Corporation to run for congress

Message boards : Politics : Corporation to run for congress
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 982426 - Posted: 22 Mar 2010, 19:12:14 UTC

Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress

Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be "democracy’s next step": It is running for Congress.

_______________________________________

So how long before corporations like Walmart are (overtly) running America?

Murray Hill Inc. have posted their campaign video on youtube.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 982426 · Report as offensive
Profile rebest Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 00
Posts: 1296
Credit: 45,357,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 982619 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 1:23:47 UTC - in response to Message 982426.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2010, 1:26:03 UTC

Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress

Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be "democracy’s next step": It is running for Congress.

_______________________________________

So how long before corporations like Walmart are (overtly) running America?

Murray Hill Inc. have posted their campaign video on youtube.


Using the same logic the Supremes applied to the First Amendment, I expect it won't be long before Walmart - citing the Second Amendment - puts together its own "...well regulated militia" to defend us.

Of course, they won't take the same oath that I did.

Join the PACK!
ID: 982619 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 982627 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 1:39:36 UTC - in response to Message 982426.  

Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress

Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be "democracy’s next step": It is running for Congress.

_______________________________________

So how long before corporations like Walmart are (overtly) running America?

Murray Hill Inc. have posted their campaign video on youtube.

Oh the Far Right will be really torn on that.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 982627 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29334
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 982641 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 2:34:27 UTC - in response to Message 982619.  

Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress

Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be "democracy’s next step": It is running for Congress.

_______________________________________

So how long before corporations like Walmart are (overtly) running America?

Murray Hill Inc. have posted their campaign video on youtube.


Using the same logic the Supremes applied to the First Amendment, I expect it won't be long before Walmart - citing the Second Amendment - puts together its own "...well regulated militia" to defend us.

Of course, they won't take the same oath that I did.

Didn't companies do that in the 30's to protect against labor unions?

ID: 982641 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 982672 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 4:55:05 UTC

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.
ID: 982672 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 982677 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 5:09:18 UTC - in response to Message 982672.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2010, 5:09:38 UTC

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 982677 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 982687 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 5:39:32 UTC - in response to Message 982677.  

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.
ID: 982687 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 982797 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 16:19:50 UTC - in response to Message 982687.  

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.

Personally, I think that Citizens should come first, Corporations 2nd. As some corporations act like irresponsible children and they're allowed to influence our Government too much today, With money, large obscene amounts of It. And It seems Corporations like Republicans and so does Wall Street. Some Corporations and Wall Street needs to know there are limits to what they can do.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 982797 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 982809 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 22:34:43 UTC - in response to Message 982797.  

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.

Personally, I think that Citizens should come first, Corporations 2nd. As some corporations act like irresponsible children and they're allowed to influence our Government too much today, With money, large obscene amounts of It. And It seems Corporations like Republicans and so does Wall Street. Some Corporations and Wall Street needs to know there are limits to what they can do.

In other words you want to take the money from a retired couple who worked hard and invested in stock to provide welfare to those who don't want to work. Corporations are owned by all of us who have put any money into a retirement accounts so we will not be a burden to others.

Now you may consider me a fat cat, but I currently planing to work to and beyond age 70 because I don't think Social Security will be there for me and I will need the extra time to save sufficient money so I don't need to commit suicide when I run out of money for food. I don't have an expensive retirement planed, but I need to allow for a long one.

ID: 982809 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29334
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 982825 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 23:16:23 UTC - in response to Message 982677.  

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime.

Really? Bernie Madhoff Inc. might disagree as well as the Girls Gone Wild corporation.


ID: 982825 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 982841 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010, 23:56:26 UTC - in response to Message 982809.  
Last modified: 24 Mar 2010, 0:08:37 UTC

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.

Personally, I think that Citizens should come first, Corporations 2nd. As some corporations act like irresponsible children and they're allowed to influence our Government too much today, With money, large obscene amounts of It. And It seems Corporations like Republicans and so does Wall Street. Some Corporations and Wall Street needs to know there are limits to what they can do.

In other words you want to take the money from a retired couple who worked hard and invested in stock to provide welfare to those who don't want to work. Corporations are owned by all of us who have put any money into a retirement accounts so we will not be a burden to others.

Now you may consider me a fat cat, but I currently planing to work to and beyond age 70 because I don't think Social Security will be there for me and I will need the extra time to save sufficient money so I don't need to commit suicide when I run out of money for food. I don't have an expensive retirement planed, but I need to allow for a long one.

Maybe I had better clarify that, I meant big impersonal corporations as they do come in a lot of sizes, Why do You think I wrote "some"?

Wall Street does make a lot of Money for Wall Street in their commissions, Even when they lost money for their client(401K's come to mind).

Me I listen to CNN and read whats on their website, Do I bother with Fox anymore? No, As I think their full of It, As they lean way too far to the right for My tastes.

If Yer a Fat Cat, I couldn't tell, There is fat and then there is fat, Me I'm a totally disabled person, I do the best that I can with some of the hidden disabilities that I have(It makes Me do edits), Yeah I'm fat, Of course I'm not lazy or constantly eating, But then I don't buy much food(junk or not), just enough for the month(I'm down to My last loaf of Roman Meal) and 4 rolls of TP, They'll just have to last until the 1st. I don't believe in the phrase excuses, excuses(My Mom used to say that a lot to Me in a not so nice voice when She was drunk years ago), I either do something when I feel like I'm up to It or I don't.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 982841 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 982850 - Posted: 24 Mar 2010, 0:26:53 UTC - in response to Message 982841.  

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.

Personally, I think that Citizens should come first, Corporations 2nd. As some corporations act like irresponsible children and they're allowed to influence our Government too much today, With money, large obscene amounts of It. And It seems Corporations like Republicans and so does Wall Street. Some Corporations and Wall Street needs to know there are limits to what they can do.

In other words you want to take the money from a retired couple who worked hard and invested in stock to provide welfare to those who don't want to work. Corporations are owned by all of us who have put any money into a retirement accounts so we will not be a burden to others.

Now you may consider me a fat cat, but I currently planing to work to and beyond age 70 because I don't think Social Security will be there for me and I will need the extra time to save sufficient money so I don't need to commit suicide when I run out of money for food. I don't have an expensive retirement planed, but I need to allow for a long one.

Maybe I had better clarify that, I meant big impersonal corporations as they do come in a lot of sizes, Why do You think I wrote "some"?

Wall Street does make a lot of Money for Wall Street in their commissions, Even when they lost money for their client(401K's come to mind).

Me I listen to CNN and read whats on their website, Do I bother with Fox anymore? No, As I think their full of It, As they lean way too far to the right for My tastes.

If Yer a Fat Cat, I couldn't tell, There is fat and then there is fat, Me I'm a totally disabled person, I do the best that I can with some of the hidden disabilities that I have(It makes Me do edits), Yeah I'm fat, Of course I'm not lazy or constantly eating, But then I don't buy much food(junk or not), just enough for the month(I'm down to My last loaf of Roman Meal) and 4 rolls of TP, They'll just have to last until the 1st. I don't believe in the phrase excuses, excuses(My Mom used to say that a lot to Me in a not so nice voice when She was drunk years ago), I either do something when I feel like I'm up to It or I don't.

I am not very much of a fat cat as of now, my largest holding hasn't done much in the last 10 years. I do suspect I hold stock in many of the impersonal corporations that your are taking about. You can take a public look at it here
ID: 982850 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 982875 - Posted: 24 Mar 2010, 1:02:34 UTC - in response to Message 982850.  

If you want to take away the personhood of a corporation, I am sure they will be very happy because then they wouldn't need to pay taxes. On the other hand a corporation could never run for office because a corporation would be unable to take the oath of office.

I am pretty sure that all businesses have to pay taxes whether they are a corporation or not.

Corporations did sponsor candidates in the past but how is that so different than Obama receiving support from liberal causes and unions? The important point is that the source of all donations should be revealed so that voters know who they are placing their vote for and what they stand for and that is still a legal requirement.

The problem with corporations is that they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions if they commit a crime. You certainly shouldn't be giving them the same rights as individuals considering this.

It might be a legal requirement to reveal funding sources, but let's face it, more money spent on a campaign means you are more likely to gain office. Huge corporations have massive sources of funding that no individual could hope to compete with.

Most people in America get their information from very limited or biased sources (eg fox news). It would be very easy with that amount of money to distort the information given to voters even more and effectively buy a congress seat or presidency.

Corporations are held responsible for their crimes. They are sued in court and officers can be directly held for crimes committed in the companies name. Often it's better to go after the company instead of the officers because if you win, the money will be far better.

Our campaign reporting laws are such that any one who is interested can find that information out with little trouble. Our political adds contains information on who is paying for it.

The personhood we give corporation is the best way our legal system has to keep the laws simple but it has a few restrictions such as corporations don't die the same way humans do and the are not allowed to directly hold political office. The courts do understand that there is a difference but when possible corporation are treated like humans.

Personally, I think that Citizens should come first, Corporations 2nd. As some corporations act like irresponsible children and they're allowed to influence our Government too much today, With money, large obscene amounts of It. And It seems Corporations like Republicans and so does Wall Street. Some Corporations and Wall Street needs to know there are limits to what they can do.

In other words you want to take the money from a retired couple who worked hard and invested in stock to provide welfare to those who don't want to work. Corporations are owned by all of us who have put any money into a retirement accounts so we will not be a burden to others.

Now you may consider me a fat cat, but I currently planing to work to and beyond age 70 because I don't think Social Security will be there for me and I will need the extra time to save sufficient money so I don't need to commit suicide when I run out of money for food. I don't have an expensive retirement planed, but I need to allow for a long one.

Maybe I had better clarify that, I meant big impersonal corporations as they do come in a lot of sizes, Why do You think I wrote "some"?

Wall Street does make a lot of Money for Wall Street in their commissions, Even when they lost money for their client(401K's come to mind).

Me I listen to CNN and read whats on their website, Do I bother with Fox anymore? No, As I think their full of It, As they lean way too far to the right for My tastes.

If Yer a Fat Cat, I couldn't tell, There is fat and then there is fat, Me I'm a totally disabled person, I do the best that I can with some of the hidden disabilities that I have(It makes Me do edits), Yeah I'm fat, Of course I'm not lazy or constantly eating, But then I don't buy much food(junk or not), just enough for the month(I'm down to My last loaf of Roman Meal) and 4 rolls of TP, They'll just have to last until the 1st. I don't believe in the phrase excuses, excuses(My Mom used to say that a lot to Me in a not so nice voice when She was drunk years ago), I either do something when I feel like I'm up to It or I don't.

I am not very much of a fat cat as of now, my largest holding hasn't done much in the last 10 years. I do suspect I hold stock in many of the impersonal corporations that your are taking about. You can take a public look at it here

I'll look later, I'm downloading a 2.6GB demo(the Settlers 7), Oh and Fat in My case is My weight, Which went up after surgery in 2002. So I get SSI(Supplemental Security Income) as a result, Plus there are some other things going on in My head and other places in My body some of which are age related and some are due to dumb luck(Which I try to keep in check as best as I can). Oh and I'm heating dinner now, later.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 982875 · Report as offensive
Profile Blurf
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 06
Posts: 8958
Credit: 12,678,685
RAC: 0
United States
Message 983320 - Posted: 25 Mar 2010, 0:02:37 UTC - in response to Message 982809.  
Last modified: 25 Mar 2010, 0:03:06 UTC

In other words you want to take the money from a retired couple who worked hard and invested in stock to provide welfare to those who don't want to work. Corporations are owned by all of us who have put any money into a retirement accounts so we will not be a burden to others.

Now you may consider me a fat cat, but I currently planing to work to and beyond age 70 because I don't think Social Security will be there for me and I will need the extra time to save sufficient money so I don't need to commit suicide when I run out of money for food. I don't have an expensive retirement planed, but I need to allow for a long one.


Dena-I don't consider you a "Fat Cat". My wife and I live quite comfortable and have also planned the same. Chances are due to a relatively minor Cardiac condition (that may/may not blow up later). We also recognize that Social Security will be DOA on our retirement so we've upped our 401k funds to 10% of our pay. I'm also earning more by doing sales (which I'm apparently good at despite little-to-no training). As well I'm getting involved in Disability Fitness which is a wide-open area with endless possibilities for seminars and such---my trainer and I plan to start writing a book shortly (w/ accompanying DVD).


ID: 983320 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 983409 - Posted: 25 Mar 2010, 4:56:17 UTC

Since the Supreme Court ruling, the system has been thrown wide open to allow maximun corporate participation.
Why the hell not? The citizen participation in the American system is one of the lowest in the world and if corporations wish to step in to fill the void...good luck to them.

Fortunately, the new ruling also allows for unlimited foreign campaign contributions so maybe some state owned Chinese corporation or a corporation from Dubai can back this run for office with unlimited funding.

What fun. It's a Libertarian wet dream.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 983409 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 983421 - Posted: 25 Mar 2010, 5:53:09 UTC - in response to Message 983409.  

What's the difference? Other countries have been dumping money in our political system for years. A few were not very good about it and that's how we found about it. Our Abscam scandal was all about the the FBI acting for a sheikh to buy favors from congress. Maybe now they won't feel the need to hide it and we can see where the money is.
ID: 983421 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 983540 - Posted: 25 Mar 2010, 15:56:15 UTC

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
HUH?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I had thought you would hold the sanctity of your own democratic proccess to a higher standard.
More proof that the right doesn't give a damn about the well being of citizens or their role in a free society.
Just keep the money rolling in.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 983540 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 983728 - Posted: 26 Mar 2010, 3:11:38 UTC - in response to Message 983540.  
Last modified: 26 Mar 2010, 3:13:00 UTC

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
HUH?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I had thought you would hold the sanctity of your own democratic proccess to a higher standard.
More proof that the right doesn't give a damn about the well being of citizens or their role in a free society.
Just keep the money rolling in.

First the left and the right both have been bad in the past. Obama is spending money like it's water and Bush signed almost everything that was placed before him.
To make it simple we do have the most corrupt government money can buy. The big problem is the government most of the time will not investigate it's self and the FBI only hunts down the bad cases and then gives them to the government to prosecute.
Taking the money away from them will not solve the problem. What we need is a way to put each one on a lie detector before we elect them.
ID: 983728 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 983742 - Posted: 26 Mar 2010, 3:39:59 UTC - in response to Message 983728.  

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
HUH?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I had thought you would hold the sanctity of your own democratic proccess to a higher standard.
More proof that the right doesn't give a damn about the well being of citizens or their role in a free society.
Just keep the money rolling in.

First the left and the right both have been bad in the past. Obama is spending money like it's water and Bush signed almost everything that was placed before him.
To make it simple we do have the most corrupt government money can buy. The big problem is the government most of the time will not investigate it's self and the FBI only hunts down the bad cases and then gives them to the government to prosecute.
Taking the money away from them will not solve the problem. What we need is a way to put each one on a lie detector before we elect them.

