Bush says Democrats shouldn't be trusted - Page 3

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You mean like suppose you really liked Joe Lieberman and what he's done and want to contribute $20,000 to promote his good image and help him get elected?

Vets for Freedom - SourceWatch

That's unpossible!

If there wasn't a 501 setup for my candidate I wouldn't be able to use this nice loophole they built in for themselves.

Nice try. but no.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah that's why Ross Perot almost won the 1992 election starting from scratch with no ideology and Pat Buchanan won 8% (2400% of what the libertarian got) in the same situation, while Libertarians have been all over the internet for over a decade, and before that had the public forum to discuss their views much better than Reform party candidates did

Perot has billions of dollars to spend and Buchanan has amazing name recongition. Again, nice try. No.

lew · 10-03-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

hurt the rich? they still donate tens of thousands of dollars without restriciton, and further millions to 527s which give the exact same political speech

yeah real restriction...and you compare that to arresting an american without charges or presentable evidence and torturing and detaining them for life...

wow...is this the general libertarian line of thinking? Libertarians got 0.3% of the vote in 2004 when people were disgusted with Bush and Kerry and both parties in general...i wonder if posts like this are are a reason why

Link to ONE, just ONE American that has been arrested without charges and been tortured? ONE FUCKING LINK?

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Once again, when Republicans take away liberty, it's bad, but when the Democrats do it, it's good!

I could give two shits what percentage the LP got last election. Hitler was voted into office. Bush was voted into office. You laugh at the majority of Americans for being stupid for putting Bush into office, but then you laugh at the minority that dislike both Bush and Kerry. Well, which is it? It's either the majority or the minority is right. They both can't be.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Once again, when Republicans take away liberty, it's bad, but when the Democrats do it, it's good!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I could give two shits what percentage the LP got last election. Hitler was voted into office. Bush was voted into office. You laugh at the majority of Americans for being stupid for putting Bush into office, but then you laugh at the minority that dislike both Bush and Kerry. Well, which is it? It's either the majority or the minority is right. They both can't be.

It is only a restriction of liberty if you think it is, apparntly.

Raping the constitution and the freedom of speech is only bad when it offends you. Look at hate crime laws.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Link to ONE, just ONE American that has been arrested without charges and been tortured? ONE FUCKING LINK?

If they secretly arrested someone why would the press be notified?

Are you saying its IMPOSSIBLE they have an american arrested secretly without charges?

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If they secretly arrested someone why would the press be notified?

Are you saying its IMPOSSIBLE they have an american arrested secretly without charges?

Thanks for the link.

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Thanks for the link.

No, I don't have a link

I don't think its relevant, I don't think links of anecdotes are everything when we are talking about recently passed laws (like detainee bill)...but you are entitled to your own opinions

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, I don't have a link

I don't think its relevant, I don't think links of anecdotes are everything when we are talking about recently passed laws (like detainee bill)...but you are entitled to your own opinions

This all started because you asked how does the Feingold bill restrict my liberties. Truth be told, it doesn't , But then again, neither does anything Bush has done restrict my immediate liberties.

The point is that they both restrict liberties. Just because they may not affect your or me, doesn't mean that they don't restrict liberties. The fact is that the Feingold bill does indeed restrict liberties.

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by lew

This all started because you asked how does the Feingold bill restrict my liberties. Truth be told, it doesn't , But then again, neither does anything Bush has done restrict my immediate liberties.

The point is that they both restrict liberties. Just because they may not affect your or me, doesn't mean that they don't restrict liberties. The fact is that the Feingold bill does indeed restrict liberties.

Not that I don't agree with you, at least on some levels, but look at the differances here.

There is no right to give money to politicians in the constitution, at least as far as i'm aware of. There is a right to privacy from the government in the constitution and a right to protect from unlawful search and seisure.

SoFlaJDM · 10-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by lew

This all started because you asked how does the Feingold bill restrict my liberties. Truth be told, it doesn't...
The fact is that the Feingold bill does indeed restrict liberties.

so what is it?

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Not that I don't agree with you, at least on some levels, but look at the differances here.

