Woman dragged out of WV public hearing for listing donors

[Slyhunter]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

 

[Pogo]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

 

[BluesLegend]

Local hack politicians bought and paid for, shocker.

 

[Slyhunter]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

 

[Pogo]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

 

[Slyhunter]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

 

[Pogo]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

 

[Slyhunter]

Some folks give money to politicians who are already voting their way so as to prop up a guy they like vs a guy they don't like. Doesn't mean the politician changed his vote because of a donation.

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

 

[Pogo]

Nope, it doesn't. But she doesn't claim it did, she just noted WHO is giving how much money to whom. Why would they be making those kinds of investments --- on a legislator --- if they did not expect favorable legislation ---- which is what a legislator does --- as ROI?

If there's any doubt about what's going on there, the fact that they shut her up put that doubt to rest. Clearly they didn't want that highlighted, and if they had their way it wouldn't even be public information. This lady brought it forward into the sunlight, and that wasn't gonna be allowed. Couldn't even be endured for the paltry 105 seconds the public gets to speak.

The bottom line principle is that votes are not to be sold.

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're naive.

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

Let me see if I understand your view. What you seem to be saying is that every campaign donation is a bribe and the person that took it cannot be trusted?

Is that correct?

 

[Pogo]

I uh, think you posted a note-to-self on the board.

The question stands untouched --- *WHY* would corporate interests be pouring money into a legisltator's coffers, if they expected to get NOTHING in return?

This is not rocket surgery. It's Occam's Razor -- the most obvious answer, IS the answer.

And if it isn't ----- then WHY would they object to having those payola deposits read into the record?
Why indeed.

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

Let me see if I understand your view. What you seem to be saying is that every campaign donation is a bribe and the person that took it cannot be trusted?

Is that correct?

Nope, not at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I wouldn't give a politician a dime unless I planned on him paying it back somehow.
And without lobbyist paying politicians dimes they couldn't do their commercials and get the ordinary voter to vote for them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

Let me see if I understand your view. What you seem to be saying is that every campaign donation is a bribe and the person that took it cannot be trusted?

Is that correct?

Nope, not at all.

So, why are the ones being read like a laundry list bribes as opposed to the ones that are not bribes?

 

[Pogo]

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually suggesting that some "lobbyist" (which one we're not told) makes it possible for us to VOTE?

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

Let me see if I understand your view. What you seem to be saying is that every campaign donation is a bribe and the person that took it cannot be trusted?

Is that correct?

Nope, not at all.

So, why are the ones being read like a laundry list bribes as opposed to the ones that are not bribes?

Because people vote --- not corporations. And the latter comes with a tag on 'em. It says "don't forget who gave you this".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

people vote based on what they see on tv via commercials.
commercials are paid for by politicians who receive money from lobbyist who expect quid pro quo.

And that's exactly the problem.

Public officials aren't there to work on behalf of "lobbyist" or even lobbyists. They're there to work on behalf of THE PUBLIC.

Besides all of which ---- Lissa Lucas just scored herself a TON of votes as a result of standing up for that very principle, without 'buying' a damn thing. They just handed it to her.

Let me see if I understand your view. What you seem to be saying is that every campaign donation is a bribe and the person that took it cannot be trusted?

Is that correct?

Nope, not at all.

So, why are the ones being read like a laundry list bribes as opposed to the ones that are not bribes?

Because people vote --- not corporations. And the latter comes with a tag on 'em. It says "don't forget who gave you this".

Oh, so any campaign donation from a corporation is a bribe? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Pogo]

It boggles the mind that there are actually wags willing to go on the internets and white knight for the poor beleaguered corporations, yea that they may be unencumbered in their quest to make the world into their own image and likeness and the people who are supposed to be running things be damned --- just for the sake of contrarianism.

Hard to believe, Harry...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It boggles the mind that there are actually wags willing to go on the internets and white knight for the poor beleaguered corporations, yea that they may be unencumbered in their quest to make the world into their own image and likeness and the people who are supposed to be running things be damned --- just for the sake of contrarianism.

Hard to believe, Harry...

So, you are not going to answer the question, just going to rant like a 3rd grader instead. Ok, thanks I will move on and find someone else to have an adult discussion with. Enjoy your crayons!