Official "What are you thinking about right now?" (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

It sends a bad message that it is perfectly ok to have these Super Pacs and to donate unlimited money to it. Bill Mahr is a comedian, but what he does say holds value to people and to encourage the process like this is wrong to me. It doesn't matter whether its for Obama or whatever dick Republican, it's still bad either way.

---

Taking the moral high road, in this case, isn't going to help.

It is perfectly ok to have these Super Pacs and to donate unlimited money to it.
(although, why you can't donate the same money directly to a candidate is beyond me...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

It is perfectly ok to have these Super Pacs and to donate unlimited money to it.
(although, why you can't donate the same money directly to a candidate is beyond me...)

---

Well, it's perfectly OK in that it's legal. It's questionable whether it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Well, it's perfectly OK in that it's legal. It's questionable whether it should be.

---

Yeah, I don't think it should be. Who are you most likely to listen to.

Someone who gave you a million bucks or Someone who gave you nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Taking the moral high road, in this case, isn't going to help.

---

How about discussing how the deal with Super Pacs have corrupted our system instead of giving 1 Million, which would be better spent helping the poor anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

How about discussing how the deal with Super Pacs have corrupted our system instead of giving 1 Million, which would be better spent helping the poor anyway.

---

Maher HAS been critical of Super Pacs. However, to him, doing what he can to ensure Obama wins is more important to him than taking a moral stand against them. Again, it's his money. I couldn't care less.

I don't buy the corruption angle. At least with "super pacs" the money is more out in the open.
Besides, the old laws which were overturned in order to make super pacs a possibility were all about controlling who was allowed to participate in the political process. I, for one, am completely happy with wrenching as much control over the political machinery in this country away from the Democrat and Republican party as is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't buy the corruption angle. At least with "super pacs" the money is more out in the open.
Besides, the old laws which were overturned in order to make super pacs a possibility were all about controlling who was allowed to participate in the political process. I, for one, am completely happy with wrenching as much control over the political machinery in this country away from the Democrat and Republican party as is possible.

---

However, super pacs just exacerbate the problem of mo money, mo speech.

I don't see how more money is a problem. More speech most certainly isn't a problem.
After this year we're likely to see a lot more independent, purely single issue, PACs spring up into existence as well. I think that'll be a very good thing.

Of course, then Congress will shut them down. So, whatever. In other news, the sun rose and set again today and water is still wet. Life goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't see how more money is a problem. More speech most certainly isn't a problem.

---

What is a problem is "more money" translating to "more important speech."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What is a problem is "more money" translating to "more important speech."

---

Precisely my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't buy the corruption angle. At least with "super pacs" the money is more out in the open.
Besides, the old laws which were overturned in order to make super pacs a possibility were all about controlling who was allowed to participate in the political process. I, for one, am completely happy with wrenching as much control over the political machinery in this country away from the Democrat and Republican party as is possible.

---

So I guess the ones trying to pass SOPA because of contributions isn't a problem at all. They just want to protect us because the majority of citizens wanted the protection of SOPA right? Ohms it might be legal, but you need to get a clue if you think the ones that funnel money into Super Pacs don't have anything to do with policy that they are buying and that which normal people don't want anything to do with.

Hell who knows, maybe you are part of something the Super Pacs contribute in. It sure seems that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What is a problem is "more money" translating to "more important speech."

---

Guess I didn't even need to post with this beauty.

+1 OD SUCKS

it's the ol' golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

it's the ol' golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules

---

I do liek golden showers tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I do liek golden showers tho

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmPPjoYGw8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

So I guess the ones trying to pass SOPA because of contributions isn't a problem at all. They just want to protect us because the majority of citizens wanted the protection of SOPA right? Ohms it might be legal, but you need to get a clue if you think the ones that funnel money into Super Pacs don't have anything to do with policy that they are buying and that which normal people don't want anything to do with.

Hell who knows, maybe you are part of something the Super Pacs contribute in. It sure seems that way.

---

Now that's crazy talk. Super pacs have had 0 influence on Congress yet, as they've had zero opportunity to have an influence yet. The Supreme Court just overturned that law last year.
can we at least try to keep the hyperbolic rhetoric down to a dull roar? Please?

Really? The super PACs during the republican primary, running ads and sinking Newt's approval levels is 'zero influence'? I'd say shaping the race for the guy who could be the next president is rather influential...

Citizens United needs to be overturned, and money needs to be out of politics. Instead it's been going the other way for decades, and this was probably the biggest fall into the chasm.

