The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[HarthorneWingo]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but can someone explain to me how groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, that don't have to disclose their donors, won't lead to the complete loss of democracy over time?

If our officials are essentially being elected by corporations, or even other countries, and we have no way of finding out, let alone stopping it, how is that not the end of America being a country of the people?

I mean, if publicly financed elections aren't allowed to level the playing field, corporations have the same rights as a person, and politicians start advocating laws that make voting more restrictive, possibly at the behest of their major corporate donors that will never be accounted for, how can anyone support that?

Fascism, here we come.

[Pharmcat]

Im not indicting gay parents and saying they can't raise a normal productive member of society. But what I am indicting is an agenda of tearing down the archetype of the nuclear family in an ongoing effort to water down and erase gender roles.

Homosexual, transexual, same sex couples, pre-op, post-op, where does it end?

Can two gay men or women teach a boy or a girl how to love, revere or have a healthy normal relationship with a member of the opposite sex?

If you tear down the nuclear family, society crumbles. There's no argument against that fact. Everything you see today, the society that we have is based upon family.

Now those with the liberal mindset will say "well theres nothing wrong with gay people raising kids, they are viable members of society too."

Sure if they are law abiding and work for a living and don't suck from the gov't teet thats correct.

But as for me, I don't believe it''s ideal or preferred. Not saying it should be illegal, but all things being equal a heterosexual couple should always have precedence over a gay couple in the adoption process.

If gays were meant to be parents then a man and a man or a woman and a woman could and would be able to reproduce, but they can't. That's a fact, until some whacko scientist tries to change biology in the name of "progress."

its obvious the heterosexuals have failed at that considering the 50% divorce rate

[Capn'O]

Can two gay men or women teach a boy or a girl how to love, revere or have a healthy normal relationship with a member of the opposite sex?

Most research says they are no less equipped to do so based on how the kids turn out compared with those raised in adoptive 2 parent straight households. Aka, the findings of the research in the article cited above. This is not to say that gay couples in general would do be so equipped, but those screened for adoption can apparently handle that parental responsibility.

If you tear down the nuclear family, society crumbles. There's no argument against that fact. Everything you see today, the society that we have is based upon family.

Meh, extended family > nuclear in my view but given nuclear... the ideal or preferred state would be that birth parents would make choices that they can follow through on but... in light of that not happening these children need the best families that can be found for them. Quibbling over the sexual preference of the adoptive couple when that difference has been shown to be negligible in the behavior of the child seems like ax grinding.

[richardhutnik]

If you guys haven't seen this already, it's a must.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/index.html

There are some individuals who believe that, unless you have government restrict the amount courts can deal punitive damages, it will be impossible to keep costs down, and everyone pays in the end. This essential bit of protection for corporations and other professionals is essential, or else costs won't be kept lower.

- Rich

Well, looky looky here. Where ya been, man? You ok?

Regarding punitive damages, the Supreme Court has already restricted it. Basically, "punies" can't be more than a 9:1 ratio to compensatory damages (lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering).

I figured I would stop in here and say hi, and then ride off into the sunset when there is a lockout, hoping I lose interest completely in the NBA. I saw your post asking what was up, so I also decided to chime in.

The usual on my end. Not sure anyone really cares what I am up to, if it isn't changing. I had my back get worse so I have to look into disability, so I can keep the car on the road. Currently writing this on my back in bed. To keep my sanity, doing game stuff. See my other post for details.

- Rich

[richardhutnik]

Hutnik's back, thank christ!

I thought we were gonna have to call somebody up from the D-League!

Not sure for how long. Don't really have much interest in politics, and when the lockout kicks in, what is there to talk about in the way of hoops?

Best to meet me on Facebook, if you want to end up chatting any, and keep in touch.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

I figured I would stop in here and say hi, and then ride off into the sunset when there is a lockout, hoping I lose interest completely in the NBA. I saw your post asking what was up, so I also decided to chime in.

The usual on my end. Not sure anyone really cares what I am up to, if it isn't changing. I had my back get worse so I have to look into disability, so I can keep the car on the road. Currently writing this on my back in bed. To keep my sanity, doing game stuff. See my other post for details.

- Rich

Rich, I saw your Facebook page. You look like a healthy young man. How old are you? Anyhow, sorry to hear about your back. Is that a degenerative condition or a disc problem that you can't get treatment because of the healthcare issue? (Obama was a pussy for agreeing to a 2014 start date, btw). I had a bad sciatica problem causing numbness in my big toe which went away soon after I started using an orthopedic wedge seat pillow on my office chair, where I do most of my sitting. I think you can get them for well under $50.

