The Lessons of History

[BlindBoo]

The lessons we learn from WI is that corporate money matters. With a war chest nearly 10 times larger than his opponent it is no supprise the Walker won.

The lessons we learn from WI is that corporate money matters. With a war chest nearly 10 times larger than his opponent it is no supprise the Walker won.

That is true. Citizens United v. Federal Elecitons Commission is the real story here. That said, the people of WI spoke and will live with the consequences yet unseen of their vote.

But I'm certain the two of you were A okay with the unions buying democrats.. cry us a ******* river whydonchya?

Yeah just as I'm certain you have a quote of mine where I support your theory.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And your opinion is fact now, eh?

I'll remember to duck that beam in your eye the next time you look my way, hypocrite.

Nice spin. It is a fact, proven by how much money is spent in electons and how they impact the results. Only a fool or a partisan hack would deny such a claim. Is it universally true? Not always, but the CU v. FEC ruling did change the rules so time will tell. IMO if it stands our transition from a representative democracy will be replaced by a pure plutocracy.

:ducks:

Complaining about spin now?

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

 

[Big Fitz]

Nice spin. It is a fact, proven by how much money is spent in electons and how they impact the results. Only a fool or a partisan hack would deny such a claim. Is it universally true? Not always, but the CU v. FEC ruling did change the rules so time will tell. IMO if it stands our transition from a representative democracy will be replaced by a pure plutocracy.

:ducks:

Complaining about spin now?

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

:ducks:

Complaining about spin now?

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

You obviously have trouble with words in your own mouth, why bother putting them in someone else's?
Money plays some role in most elections. I think everyone agrees with that.
Do you think citizens lose their 1A rights because they choose to associate via corporation rather than expose themselves to individual liability?

 

[Big Fitz]

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

I have not changed my opinion on Citizens United. It leveled the playing field for corporations and individuals to compete with union and PAC money. I'm all for ending all private money in elections, but it's for everyone. Otherwise, there should be no soft money, all hard that puts everyone on a level playing field knowing who bought whom.

All or nothing. That's my stand. Right now, we have all.

 

[Oldstyle]

A people get the government they deserve. If the voters in WI or throughout the several states decide to elect those who define liberty as the will of the majority we will have turned our backs on the principles upon which the founding fathers risked everything.

The liberty of free association and the freedom to petition the government died in WI yesterday when the majority of voters decided to change the course of history. The fringe on the right wing of American politics is crowing in celebration not knowing - as none of us can know - what the consequences of such a vote will eventually mean; it seems President Jefferson had an idea of the meaning:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"

All this simply because the people of Wisconsin wouldn't kick Walker out of office, Wry?

Yes, a minority has rights in this country but they doesn't mean they are allowed to overturn lawfully held elections simply because they don't agree with the politics of the person who was elected.

The people have spoken. Twice now, actually. Think it might be time for you to admit that THEY have rights as well?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

You obviously have trouble with words in your own mouth, why bother putting them in someone else's?
Money plays some role in most elections. I think everyone agrees with that.
Do you think citizens lose their 1A rights because they choose to associate via corporation rather than expose themselves to individual liability?

As usual Rabbi you're not honest. Every CEO, CFO, Board of Director, etc retains their individual first amendment rights. The SC giving individual rights to an amoral corporation is where I object. The duty of a corporation is to the corporation, not even to the stockholders (see Enron for a prime example) or its employees or executives. And, surely not to the American people or to the nation. Profit is its sole purpose (of course that is not universally true, many businesses, buisness men and women, are not personifications of Snidley Wiplash. Some definitely are).

 

[Big Fitz]

Ah yes... let's remember a little history and predictions made, eh?

Great Moments in Liberal Punditry - YouTube

A sweet morning after treat.

Liberal schizoid embolism in

3...
2...
1...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

I have not changed my opinion on Citizens United. It leveled the playing field for corporations and individuals to compete with union and PAC money. I'm all for ending all private money in elections, but it's for everyone. Otherwise, there should be no soft money, all hard that puts everyone on a level playing field knowing who bought whom.