I'm studying up a bit on primaries and what cost exactly is handled by the states - it's alarming to think that state/taxpayer funds may be used for Republican or Democrat primaries or caucuses.

Newt isn't running for Congress. Everyone who is currently in Congress ran their election campaigns last year, at the most recent.
Focus people, focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Newt isn't running for Congress. Everyone who is currently in Congress ran their election campaigns last year, at the most recent.
Focus people, focus.

---

Just because the campaign season is over for Congress does not mean they are not bought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Just because the campaign season is over for Congress does not mean they are not bought.

---

Fine. However, what in the world does that have to do with the (new) role of super pacs in the presidential election?
Like I said: Focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Guess I didn't even need to post with this beauty.

+1 OD SUCKS

---

I don't know what I have to with this

I don't understand. Is he really a potential candidate for the presidency of the USA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A

it looks like a link, but it's not a link


i've been fooled again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

it looks like a link, but it's not a link


i've been fooled again

---

Sorry eto, should work now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Newt isn't running for Congress. Everyone who is currently in Congress ran their election campaigns last year, at the most recent.
Focus people, focus.

---

Um, there's 430-someodd House seats up for grabs in 2012.

*facepalm*

I give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

*facepalm*

I give up.

---

You're missing the point, apparently.

Quote:

---

Everyone who is currently in Congress ran their election campaigns last year, at the most recent.

---

People in Congress are running election campaigns NOW.

No, you've apparently (along with a couple of others) missed what started this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

So I guess the ones trying to pass SOPA because of contributions isn't a problem at all. They just want to protect us because the majority of citizens wanted the protection of SOPA right? Ohms it might be legal, but you need to get a clue if you think the ones that funnel money into Super Pacs don't have anything to do with policy that they are buying and that which normal people don't want anything to do with.

Hell who knows, maybe you are part of something the Super Pacs contribute in. It sure seems that way.

---

Nobody who is currently in Congress, and therefore has had one iota of influence on the SOPA/PIPA bills among other issues, has been influenced by the presence of Super PAC's. Yet.
But, whatever. Apparently I'm now a shill for all of the Super PAC's in existence or something.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

No, you've apparently (along with a couple of others) missed what started this:


Nobody who is currently in Congress, and therefore has had one iota of influence on the SOPA/PIPA bills among other issues, has been influenced by the presence of Super PAC's. Yet.
But, whatever. Apparently I'm now a shill for all of the Super PAC's in existence or something.
:rolleyes:

---

I thought your point was that politicians aren't bought off, but whether it's a super pac or not, regular peoples voices are gone and have been gone.

Of course politicians are bought off. (Really?!?)

I don't buy into the idea that Super PAC's make that problem worse, is all. That whole line that "peoples voices are gone" isn't true.
Just because you personally can't pay off a politician doesn't mean that everyone's influence is completely gone.

Anyway... meh.
I'm too tired for this conversation right now.

Super PACs generally invest in candidates that already agree with their line of thinking so it's difficult to prove that the money influences anything.

I am thinking about the Republican primaries coming up in Arizona and Michigan. I am with Mitt Romney. I feel Romney has a better chance of beating Obama than does Santorum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I am thinking about the Republican primaries coming up in Arizona and Michigan. I am with Mitt Romney. I feel Romney has a better chance of beating Obama than does Santorum.

---

He does, but I think that's mostly because Santorum's so extreme that he's going isolate pretty much everyone except his hardcore followers.

While I absolutely detest Santorum's views, I have to say he has impressed me with his straightforward, open honesty. Not politicking it up, but explaining his votes and admitting its not all black and white...

I can't stand that anyone is as close minded as he is, but at the same time you have to give him some credit for being a somewhat transparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

While I absolutely detest Santorum's views, I have to say he has impressed me with his straightforward, open honesty. Not politicking it up, but explaining his votes and admitting its not all black and white...

I can't stand that anyone is as close minded as he is, but at the same time you have to give him some credit for being a somewhat transparent.

---

While I don't exactly agree with Hitler's kill the Jews policy, at least he doesn't beat around the bush with such a horrid policy, so that's commendable


+1 AOW sucks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

I'm done posting today

---

So wish it was still yesterday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

So wish it was still yesterday

---

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/u...0054794807.jpg

Rustling Jimmies engaged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

While I don't exactly agree with Hitler's kill the Jews policy, at least he doesn't beat around the bush with such a horrid policy, so that's commendable


+1 AOW sucks

---

OMG HITLER

Yeah, I admire Rick Santorum's "honesty" about the same as I admire Ron Paul's "consistency." Consistent and wrong are still consistent, just like honest and insane is still honest.