[HarthorneWingo]

Bloomberg Government study on the health care provision of the Ryan budget proposal. I'm just reporting the news.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-2 ... ittle.html

Ryan Plan to Cut Medicare Vouchers Saves Little
By Jeffrey Young - Jun 29, 2011 10:11 AM ET

Giving wealthy seniors less for Medicare, a component of a budget plan by Representative Paul Ryan that made the Wisconsin Republican a polarizing figure in the U.S., would barely dent health spending, a Bloomberg Government study shows.

The plan would replace the current Medicare system of guaranteed benefits with payments to make up for the cost of obtaining private health insurance. It offers less assistance to seniors with the highest incomes, a policy known as “means testing” that Ryan has said will reduce the budget deficit.

Ryan would make the wealthiest 8 percent of 65-year-olds pay a larger share of their health-care bills in 2022, the first year the plan would take effect. Smaller U.S. subsidies would be 4.4 percent, or $1.2 billion, cheaper than if all beneficiaries got the same assistance, according to the study.

-more-

[GONYK]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but can someone explain to me how groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, that don't have to disclose their donors, won't lead to the complete loss of democracy over time?

If our officials are essentially being elected by corporations, or even other countries, and we have no way of finding out, let alone stopping it, how is that not the end of America being a country of the people?

I mean, if publicly financed elections aren't allowed to level the playing field, corporations have the same rights as a person, and politicians start advocating laws that make voting more restrictive, possibly at the behest of their major corporate donors that will never be accounted for, how can anyone support that?

Fascism, here we come.

That may seem obvious to me and you, but I am looking to see how it is viewed by the Right-leaning members of this thread

[mugzi]

You know I was about to retire but then I felt compelled to answer this question because it transcends politics in a sense.

I'm a cynic, an optimistic cynic, but a cynic nonetheless. And the cynic in me wonders if this isn't already the case. How do we know these elections are accurate or reflect the will of the people?

I'm not counting the votes, are you?

And at the end of the day, all any of us should care about is being able to earn a living, being left the f alone if we aren't harming others and being free from imminent danger.

Healthcare wasn't passed democratically if 55-60% of the public polled across the country disagreed with it in the first place. This is not a democracy for the last time, its a constitutional republic. Difference is a democracy has the premise of majority rule, yet in this constitutional republic a majority elects a legislative minority that is supposed to vote in the majority's best interest yet seldom does so. I believe this echoes my sentiment. And no I didnt check his party affiliation before I pasted it. It just make sense because its true.

America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy

By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
Speech Given September 9, 2006 in Salt Lake City, Utah

How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic? There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy".

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but can someone explain to me how groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, that don't have to disclose their donors, won't lead to the complete loss of democracy over time?

If our officials are essentially being elected by corporations, or even other countries, and we have no way of finding out, let alone stopping it, how is that not the end of America being a country of the people?

I mean, if publicly financed elections aren't allowed to level the playing field, corporations have the same rights as a person, and politicians start advocating laws that make voting more restrictive, possibly at the behest of their major corporate donors that will never be accounted for, how can anyone support that?

Fascism, here we come.

That may seem obvious to me and you, but I am looking to see how it is viewed by the Right-leaning members of this thread

wow, your going to agree with Wingo's fascism comment? Normally he just throws words like fascism, genocide, and terrorism out there.....I'm used to it by now...maybe you can explain to me the fascism thing.

This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology, its about a particular loophole in special interest....both sides would advocate transparency....Im not an expert in campaign financing, but I know for a fact that foreign nationals aren't funding these groups....the dems have been using scare tactics , about foreign corporations funding campaigns ever since the supreme court decision giving corporations unlimited ability in funding advertising for campaigns...Axelroid accused Karl Rove of taking foreign corporation funds without proof, and it was a disaster for him...Although they don't disclose their donors, these groups still get audited...I don't think anyone risking jail time...


There are all kinds of loopholes in contributing to campaigns...it always the soft money that has the most effect....The left have have groups like Acorn who do all kinds of corrupt things...one thing about not disclosing donors thats good, is that donors can give to their cause without fear of retaliation by the other side....Obama's mo-do has been punish your enemies and reward your supporters (except for jews)....he did give disaster relief to Texas, and the union cadillac tax was a clear kick back.

At the end of the day Obama's going to raise more money, rest assured...It won't make that much of a difference though...He has to run on his record, and if the economy doesn't get better he doesn't have much of a chance.

Ulitmately I agree with you, in your call for transparency, but I don't think that its going to be a factor in 2012.

[HarthorneWingo]

Just when I thought we were building a bridge to our differences, you go and do this. EXS, you're a habitual line stepper. Just like Rick James (byatch!).

(Go to 1:45):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwgvwFWK_dQ&feature=related[/youtube]

I throw the words "genocide" and "terrorism" around ALL THE TIME, eh? Really? I'd love to read all the examples of that, which I'm sure you have right in your back pocket. When have I EVER used the word "genocide" here? I don't think I ever have.

I really don't throw those words around ... AT ALL. And you would be very hard pressed to find evidence of that.

I "threw out" the word "fascism" because - as GONYK , a more clear thinking poster on this forum is few and far between - readily acknowledge. But, unfortunately, many conservatives, such as yourself, have been duped by the corporate spin machine. They've pulled the Jedi-mind trick on y'all and you don't even realize it. Face it, you've been brainwashed. Just keep listening to the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rush, Hannity, et al., and your minds will turn to mush.

You're spending too much time in front of that mainstream conservative media, son.

[ewingxmanstarks]

"Habitual line stepper"...Nice, coming from someone who just called me a byacht

You didn't agree with that rapper that Obama was a terrorist?

You don't have your own definition for neo-con, and social engineering?

Again the problem mentioned doesn't evoke an ideological response.

Are you trying to tell me democrats don't have a monopoly on the ground game?

I thought we did have a mutual respect, and we have the understanding that we're big boys, or is this just a us vs. them tactic your trying to deploy?

LMAO at the "mainstream conservative media" you talk about.

[Capn'O]

I think the technical term ought to have been "corporate run oligARCHY"

[ewingxmanstarks]

^do you mind elaborating?

[Capn'O]

^do you mind elaborating?

Ah ****, I meant oligarchy. Econ on the mind.

Mostly, I was being a wiseass

But the system they described wasn't fascism. Fascism refers to a heavily authoritarian, single party state. While that is one result of what could come from what they described it's not an if/then conclusion.

The implication in the post was that these intermediary campaign collection groups that are not required to disclose their funders are clearly getting most of their funding from large corporate donors (probably true). If so, it ensures that a few major corporate stakeholders would have a significant influence on the political game moreso than they already do. Hence corporate oligarchy (rule of a few select elites - usually that pay in).

[ewingxmanstarks]

Well even if you want to say corporations are funding them...there are many competing special interest groups, there's also the DNC and RNC.

Are you saying that you think these 2 group are governing?

Aren't these groups trying to influence government, and elections?

[Capn'O]

Well even if you want to say corporations are funding them...there are many competing special interest groups, there's also the DNC and RNC.

Are you saying that you think these 2 group are governing?

Aren't these groups trying to influence government, and elections?

Well, it's their argument, not mine. I'm just clarifying terms here because I actually agree that you can't just throw the word fascism around to describe any abuse of power or loophole finding.


I do think that the intermediary groups that they mention should be required to disclose their funding if they are contributing to political campaigns. It's important to know who is shaping the opinions of the policymakers we are voting for and to what extent. If nothing else, not disclosing probably makes these funding mechanisms appear more sinister than they actually are. It looks like they have something to hide like Philip Morris, Exxon-Mobil, and Thurston Howell III are their major donors.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I hope your not taking it the wrong way...I just don't understand how corporate oligarchy fits the bill, in particular with you saying these special interests group are being funded by multiple corporations, and assuming the power structure of these corporations, also all the other competitors...I'm not playing the word game, I just don't know what you mean.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Sorry Captin, I didn't see ur last post...for the record I 100 % agree with ur last post.

[Capn'O]

Sorry Captin, I didn't see ur last post...for the record I 100 % agree with ur last post.

Ah word. It's funny. This might be the one thing that most of the people in this country agree on quite strongly: Politicians - tell us whose money is talking when you open your mouth!

This was one of main reasons that I really liked Ralph Nader in 2000. If nothing else, he would have taken the bull by the horns on making our government a smoother functioning democracy. Then I decided I didn't like Ralph Nader because, well, he's Ralph Nader. I feel similarly about Ron Paul