Let Me See Obama signs Health care in to law and that cuts spending and lowers the deficit in one fell swoop and Republicans who get campaign donations from the insurance industry fight tooth and nail to kill It, stir up fear(on the capitol building balcony on Cspan) and spread outright lies to get what they want, Bush spent more than Obama by spending the Surplus that Clinton had created and Bush and the Republicans created the mess on Wall Street and wanted to privatize the Social Security Administration(SSA) after people lost all of their money that was invested into 401K funds that were heading for a collapse that caused the economic mess that Obama our President inherited from Bush. The No bid contracts need to be stopped, A small Jobs bill was created, among other things, the Stimulus Bill has reversed the slide in unemployment by about 32,000 a month or so back. In 2011 all the Troops from Iraq will come home as agreed, which will help lower the Pentagons spending, Which will only leave Afghanistan where the 9/11 plotters were sheltered by the Taliban who became our enemies as they would not give up their guests who murdered nearly 3,000 people on 09/11/2001.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 983742 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 983752 - Posted: 26 Mar 2010, 4:15:50 UTC - in response to Message 983742.  

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
HUH?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I had thought you would hold the sanctity of your own democratic proccess to a higher standard.
More proof that the right doesn't give a damn about the well being of citizens or their role in a free society.
Just keep the money rolling in.

First the left and the right both have been bad in the past. Obama is spending money like it's water and Bush signed almost everything that was placed before him.
To make it simple we do have the most corrupt government money can buy. The big problem is the government most of the time will not investigate it's self and the FBI only hunts down the bad cases and then gives them to the government to prosecute.
Taking the money away from them will not solve the problem. What we need is a way to put each one on a lie detector before we elect them.

Let Me See Obama signs Health care in to law and that cuts spending and lowers the deficit in one fell swoop and Republicans who get campaign donations from the insurance industry fight tooth and nail to kill It, stir up fear(on the capitol building balcony on Cspan) and spread outright lies to get what they want, Bush spent more than Obama by spending the Surplus that Clinton had created and Bush and the Republicans created the mess on Wall Street and wanted to privatize the Social Security Administration(SSA) after people lost all of their money that was invested into 401K funds that were heading for a collapse that caused the economic mess that Obama our President inherited from Bush. The No bid contracts need to be stopped, A small Jobs bill was created, among other things, the Stimulus Bill has reversed the slide in unemployment by about 32,000 a month or so back. In 2011 all the Troops from Iraq will come home as agreed, which will help lower the Pentagons spending, Which will only leave Afghanistan where the 9/11 plotters were sheltered by the Taliban who became our enemies as they would not give up their guests who murdered nearly 3,000 people on 09/11/2001.

Please tell me what you are smoking because I want some. Obama is spending money like water and is cooking the books. Much of what he claims he will save comes from eliminating fraud. Why didn't he eliminate the fraud first? It because he doesn't have a plan for doing it.

As for the insurance and medical people, they were in Obama's corner till he turned on them and they found out Obama was out to destroy their industry.

At least Bush was attempting to find a solution for Social Security. The way I see it, we have about 6 years left and possibly less. If action is not taken very soon there will be no Social Security.

Bill Clinton signed the bill that caused the home loan problem, Bush attempted several times to fix the problem but was never able to get anything through congress. Even I knew it was going to happen a year or two before it did. I didn't expect it to be as bad as it was because I was unaware of some of the things going on in the background.

Obama will still be in Iraq in 2011 because they are not ready to go it alone. They may not be in combat but will still be training.

If you read New Deal or Raw Deal or study the Carter administration you would see that stimulus of the type the republicans and democrats are applying will not solve our problems. Any improvement we are currently seeing is natural recover. If anything the recovery is being harmed by the stimulus. FDR turned a recession into the Great Depression by doing the same thing Obama is doing. Now Obama is working on a Double Dip Recession with the regulations coming down the tube. Growing business is what will bring on the recovery but at the moment the only thing that's growing is government. I wish it wasn't so and I would hope we could learn from the mistakes of history. Brace your self because it's going to be a long one.
ID: 983752 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Corporation to run for congress


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.