All or nothing. That's my stand. Right now, we have all.

I agree. But what CU v. FEC did was to open the doors wider for both sides to anonymously give money - even foreign interests - and can have an impact on our elections greater than anyone of us.

 

[Big Fitz]

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

I have not changed my opinion on Citizens United. It leveled the playing field for corporations and individuals to compete with union and PAC money. I'm all for ending all private money in elections, but it's for everyone. Otherwise, there should be no soft money, all hard that puts everyone on a level playing field knowing who bought whom.

All or nothing. That's my stand. Right now, we have all.

I agree. But what CU v. FEC did was to open the doors wider for both sides to anonymously give money - even foreign interests - and can have an impact on our elections greater than anyone of us.

again, I say open it all the way, or close it completely. The big thing it did was level the playing field for legal influence. Foreign nations and businesses are supposed to still be limited. Then again, laws never stop those who are intent on breaking the law.

 

[Claudette]

A people get the government they deserve. If the voters in WI or throughout the several states decide to elect those who define liberty as the will of the majority we will have turned our backs on the principles upon which the founding fathers risked everything.

The liberty of free association and the freedom to petition the government died in WI yesterday when the majority of voters decided to change the course of history. The fringe on the right wing of American politics is crowing in celebration not knowing - as none of us can know - what the consequences of such a vote will eventually mean; it seems President Jefferson had an idea of the meaning:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"

All this simply because the people of Wisconsin wouldn't kick Walker out of office, Wry?

Yes, a minority has rights in this country but they doesn't mean they are allowed to overturn lawfully held elections simply because they don't agree with the politics of the person who was elected.

The people have spoken. Twice now, actually. Think it might be time for you to admit that THEY have rights as well?

If Barrett had won I'm sure Wry would be singing a different tune.

 

[westwall]

A people get the government they deserve. If the voters in WI or throughout the several states decide to elect those who define liberty as the will of the majority we will have turned our backs on the principles upon which the founding fathers risked everything.

The liberty of free association and the freedom to petition the government died in WI yesterday when the majority of voters decided to change the course of history. The fringe on the right wing of American politics is crowing in celebration not knowing - as none of us can know - what the consequences of such a vote will eventually mean; it seems President Jefferson had an idea of the meaning:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"

I bet you're worried now huh? Being a government worker and all that. Has San Jose reigned in the employee benefits yet? I hear they were thinking real hard about that.

 

[westwall]

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

I have not changed my opinion on Citizens United. It leveled the playing field for corporations and individuals to compete with union and PAC money. I'm all for ending all private money in elections, but it's for everyone. Otherwise, there should be no soft money, all hard that puts everyone on a level playing field knowing who bought whom.

All or nothing. That's my stand. Right now, we have all.

I agree. But what CU v. FEC did was to open the doors wider for both sides to anonymously give money - even foreign interests - and can have an impact on our elections greater than anyone of us.

Not really. Fitz is correct, all or nothing baby. The unions can no longer give hundreds of millions while the rest of the people are limited to a couple hundred. You wanted fair, well CU gave it to you. But, I forgot, you don't really want fair, you want it biased in your favour, kind of like how my wife can tickle me but I can't tickle her.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

You obviously have trouble with words in your own mouth, why bother putting them in someone else's?
Money plays some role in most elections. I think everyone agrees with that.
Do you think citizens lose their 1A rights because they choose to associate via corporation rather than expose themselves to individual liability?

As usual Rabbi you're not honest. Every CEO, CFO, Board of Director, etc retains their individual first amendment rights. The SC giving individual rights to an amoral corporation is where I object. The duty of a corporation is to the corporation, not even to the stockholders (see Enron for a prime example) or its employees or executives. And, surely not to the American people or to the nation. Profit is its sole purpose (of course that is not universally true, many businesses, buisness men and women, are not personifications of Snidley Wiplash. Some definitely are).

You are typically being obtuse. Or really stupid.
No one said individuals do not have 1A rights. Do they lose those rights simply by virtue of associating in a corporation?
Did you never hear of a non-profit corporation? So obviously they are not all about profit.
And citing Enron, a dysfunctional defunct corp whose officers are in jail, as typical betrays either wonton partisanship or total ignorance. Maybe both.
So, do you think individuals give up their 1A rights when they associate via corporation?

 

[Foxfyre]

What the people of Wisconsin did, whether consciously or unconsiously, was to express the direction this country must take if it is going to survive.

Governments at all levels must again learn to operate within whatever revenues it receives even if it means that the government does only what it absolutely has to do and foregoes anything it doesn't absolutely have to do however nice what it wants to do might be.,

Public unions should be outlawed everywhere because no administration should be able to bind future administrations in perpetuity. Whenever you have politicians who will give the public union anything it wants in return for support and votes for the politician, the consequences for future administrations can be disastrous. We see it happen in city after city, state after state, and in the federal government. Those who create the problem are long gone and aren't around for either the consequences or the criticism.

Public and elected employees at all level should live and work under the same laws and conditions as all of us including funding their own 401K plans that they can take with them but that won't continue to be funded after they leave their government jobs. No politician or bureaucrat should be able to exempt himself from the laws and conditions he imposes on everybody else.

In the liberal world it is simple. Liberal laws, regulations, and dictates, regardless of consequences, are good because the motives are right.

Conservative laws, regulations, and dictates are evil because they don't come from liberals.

In the real world, we live with the consequences of the decisions made by the elected officials and bureaucrats in government. Yesterday, the people of Wisconsin restored some of the purpose that was originally intended for government. And it was a very good thng that they did. I believe the results in the coming months and years will affirm my opinion about that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You may have chosen a frugal government, but is it wise?

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
T. Jefferson

You do realize that overblown out of proportion government employee contracts take bread from the mouth of the tax payers don't you?

Curbing runaway egregiously expensive public union contracts leaves money with the majority who earn it.

Public employees work at the whim of the public and they are now reaping what they have sown over the years. Outrageous pay and benefits demands compared to those of the private sector will no longer be tolerated.

it's about time.

Interesting comment. I'd really like to know what you do for a living.

Where have you been. Most regular posters here know i own my own business.

What I'm hearing from you is envy, an emotion which clouds judgment. You begrudge working people for their "outragious" salary and benefits yet fail to say anything about those whose great wealth comes not from their labor but inheritance and/or moving other peoples money around (Bankers, brokers, etc.).

I do not envy government hacks. You don't seem to realize that public employee pensions threaten to bankrupt any number of states. The reason is that public employee contracts have terms approved by the very people who benefit from union political contributions. That is a conflict of interest and one of the principle reasons why government employees cost the taxpayer so much.

Private wealth and those who hold it do not cost me anything. No one on wall st forced anyone to invest their money.

But i am forced to pay for wasteful public employee contracts via taxes when many if not most government employees could be replaced by private contract workers at a significant savings.

Of course the great demon is taxes. Government employees don't pay taxes, and few actually do anything but get in the way. Isn't that what you believe?

Government employees do not add to the net tax revenue because all their earnings come from tax revenues. So the only people contributing to the net tax revenue of the country, city, or state are private sector participants

In fact I'm a retired government employee, and earn a very nice retirement along with solid health care benefits. However, I do pay taxes; real estate, sales, state and federal income, excise and likely others, some hidden in the cost of goods or services.

Should have known you were a hack. Tell me how much of your own money did you contribute to your pension?

Government employees should all be moved into a defined contribution retirement plan like the rest of us. This guaranteed income for life is what's breaking the bank.

In fact government employees do provide a service, some at the cost or risk of their life. That's a fact I know very well, I served as a pallbearer for several government emplyees (federal and local) who gave their life in service to their country/community.

