest and rational, send up a flare.

Wow, you really are pitiful. More evidence I was spot on when I characterized you as small man hiding behind a keyboard.
I'll let others decide for themselves if your posts are rants or rational, I've already decided you're a few brick shy of a full load, hysterical rants being your 'gift'.
Thanks for sharing (I'm sure CrusaderFrank will kissyourass and give thanks for your rant. Such is the way of the echo chamber).

Oh, btw, you neglected to refute my opinion, something not uncommon when you post an ad hominem rant.

"In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
"The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
"Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
"The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice."
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not provide a true source for the money conributed; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our democratic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy. Without real reform America may very well become an oligarchy. It can happen here.

Have at it, I look forward to a reasoned response, if that is possible

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.

Sounds like Congress.

 

[Revere]

Is the privacy of the voting booth a threat to democracy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is the privacy of the voting booth a threat to democracy?

Ah, sarcasm, how droll.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Wow, you really are pitiful. More evidence I was spot on when I characterized you as small man hiding behind a keyboard. * * * *

Zzzz.

Apparently my completely correct analysis of your petty little nature, little Shit, does translate into the fact that I have crawled deeply under your always thin skin.

Good.

If you ever need to know where I am, just check the petty little Shit's brain pan. I'm all up in his noggin.

As for you, Shit, you may now proceed to whine and cry a whole lot more. In other words, carry on as always, little man.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is the privacy of the voting booth a threat to democracy?

Only to socialists.