There is no right to give money to politicians in the constitution, at least as far as i'm aware of. There is a right to privacy from the government in the constitution and a right to protect from unlawful search and seisure.

There is no right to privacy either. It's implied. Just like there is an implied right to give money to whomever you want.

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

so what is it?

It restricts liberties. It doesn't necessarily restrict MY liberties at the immediate time. Which is what I said.

motivez · 10-03-2006, 02:40 PM

I've spoken with Thorgrim about the "post reported" posts. He's also been banned from this thread for provoking other members.

hsmith/lew please make sure your posts are about the topic and not another user. If you have an issue use the "report post" feature and I promise you we'll get to it.

DosEquis · 10-03-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by lew

There is no right to privacy either. It's implied. Just like there is an implied right to give money to whomever you want.

The problem comes from to much money. After a certain amount of money people are able to buy votes. THAT goes against the foundation of this country. Keep in mind we have nearly 70 lobbyists for every 1 person in congress. It takes a 200 million dollar buy in to run for president any more. It takes 2 million to run for congress and 5-10 million to run for senate. Something is fundamentally wrong with campaign finance. McCain Finegold was aimed at these kinds of issues, not who and where you spend your money with.

What we have right now is corporate fascism. Corporations are generally running this country by purchasing votes for the legislation their lobbyists come up with. It happens across the board with any party because in order to raise the money to run and be re-elected they need big donations. Bob the CEO from Company A does not want to give 200,000k to a congressman who won't scratch his back in return.

lew · 10-03-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The problem comes from to much money. After a certain amount of money people are able to buy votes. THAT goes against the foundation of this country. Keep in mind we have nearly 70 lobbyists for every 1 person in congress. It takes a 200 million dollar buy in to run for president any more. It takes 2 million to run for congress and 5-10 million to run for senate. Something is fundamentally wrong with campaign finance. McCain Finegold was aimed at these kinds of issues, not who and where you spend your money with.

What we have right now is corporate fascism. Corporations are generally running this country by purchasing votes for the legislation their lobbyists come up with. It happens across the board with any party because in order to raise the money to run and be re-elected they need big donations. Bob the CEO from Company A does not want to give 200,000k to a congressman who won't scratch his back in return.

I agree with you that there needs to be campaign reform. I agree that lobbyists are a bad thing, to a degree.

What I don't agree is that this bill helped with anything.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The problem comes from to much money. After a certain amount of money people are able to buy votes. THAT goes against the foundation of this country. Keep in mind we have nearly 70 lobbyists for every 1 person in congress. It takes a 200 million dollar buy in to run for president any more. It takes 2 million to run for congress and 5-10 million to run for senate. Something is fundamentally wrong with campaign finance. McCain Finegold was aimed at these kinds of issues, not who and where you spend your money with.

What we have right now is corporate fascism. Corporations are generally running this country by purchasing votes for the legislation their lobbyists come up with. It happens across the board with any party because in order to raise the money to run and be re-elected they need big donations. Bob the CEO from Company A does not want to give 200,000k to a congressman who won't scratch his back in return.

If they were goign to limit it, they should have said only individuals can donate to campaigns with a limit of $1000

I actually would be fine with that.

DosEquis · 10-03-2006, 06:11 PM

Tell me how this makes any sense what so ever....

He has spent $6,751,500 of his own money to unseat the 18-year incumbent.

Ned Lemont so far, today, has spent 6.7 million of his own money for a job that pays 150,000 a year. How stupid is that.

Pete Ricketts, running for senate in Nebraska is rumored to hit 10 million of his own money by the time this thing is done...

The shit doesn't add up.

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Tell me how this makes any sense what so ever....

He has spent $6,751,500 of his own money to unseat the 18-year incumbent.

Ned Lemont so far, today, has spent 6.7 million of his own money for a job that pays 150,000 a year. How stupid is that.

Pete Ricketts, running for senate in Nebraska is rumored to hit 10 million of his own money by the time this thing is done...

The shit doesn't add up.

people are obsessed with power

kinggovernor · 10-03-2006, 06:43 PM

I'm here for the gangbang, oh wait I already missed it