Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by BDBoop, Jul 30, 2012.
Yeah, well, he might have.....shrug.
Just seems weird to me....
He was trolling and was called on it according to the rules. Maybe you'd better brush up on what that means. This forum is for thoughtful debate. There are a great number of posters who have little desire to do that and they will either not post here or find the door. That is the whole point.
There really is no point discussing your questions if you ALREADY have determined the answers -0-- Is there BDB? You want an echo chamber don'tcha?
And Obama doesn't have a clue what to do about Globalism or to encourage NEW IPO creation or CUT corporate welfare..
I'd be glad to correct your assumptions that he does -- if you weren't so focused on selling a single message for political points. This experiment is pretty well over ain't it?
Just tell everyone the answers you wanted and we can all call it a day..
Really? What is the difference between his post and Flatscann's 103 post? Take your time. This will be interesting...
I already did in my New Emancipation Proclamation thread. Or at least I offer a cure for what I see is the major problem we are confronting there.
In my opinion, that one resolution limiting what the federal government would be allowed to spend money on would cure 90% of the problems that we have:
1. Partisanship would again be no worse than differences of opinion on how to solve a problem both sides want solved.
2. Corporate welfare would no longer exist.
3. Lobbying would be perfectly legal but few would be doing it because there would be little profit in doing it.
4. Campaign contributions in any amount would be perfectly legal, but wouldn't buy the contributors a single advantage.
5. And career politicians would go find some other way to make a living, because we would take away their ability to enrich themselves at our expense, and we would again have citizen public servants in public office.
Of course message boards might become much less popular because there would be much less for us all to fuss and fume about.
You make an interesting point, but I would get rid of donations all together. All political parties with a certain number of signed up members get the same amount of money to run a campaign from the public purse. Then they can concentrate on policy and not trying to appease their donors...and wasting time talking lobbyists...
If the donors can't buy anything with their donations, why would the amount of the donation matter? Why should we the tax payer be obligated to support somebody's campaign we have no intention of voting for?
Well, if you voted for a party you would be supporting somebody. But donors are buying things, why do you think they donate.
I've said this once before and I'll say it again. In the US, when lobbyists give money to political parties it's called freedom of speech. When lobbyists do it in Malaysia, or the Philippines or some third world shit hole in South America or Africa, it's called bribary....
No new unnecessary wars since Bush II either. I doubt Romney will want to play soldier either.
Separate names with a comma.