But I digress, how do you earn your living?

Very few government employees risk their life as you say.

And as I said many if not most government employees could be replaced by private contracted services and none of us would see a reduction in service but we would see a reduction in cost.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A people get the government they deserve. If the voters in WI or throughout the several states decide to elect those who define liberty as the will of the majority we will have turned our backs on the principles upon which the founding fathers risked everything.

The liberty of free association and the freedom to petition the government died in WI yesterday when the majority of voters decided to change the course of history. The fringe on the right wing of American politics is crowing in celebration not knowing - as none of us can know - what the consequences of such a vote will eventually mean; it seems President Jefferson had an idea of the meaning:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"

All this simply because the people of Wisconsin wouldn't kick Walker out of office, Wry?

Yes, a minority has rights in this country but they doesn't mean they are allowed to overturn lawfully held elections simply because they don't agree with the politics of the person who was elected.

The people have spoken. Twice now, actually. Think it might be time for you to admit that THEY have rights as well?

If Barrett had won I'm sure Wry would be singing a different tune.

Not. I've been against CU v. FEC since the ruling. It is wrongheaded and opens up our elections to special interest manipulations - foreign and domestic manipulations. My refrain has remained the same.

 

[g5000]

No, I complemented you. And, I did not duck anything. I responded with my opinion which I am pleased you consider silly. For now I can read how you've reasoned money does not influence the results of an election.

I await your comprehensive response.

As an aside, and I suspect you're not in the business, but why do political consultants waste time and money producing TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them?

Heh. No, I ducked your eye beam. Must be heavy that and definitely hard to pick at specks while it's in.

I said money did not influence THIS election because people had their mind made up (according to multiple exit polls) before the primary was even complete. It was a specific example, not a generality. The fact you missed that is not lost on me.

Mea Culpa. I did miss that point. So in general we agree, money plays and integral part in deciding elections. Does that "fact" influence your opinion on CU v. FEC?

This is just another version of whining for a nanny state.

You know why those "TV, Radio and Print ads obscuring who actually paid for them" work?

Because people like you are too lazy to inform yourselves on the issues. Instead, you get all your information from the bongwater in those ads and then repeat them incessantly on internet forums as gospel.

The brain needs to be exercised or it atrophies, just like your muscles. Relying on the pablum fed to you by your partisan masters reduces the intellectual capacity of your brain to the bandwidth of a bumper sticker.

You swallow this "corporations buy elections" bullshit from your Maddows while the other side swallows the "we need Voter ID" propaganda from their Hannities.

Funny how the Maddows never mention the massive amounts of money labor unions have poured into elections since...forever.

Look at the bullshit ratio on this forum. It's nearly 100:1. We're drowning in the bullshit topics that have ****-all with the things that matter to the future of our nation. Shitfests about Mrs. Obama's vacations, or someone's "gaffe", or some mongoloid in Alabama caught on video saying something retarded being passed off as representative of the entire right wing electorate.

And people on all sides of the political map here make shit up constantly. Constantly.

No one is forcing you to watch and believe those ads. They wouldn't sell if people weren't buying them!

There is only so much air time. Adding more money to the same amount of supply just results in...anyone? Anyone?


Here are some cold hard facts for you. There have been several campaign finance reform judicial decisions and congressional legislation in the last 40 years. Guess what effect they have had on the re-election rate of incumbents?

ZERO!!!!

THAT is your lesson in history today.


The problem is not the ads, my friend. The problem is the laziness of the electorate who are more absorbed with the prosthetic cleavage of an aging ex-wrestler's wife on a reality TV show than with finding out what's inside a Wall Street financial reform bill.

And your parroting of the left wing brand of bumper sticker philosophy is adding to the problem.

 

[Misty]

Well if money is the key factor to winning elections, Obama should have no problem since all he has really done for this country is campaign and fund raise for the presidential election.