The NRA is a Cult

[Ghost of a Rider]

There is nothing inherently immoral about having more money than others and basically what you're saying boils down to: The rich have more money so therefore no one should have that right. But only because the rich have more money. Which implies that those who take advantage of the rights that everyone has and become rich in a free market society should be restricted in some ways. I.E., because they are rich, they should be somewhat constrained or, because they're rich, everyone should be constrained.

Jesus.

I feel the same way.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That freaky bitch is still on the air? Who did she boink to get her own show?

The Low Road Is the Law Road

Today's femininnies don't have to bonk anyone. They just threaten to join the #MeToo scam and get promoted on the spot.

 

[cnm]

I said "...as if...or something."

I'd like to see where anyone has done that.

 

[cnm]

Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand something?

Just about everything.

 

[cnm]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

Jesus.

 

[cnm]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I said "...as if...or something."

I'd like to see where anyone has done that.

The very fact they're making an issue of it means they think it's wrong in some way. You don't see that?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

Jesus.

If you didn't think your $2700 could influence the election even in a small way, why pay it? Every person who gives to a campaign hopes their money will influence the election in some way else they wouldn't bother. So if the NRA is guilty of corruption then so is Joe Smith. That's called logic and critical thinking.

Jesus.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Full Frontal Lobotomy Samantha Bee

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[cnm]

Why are you not submitted to the discipline of a uniform and well digested plan to go with the bearing of arms? After all that was Washington's idea.

“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
george-washingtons-true-words-sync-with-militia-concept/​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

View attachment 186498

Can I interest you in a nice 3 BR 2 Bath Apartment under a bridge?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

Truthiness Relies on Worshiping the Status Quo

In this elitist scam called a "republic," all the economic elite have to bribe is one person at a time. If legislation was determined by referendums, they would each have to bribe millions of voters. So you're begging the question by assuming we have to put up with this bribery-controlled republic.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

Truthiness Relies on Worshiping the Status Quo

In this elitist scam called a "republic," all the economic elite have to bribe is one person at a time. If legislation was determined by referendums, they would each have to bribe millions of voters. So you're begging the question by assuming we have to put up with this bribery-controlled republic.

Being rich has nothing to do with bribery. It's not against the law to have more money than others and it's not against the law to be able to contribute more than others to a campaign.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

You bring up a good point. What if there were NO political contributions allowed. Instead, you had X number of dollars paid by your taxes to a fund that was used by ALL eligible candidates. And that was all they had to spend. If they wanted to do more, they would have to get out of their soft offices and hit the campaign trail and get on the soap boxes. I know of more than a few that beat the system and were elected that did that who were short on funds and beat the big money guys. Two comes to mind.

President Clinton wasn't financially supported heavily. He got in his bus and hit the trail speaking all over the place in super markets, shopping centers and just about anywhere large groups of people gathered. His Opponent didn't take him seriously and tried to just out spend him. Clinton pulled an upset.

Governor Love from Colorado didn't have a lot of money so he piled into a car and drove the state. Anytime he saw a person he would stop the car, pile out and talk to them. He would even see a lone Farmer plowing a field and run across the field and engage him. He also stopped at large gatherings of people as well. He was elected Governor by a land slide.

Can you imagine sending the Lobbyists running since they don't have the power over the Politicians they once had? And we get to see what our Polliticos actually look like for a change. They get to see what we actually look like as well. Thank you for bringing that up. Sort of brings it back to the old ways of doing things that are 150 years old.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, one needs to establish a PAC or spend on advertisements to buy politicians.

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

Truthiness Relies on Worshiping the Status Quo

In this elitist scam called a "republic," all the economic elite have to bribe is one person at a time. If legislation was determined by referendums, they would each have to bribe millions of voters. So you're begging the question by assuming we have to put up with this bribery-controlled republic.

Being rich has nothing to do with bribery. It's not against the law to have more money than others and it's not against the law to be able to contribute more than others to a campaign.

No, being legal isn't always being Moral.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So if, say, 100,000 Joe Smiths give $2700 for a total of $270,000,000, that wouldn't constitute "buying" a politician?

Depends on Which "Critical Thinking" Sounds Truthier

It would be the equivalent of giving every millionaire a million votes, and then claim that is justified because a million people with only one dollar each can cancel his vote. Plutelickers always make up unrealistic requirements to nullify their Masters' tyranny.

First of all, your analogy is flawed. You're comparing votes to dollars, i.e., the millionaire gets a million votes whereas a million people get a million dollars. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point. The issue here with critics of the NRA seems to be the exorbitant amount of money spent by the NRA on campaign ads and cnm seems to think this is corruption and buying politicians. So speaking strictly in terms of amounts of money, if 32 million by the NRA is corruption then so is 32 million by multiple individuals.

But let's say for the sake of argument we do away with PACs and donations from lobby groups and corporations etc. and everyone is restricted to $2700 individually. Guess what? Even though it may seem that the playing field is leveled and no one is allowed to pay more than that, the average American can't afford to pay even that much. Some can't afford to pay anything. So once again the more affluent have more influence on elections.

If we restrict it even further to where no one may pay anything and the entire burden of cost is on the candidate, well then, the obvious happens and only the more affluent candidates will even be able to run.

The playing field will never be level and will always favor those with more money.

Truthiness Relies on Worshiping the Status Quo

In this elitist scam called a "republic," all the economic elite have to bribe is one person at a time. If legislation was determined by referendums, they would each have to bribe millions of voters. So you're begging the question by assuming we have to put up with this bribery-controlled republic.

Being rich has nothing to do with bribery. It's not against the law to have more money than others and it's not against the law to be able to contribute more than others to a campaign.

No, being legal isn't always being Moral.

If by that you mean that contributing more than some others because you can afford to is immoral, I would have to disagree. But you're right, legal is not always moral or ethical.