Page 51 of 82 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 1220

Thread: GOT HIM! O.T [iraq]

  1. #751
    Gold Member Beamtracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Citizen of the World
    Posts
    2,226
    Originally posted by DonN
    Defending myself with equally "morally spineless" put down tactics surely is OK here, No?
    Your words, not mine.

    Originally posted by TyVole
    The 500th US serviceperson just died in Iraq.

    We should all take a moment of silence today while we're filling our gas tanks.
    Very well put, TyVole.

    Originally posted by toby
    Bush... ...visited Martin Luther King's grave in Atlanta then immediatlely went to a $2000/plate re-election fund-raiser there
    Those "fund raisers" lead to the corruption of our society.

    To win an election, you must be backed with millions of dollars. To get the huge amounts of money needed to launch an election campaign, you need corporate backing. Corporate "donations".

    No really left wing party or politicians will win because they will never get that corporate backing. Corporations should have no say in election outcomes.

    Political "donations" should be banned.

  2. #752
    It's quite obvious that that new campaign finance law is a total joke.

    I agree -- we should end political donations and end PACs. But, of course, all the politicians and their supporters would scream "First Amendment! First Amendment!" And the Supreme Court would likely support them.

  3. #753
    Registered User Meaty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    458
    Originally posted by Beamtracer
    No really left wing party or politicians will win because they will never get that corporate backing. Corporations should have no say in election outcomes.

    Political "donations" should be banned.
    In the united states, before soft money was banned, both parties raised nearly the same amounts of soft money. The fact is that a corporation will likely donate money to both candidates as a manner of hedging their bets.

    I think corporations should be limited to a $20,000 (or some amount of money that is not insigificant, but will not warrent 'favors' ... I personally think that the free speech argument is bumkus (did i spell that right?) in this case because a corporation is a legal entity and does not/should not enjoy the same rights as an individual.

    I certainly agree with the intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), but for some reason, I am under the impression that the act is filled with enormous loopholes that everyone is abusing the hell out of. The numbers, however, would indicate that soft money donations are gone... but fundraising totals are through the roof. I am not sure how that can be, maybe someone more knowledgeable can explain.

    Side note: the BCRA was spearheaded by Senators McCain (R) and Feingold (D)... I am not sure how the vote went, but it certainly had bipartisan leadership.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=Q
    Chris Moschella

  4. #754
    I don't think this is a left-wing vs. right-wing issue. There are many left-leaning organizations such as labor unions that corrupt the political process just as much as corporations. And a lot of corporations support liberals. More than you would think.

    I don't think the soft-money ban has accomplished anything other than allowing certain politicians (GW included) to say that they passed campaign finance reform.

  5. #755
    Registered User ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    Posts
    4,216
    Well said TyVole, see, we can agree on some things.

    Money does corrupt the parties. But we've seen how attempts to derail this have failed. If you shut down one method of "buying power", there are always ways to sidestep the regulations. Sometimes worse then before.
    I just don't know if there is a way to correct this other then more "feel good" legislation.
    Ted R. Ruiz Sr.
    Ad-Venture Video Productions
    Elite NewTek Dealer
    www.editbay.tv
    TriCasters, Most All Models
    Cameras-Mostly HVX 200's

  6. #756
    Originally posted by TyVole
    It's quite obvious that that new campaign finance law is a total joke.

    I agree -- we should end political donations and end PACs. But, of course, all the politicians and their supporters would scream "First Amendment! First Amendment!" And the Supreme Court would likely support them.
    Brilliant?
    Fuzzy reasoning!
    > "We" < Who are we... ?
    Certainly - Not any mature citizens who understand and support the protections of the Constitution.

    > "all the politicians and their supporters would scream "First Amendment! First Amendment!" < This is us. Who run for office, work on elections, vote... If you're not a politician and or don't support politicians, what are you. Opted out of the political process I'd guess you'd be. I'd say that anyone that opts out, has no right to expect to influence our political process by standing behind the mask of ananonymity and launches anti-democratic missles.

    Of course, the Supremes would support them! It's the Law. Sounds like you're ridiculing the court for a tendancy to uphold the Law.

    "we should end political donations and end PACs"
    Why? This is how one affords to get elected these days.
    I guess you want the richest guy to get elected?
    You guys think you're so superior to the process by making these sorts of dreamy comments.
    I'm glad you could never get elected on your stands.
    Real democracy IS all about getting elected by lawful means.
    That IS the central fact of the success of the American democracy.
    You want it changed? OK Go get elected and change it! All that's required is to convince 50.000001+ pct of the voters that your ideas are cool and you can get them into law.
    Or barring that, take over the country maybe?
    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  7. #757
    Gold Member Beamtracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Citizen of the World
    Posts
    2,226
    Originally posted by DonN
    "we should end political donations and end PACs"
    Why? This is how one affords to get elected these days.
    I guess you want the richest guy to get elected?...
    ...Real democracy IS all about getting elected by lawful means.
    That IS the central fact of the success of the American democracy.
    You want it changed? OK Go get elected and change it!
    Sure, corporate donations to political parties is legal. It's just not moral.

    It has lead to a locked system. A duopoly. Nobody else can afford to get in. Is that democracy?

    Ross Perot had a shot of it a few years ago. He was only able to because of his billionaire status. He failed, but you've got to have this kind of money behind you to even try. Is that democratic?

    If political donations were outlawed now, what would be lost? You wouldn't get all those annoying advertisements on TV. No great loss.

    What would be gained is that the political parties would be more accountable to the people, and less accountable to the demands of corporations.

  8. #758
    Originally posted by DonN
    "we should end political donations and end PACs"
    Why? This is how one affords to get elected these days.
    I guess you want the richest guy to get elected?
    You guys think you're so superior to the process by making these sorts of dreamy comments.
    I'm glad you could never get elected on your stands.
    Real democracy IS all about getting elected by lawful means.
    That IS the central fact of the success of the American democracy.
    You want it changed? OK Go get elected and change it! All that's required is to convince 50.000001+ pct of the voters that your ideas are cool and you can get them into law.
    Or barring that, take over the country maybe?
    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    No, I don't want the richest guy elected, nor do I want the most corrupt.

    You're right -- I couldn't get elected on these "stands" -- nor could anyone else. People like Paul Tsongas and John McCain have already proved this, when the political establishment and their money rose up and destroyed them like ants.

    No one here has said we should change things by unlawful means. But that doesn't mean we have to put our heads in the sand like you.

    Political donations and PACs did not exist at the foundation of this country. If they had, you can be certain that men like Adams (both of them), Jefferson, and Lincoln would've never been elected. And if these things didn't exist at our founding, there's no reason to believe that we need them now.

  9. #759
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    264
    Originally posted by Jake
    dfc--

    This part of the quote:



    Suggests to me that Clinton would have fostered a revolt in Iraq leading to the ouster of Hussein, rather then an invasion and subsequent occupation ala Bush.

    Regardless, though, Clinton didn't go ahead with an invasion of Iraq. It seems that much of the referencing of Clinton's view on the subject is an effort on the part of pro-war advocates to characterize the anti-war stance as an outgrowth of partisan politics. But who is to say that, if Clinton had gone ahead with a war, he wouldn't have faced the same objections?

    Furthermore, the timing of this war and its proximity to 9/11 is significant. Is this the appropriate way to spend our resources when we are pursuing Bin Laden and his thugs? Is is appropriate for the government to use terrorism as a pretext to pursue an unrelated agenda? These are questions that do not hinge on what Clinton said or did.
    Jake, Sorry, been away a few days.

    Just wanted to catch up on this.

    I guess, that would depend on whether you feel..that terroism against the US...is simply a matter of Osama..and a few thugs...or whether it's a much wider scope than that. (something that has been put forth here as very interesting discussion..by lasco)

    It would depend on whether one's view is..that killing Osama would end this. And in that view..then..everything else in the world that is not focused on that one objective, is some unrelated agenda..that is simply diverting attention from efforts in catching OSama and ending terroism.

    Along with that are the policies and the actions of many presidents before and up to and including Bush..as it relates to terroist actions against the US and the reasons for it. Along with that, are the arab reasons for it...whether that be political, religious or otherwise..that have been fostered..and nurtured...over the years and over any range of issues.

    I think, there is a long history, behind all of these things...(including Saddam).

    In regards to Clinton:

    The famous "rumsfeld letter" which outlined a growing, coming threat of direct terroist attacks on US soil..and the dangers of Iraq/SAddam and the situation in IRaq.. was sent to Clinton in January of 98 after a string of growing intensity and bold terroists attacks around the world directly against US targets, resent to congress via Trent Lott and Newt G in July98. In August98, Clinton launched simultaneous strikes against both Afghanistan..and Sudan. Followed directly by..multple strikes in Iraq by US and UK forces. You might want to look up "why" Clinton attacked and bombed Sudan as well. That Clinton speech I quoted from was a couple of paragraphs..out of a very long speech concerning the air strikes against Iraq. There was a similar speech just a month earlier about strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan. Here:
    http://www.time.com/time/daily/speci...intonwash.html

    I think that, strategic targeting using military of just focused objectives (Osama or WMD sites in Iraq)...had already been tried..and it failed to resolve the issues with Saddam..and it also failed to stop Osama..and his attacks..and support from continuing to grow, escalate.and eventually reach US soil. (I think that's pretty much just as Rumsfeld, etc..predicted in their warnings)
    Clinton did all of these things...in 1998. It had already been tried. So had the diplomatic efforts. So, had all the other means..that were in the range of US national and international interests and efforts. Clinton also had a "peace process" roadmap going with Palestine/Isreal..from the OSLO agreements of 93...which despite Clintons long, hard efforts..degenerated once again into horrible violence.

    And even Clinton..drew a realational understanding about these issues that faced the US beyond Osama..leading him to diplomatic efforts in many directions..but also to pre-emptively strike..not just at Osama leadership in AFghanistan, but also to carry out strikes in Sudan AND in Iraq.

    I'll leave you with an exceprt of Clintons 98 speech (a month earlier than the last one I posted)...after launching simultaneious strikes on AFghanistan and Sudan.

    ...".My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism.

    We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.

    But of this, I am also sure. The risks from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action. For that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact.... "

    Beyond the uncanny resemblance of this speech to some of Bush's, is that the action Clinton chose to take..was to launch pre-emptive strategic strikes..first against osama in Afghanistan/Sudan..and then..a month later..in Iraq against Saddam and suspected WMD sites.

  10. #760
    Originally posted by TyVole
    No, I don't want the richest guy elected, nor do I want the most corrupt.

    You're right -- I couldn't get elected on these "stands" -- nor could anyone else.

    No one here has said we should change things by unlawful means. But that doesn't mean we have to put our heads in the sand like you.

    Political donations and PACs did not exist at the foundation of this country. If they had, you can be certain that men like Adams (both of them), Jefferson, and Lincoln would've never been elected. And if these things didn't exist at our founding, there's no reason to believe that we need them now.
    " I don't want the richest guy elected, nor do I want the most corrupt". Why not the rich guy? An individual with the most to loose might just do the right thing. Many of Our strongest leaders have been rich men! The law deals with the corrupt. This is what makes a democracy so strong and popularly supported. Get your head out of the sand, as you said, and actually look at reality.

    "You're right -- I couldn't get elected on these "stands" -- nor could anyone else." Duh. We agree on that at least.

    "... put our heads in the sand like you." ??? Trying to put me down again, eh? I said you could try, not that I advocated, overthrowing the government... there is a difference. Get YOUR head above ground and take a deep breath. Your sounding oxygen deprived.
    But, you're right again. " No one here has said we should change things by unlawful means."

    As for how political campaigns were financed in those times, I suggent the rich guys did it then too. Its a long tradition because it works. There is a saying, - a PAC is a PAC is a PAC, a PAC by any other name is still a PAC...

    - You certainly seem to have a head full of convenient historical "facts". Tell us more about how things are and ought to be...

  11. #761
    Originally posted by DonN

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    I think it's you that needs the smoke. And make sure you inhale.

    Now, in reply to your venom:

    I have nothing against rich guys running for office. It shouldn't, though, be a prerequisite. And if you believe the law deals with the corrupt, you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy, and Santa, and that the invasion of Iraq was justified.

    It's you who doesn't look for at reality. Why not for one day turn off Rush and Bill and actually think for yourself. Because everything you've spewed in this forum comes directly from their mouths.

    Me, oxygen deprived?

    And finally, why make statements about history when you are clearly completely ignorant about it? It's pretty pathetic that someone so outspoken about patriotism doesn't know anything about the history of his own country.

  12. #762
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Michigan, U.S.
    Posts
    209
    DonN--

    In response to this:

    Certainly - Not any mature citizens who understand and support the protections of the Constitution.
    And this:

    Of course, the Supremes would support them! It's the Law. Sounds like you're ridiculing the court for a tendancy to uphold the Law.
    I suggest you read this article, that I posted earlier in the thread. It appears that you have some misconceptions about the First Amendment that are discussed therein:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0401050906.asp

    The liberals on the Supreme Court, and in universities, have been undermining the Framers' First Amendment handiwork. The Court's decision upholding campaign-finance restrictions show that Americans are losing the liberties that they've long enjoyed; likewise with the speech codes that some public universities have been instituting. And this loss of liberty stems from liberals' disdain for the text of the Constitution, and liberal judges' willingness to make law, instead of simply applying it. Soon we will lose the freedom of speech that Americans have long taken for granted.

    That's the story I've been hearing from many of my conservative and libertarian correspondents. And it's just plain false.
    dfc--

    Your posts brings some thoughts to mind, but I'd like to ruminate a bit more before responding to your post. Thanks in advance for your patience. I should have something soon, but it probably won't be tonight.

  13. #763
    Originally posted by Jake
    DonN--

    I suggest you read this article, that I posted earlier in the thread. It appears that you have some misconceptions about the First Amendment that are discussed therein:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0401050906.asp

    This reference says nothing about our topic of finance of elecctions. My point was/is that the Supremes uphold the law, (Obviously) by their contemporaneous interpretation of it. How else? The Supremes are charged from day one, with interpreting the Constitution and the laws derived from it. That's always been their job and they've done it since the beginning. That's all my comments were meant to convey. My conception seems pretty clear to me. It's taught in grade school - sixty years ago in my case - that the genius of the Founders Constitutional language was its generality, which was intentional, precisely so it could be interpreted.
    What "misconception" , perhaps yours, are you referring to?
    What's your point?

  14. #764

    FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

    Here is something useful,

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    >U. S. Constitution<
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That's it in it's entirety. All else is interpretation.

    Boy O boy has this clear mandate been twisted and spun into unrecognizable forms in two hundred years.
    Shall we start over?

    Jake. It says nothing, zero about election financing.

  15. #765
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    264
    Originally posted by Jake


    dfc--

    Your posts brings some thoughts to mind, but I'd like to ruminate a bit more before responding to your post. Thanks in advance for your patience. I should have something soon, but it probably won't be tonight.
    Jake, take all the time you need. I appreciate you taking the time to collect thoughts and make good discussion on things

Page 51 of 82 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •