Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Who wins matters less than after the election will we fix campaign spending

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

2seaoat



Of course I am biased and want Romney to lose.....but if he wins....or if Obama wins, will this country take the elections back and not allow foreign money, corporate money, and unions to pour billions into the most silly exercise of smoke and mirrors.

First, can we pass a constitutional amendment which overturns the Citizen United Case. Dred Scott was a Supreme Court Case which said some people were not persons under our constitution, and Citizens United is telling us that Corporations are people......they are not perfect, and yes they have made historic mistakes.....but how do we correct this rigged and broken system? I do not think a constitutional amendment will pass without bipartisan support.

Second, we could try to institute the corruption escape clause in Citizens and allow Congress to pass a law limiting contributions based on real evidence of foreign contributions, and then see if the Court will recognize the real decaying and corrupting impact of Citizens and give them an easy path to modify the decision. Again it would take bipartisan support in Congress.....I doubt it will happen.

So the reality of this election is that the Oligarchy is going to consolidate its power despite who wins. The only person in my opinion who could change the contributions would be a President Romney who actually had a soul and conscious, and introduced legislation for a constitutional amendment.....However, an evil man doing something which would benefit the nation.....now I must be smoking something.

Guest


Guest

Sure... As long as your new laws of association are applied evenly and fairly... Who am I to stand in the way of progressivism.

But I want it applied to unions, religion, interest groups, hell apply it to aarp and street gangs. Forrest/Trees/Govt Solutions.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:Sure... As long as your new laws of association are applied evenly and fairly... Who am I to stand in the way of progressivism.

But I want it applied to unions, religion, interest groups, hell apply it to aarp and street gangs. Forrest/Trees/Govt Solutions.

What the hell are you talking about? Please elaborate on how your answer is even an answer to the question.

Guest


Guest

First I would have to teach you the constitution and the bill of rights and how/why it was created... I'm not that patient.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:Of course I am biased and want Romney to lose.....but if he wins....or if Obama wins, will this country take the elections back and not allow foreign money, corporate money, and unions to pour billions into the most silly exercise of smoke and mirrors.

First, can we pass a constitutional amendment which overturns the Citizen United Case. Dred Scott was a Supreme Court Case which said some people were not persons under our constitution, and Citizens United is telling us that Corporations are people......they are not perfect, and yes they have made historic mistakes.....but how do we correct this rigged and broken system? I do not think a constitutional amendment will pass without bipartisan support.

Second, we could try to institute the corruption escape clause in Citizens and allow Congress to pass a law limiting contributions based on real evidence of foreign contributions, and then see if the Court will recognize the real decaying and corrupting impact of Citizens and give them an easy path to modify the decision. Again it would take bipartisan support in Congress.....I doubt it will happen.

So the reality of this election is that the Oligarchy is going to consolidate its power despite who wins. The only person in my opinion who could change the contributions would be a President Romney who actually had a soul and conscious, and introduced legislation for a constitutional amendment.....However, an evil man doing something which would benefit the nation.....now I must be smoking something.

-----------

Seaoat, ...your solution is a "Santa Claus" Romney. Right out of Miracle on 34th Street, or It's a Wonderful Life. Great movies, but little relationship to the problems we're facing in 2012, including a candidate for office that more resembles Gordon Gecko than Santa Claus...and a large number of people who are completely clueless, or somehow just DON'T WANT TO SEE the truth. I'm looking more toward people like Bernie Sanders of VT or Allen Grayson of FL, should he manage to be re-elected. I think Al Franken would introduce such a bill.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Supremes overreached their bounds on the Citizens United case. I'm expecting a more organized Occupy movement in the Spring. I think it's a real grassroots movement, and this is a real grassroots issue, transcending party lines.



I expect to see this issue come much more to the forefront after this election, because obviously it will go on as planned, come hell or high water...and it looks like we're getting the high water!

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:First I would have to teach you the constitution and the bill of rights and how/why it was created... I'm not that patient.

Don't condescend to me, you little twerp.

2seaoat



I think his argument was that the constitution guarantees certain rights of association which are consistent with the findings in Citizen.....but to turn corporations into people and to shut the door on Congress regulating corrupt practices under the guise of freedom of association is as misguided as Dred Scott, and will have just as harmful of an impact on this nation.

Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

Guest


Guest

The first amendment has no distinction for a media corp either... would your opinion have govt limit them too?

Guest


Guest


By Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Find on FacebookFollow on Twitter


Jun 19, 2008 8:58am




Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election




Email776Smaller FontTextLarger Text|Print


In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.


You really think obama if he won would keep his promise on this? he already broke this promise TWICE.

perhaps romney can fix this problem

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

She might outweigh me.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:I think his argument was that the constitution guarantees certain rights of association which are consistent with the findings in Citizen.....but to turn corporations into people and to shut the door on Congress regulating corrupt practices under the guise of freedom of association is as misguided as Dred Scott, and will have just as harmful of an impact on this nation.

Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

Maybe I should just say "mental midget", or is that too derogatory to short people? It was a pet name for a fellow Texan, albeit a somewhat misguided one. I played tennis, too, as a kid, but I really like racquetball. Maybe it was all those hot summers when my shoes would try to stick to the court.

We're not really talking about free assembly, though. What we ARE talking about is massive amounts of money from any and all sources, and the very real threat of elections being bought, with a complicit media making a killing off the process, and with Joe the Plumber or George the Electrician or Fred the Miner having no real voice in their representation. Given the political bent of the Supremes, a Constitutional amendment seems the only way to go. But there will have to be extreme pressure from the public to get anything meaningful through Congress.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

She might outweigh me.

Let's just say I'm known for my left hook.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I think his argument was that the constitution guarantees certain rights of association which are consistent with the findings in Citizen.....but to turn corporations into people and to shut the door on Congress regulating corrupt practices under the guise of freedom of association is as misguided as Dred Scott, and will have just as harmful of an impact on this nation.

Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

Maybe I should just say "mental midget", or is that too derogatory to short people? It was a pet name for a fellow Texan, albeit a somewhat misguided one. I played tennis, too, as a kid, but I really like racquetball. Maybe it was all those hot summers when my shoes would try to stick to the court.

We're not really talking about free assembly, though. What we ARE talking about is massive amounts of money from any and all sources, and the very real threat of elections being bought, with a complicit media making a killing off the process, and with Joe the Plumber or George the Electrician or Fred the Miner having no real voice in their representation. Given the political bent of the Supremes, a Constitutional amendment seems the only way to go. But there will have to be extreme pressure from the public to get anything meaningful through Congress.


Free speech isn't free anymore... It requires "massive amounts of money" to distribute a message today.

Perhaps you would prefer that only the individually wealthy could afford to buy free speech? Be careful what you wish for.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:The first amendment has no distinction for a media corp either... would your opinion have govt limit them too?

Once there were journalistic standards...maybe an industry-wide code of ethics...that prohibited blatant lying in the media. If the paper, for instance, printed inaccurate information and it was discovered, the paper would print a retraction, or at least at some point admit the error in a subsequent report. Now it seems the media is full of lies and distortions and no one is holding those who intentionally distort accountable. And when you say "limit", I think you mean regulate. I think when it's discovered that someone intentionally falsified the "news", there should be a heavy penalty. The pen can destroy lives if wielded improperly...that also applies to the airwaves.

Guest


Guest

See the sedition act of 1918... you really have no idea where progressivism comes from or where it leads do you?

Nekochan

Nekochan

IF Romney wins? Really, Seaoat? It's the first time I've seen you entertain the possibility that Romney might win.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I think his argument was that the constitution guarantees certain rights of association which are consistent with the findings in Citizen.....but to turn corporations into people and to shut the door on Congress regulating corrupt practices under the guise of freedom of association is as misguided as Dred Scott, and will have just as harmful of an impact on this nation.

Twerp.....is that out of affection, or is it the combination of little twerp which makes it derogatory? I think PKR is over six foot so he would have to be a big twerp.....of course he does play tennis.

Maybe I should just say "mental midget", or is that too derogatory to short people? It was a pet name for a fellow Texan, albeit a somewhat misguided one. I played tennis, too, as a kid, but I really like racquetball. Maybe it was all those hot summers when my shoes would try to stick to the court.

We're not really talking about free assembly, though. What we ARE talking about is massive amounts of money from any and all sources, and the very real threat of elections being bought, with a complicit media making a killing off the process, and with Joe the Plumber or George the Electrician or Fred the Miner having no real voice in their representation. Given the political bent of the Supremes, a Constitutional amendment seems the only way to go. But there will have to be extreme pressure from the public to get anything meaningful through Congress.


Free speech isn't free anymore... It requires "massive amounts of money" to distribute a message today.

Perhaps you would prefer that only the individually wealthy could afford to buy free speech? Be careful what you wish for.

No, that's the problem now. "The individually wealthy" are able to significantly influence elections BECAUSE what was previously illegal can now be done with far fewer restrictions. And we have part of the solution...the internet. And the media moguls can afford to donate air time or whatever at cost, and just write it off. If elections had less impact across the board on bottom lines, the incentive to say anything for a sound byte would be gone, or at least diminished.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:See the sedition act of 1918... you really have no idea where progressivism comes from or where it leads do you?

Tell us Pkr-where does it lead to? Communism?

no stress

no stress

PkrBum wrote:First I would have to teach you the constitution and the bill of rights and how/why it was created... I'm not that patient.


lol!

cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Which were preceded by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Your point? How does that relate to the subject at hand?

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
PkrBum wrote:See the sedition act of 1918... you really have no idea where progressivism comes from or where it leads do you?

Tell us Pkr-where does it lead to? Communism?

It leads to the erosion of our liberties. You may think the freedoms we enjoy are common... they are not.

Even in Europe they have limits to speech. But don't worry... I don't see our rights and freedoms increasing.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum