PDA

View Full Version : Help #POP get big money out of politics!




adisongrace
10-23-2012, 10:49 AM
Good AM resistance! Today I want to talk to you about
big money's influence on the puppet show. I recently
became part of a citizen journalist collective called
People Over Politics. Today on their Tyranny-book
page, they posted a petition in which speaks on
"dark" money provided by shyster SUPER-PACS
that control the political machine today. All
I need is your signature! I'm trying to get
50! So any help from our community would be
amazing! However if you co-sponsor this action,
we can move towards the attainable signature requirement
to force congress to recognize the monopoly on the vote.


http://act.unitedrepublic.org/event/cosponsor/3886
https://www.facebook.com/PeopleOverPolitics/info

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 10:57 AM
Nope. This is not the way. More force will not fix the problem.

Take away their power to affect business. Then, there will be nothing to buy and the problem of big money will go away on it's own.

Never ask for MORE government to fix the problem of too much government.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 10:58 AM
Nope. This is not the way. More force will not fix the problem.

Take away their power to affect business. Then, there will be nothing to buy and the problem of big money will go away on it's own.

Never ask for MORE government to fix the problem of too much government.

Did you read the entire thing? It's asking for less governmental control lol.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 11:00 AM
Also taking away the government's right to conduct business never will happen.
They control the system. We need to take that back. Plain and simple.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 11:12 AM
Did you read the entire thing? It's asking for less governmental control lol.Really? Less government control? By prohibiting entities from donating money? By preventing ex-members of congress from taking jobs in certain companies? By preventing PAC's from coordinating with campaigns?

You don't think this will require more government?! Who is going to enforce this?!

I understand the impulse here, but the direction is backwards. It doesn't matter what roadblocks you put up, as long as the power exists, those with the money will find a way to control it. You have to take the power away.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 11:17 AM
Really? Less government control? By prohibiting entities from donating money? By preventing ex-members of congress from taking jobs in certain companies? By preventing PAC's from coordinating with campaigns?

You don't think this will require more government?! Who is going to enforce this?!

I understand the impulse here, but the direction is backwards. It doesn't matter what roadblocks you put up, as long as the power exists, those with the money will find a way to control it. You have to take the power away.

It's blocking super-pacs & replacing it with citizen funded campaigns. That sounds pretty
Constitutional to me... Super-PACs control the vote. Your opinion sounds very establishment tinted.
How then do we take that power away? Our vote system is bought and sold. The entire vote system is
a sham. We need a reboot. You're entitled to your opinion but don't discredit a great opportunity
to take a stand against economic tyranny.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 11:19 AM
Really? Less government control? By prohibiting entities from donating money? By preventing ex-members of congress from taking jobs in certain companies? By preventing PAC's from coordinating with campaigns?

You don't think this will require more government?! Who is going to enforce this?!

I understand the impulse here, but the direction is backwards. It doesn't matter what roadblocks you put up, as long as the power exists, those with the money will find a way to control it. You have to take the power away.

Also to answer your question about enforcement let me ask you this:
Who is enforcing your right to free speech? Who is protecting you
from the "bad guys?" Who do you think runs these super pacs?

It's all government.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 11:22 AM
MESSAGE TO ALL USERS:

As our friend above stated more government control is not the way to go
with any issue. However, we are stuck in a police state tyranny and have
to regain our rights through their system. If we refuse to act, we lose.
If we bow down and just rant on message boards, we lose. If we allow
these tyrants to make us fight each other, we lose. We must unite and
take our system back.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 12:00 PM
MESSAGE TO ALL USERS:

As our friend above stated more government control is not the way to go
with any issue. However, we are stuck in a police state tyranny and have
to regain our rights through their system. If we refuse to act, we lose.
If we bow down and just rant on message boards, we lose. If we allow
these tyrants to make us fight each other, we lose. We must unite and
take our system back.

Again, Adison, I recognize you are new here, but you will note that nothing in my posts are ever "establishment-tinted".

The problem with regulations is that they never have the intended effect. I, too, would like to see less money in politics, but I don't think attacking the money is the real issue. It's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that these politicians have too much power. No matter which regulations you put in place, as long as they still have this power, the money will find its way to them.

I do understand the impulse to add more regulations "just until we have the system fixed", and then we can removed them, but I don't think this is the way things happen. No one is suggesting we just rant on message boards. In fact, quite the opposite. But I'm always fearful when people see how government is a problem so they ask for more government to fix things. (Government screws up education - we need more government to fix it!, Government screws up the environment - we need more government to fix it!, Government screws up health care, we need more government to fix it!, and yes, "government has screwed up the political process - we need more government to fix it") The answer from liberty-loving individuals should be that the government that governs least, governs best. Including the political process.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:08 PM
Again, Adison, I recognize you are new here, but you will note that nothing in my posts are ever "establishment-tinted".

The problem with regulations is that they never have the intended effect. I, too, would like to see less money in politics, but I don't think attacking the money is the real issue. It's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that these politicians have too much power. No matter which regulations you put in place, as long as they still have this power, the money will find its way to them.

I do understand the impulse to add more regulations "just until we have the system fixed", and then we can removed them, but I don't think this is the way things happen. No one is suggesting we just rant on message boards. In fact, quite the opposite. But I'm always fearful when people see how government is a problem so they ask for more government to fix things. (Government screws up education - we need more government to fix it!, Government screws up the environment - we need more government to fix it!, Government screws up health care, we need more government to fix it!, and yes, "government has screwed up the political process - we need more government to fix it") The answer from liberty-loving individuals should be that the government that governs least, governs best. Including the political process.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. However I do disagree on a few points.
Regulations do work. Think of all the regulations put in place to
protect children, deter against hate crimes, or even put a cap on corp.
donations to campaigns. We need to get big money out of politics.
I personally have always stood behind the elimination of the super pac.
But don't get it twisted, I am not way advocating more governmental control.
Which is why I support this petition. Because it's not asking for more government
control, it's asking for more control of the government.

Anti Federalist
10-23-2012, 12:12 PM
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. However I do disagree on a few points.
Regulations do work. Think of all the regulations put in place to
protect children, deter against hate crimes, or even put a cap on corp.
donations to campaigns.

Oh boy...

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:15 PM
Um yes? Do you have something of substance add to that?

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 12:19 PM
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. However I do disagree on a few points.
Regulations do work. Think of all the regulations put in place to
protect children, deter against hate crimes, or even put a cap on corp.
donations to campaigns. We need to get big money out of politics.
I personally have always stood behind the elimination of the super pac.
But don't get it twisted, I am not way advocating more governmental control.
Which is why I support this petition. Because it's not asking for more government
control, it's asking for more control of the government.

Hmmmm....not to derail your thread, but I think you will find near universal disgust at RPF for hate crimes legislation. And protecting children? You mean like the Texas Youth Commission (http://www.dallasnews.com/investigativereports/tyc/)? (Infamous for children in their care being beaten and sexually molested by staff). After Cynthia McKinney shined the light on Dynecorp's child trafficking, the "regulations" didn't prevent them from getting more government money...and then selling off Afghani boys as sex slaves to the highest bidder.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 12:25 PM
Um yes? Do you have something of substance add to that?

Okay. Keeping this thread on track. From your website:

Unseat enemies of reform

Unseat enemies of reform with a hard-hitting grassroots accountability campaign.


And Ron Paul's take?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/super-pac-romney-gingrich-obama
Ron Paul
Super-PAC relationship status: Friends
In his book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul criticizes foes of Citizens United: "Those who attack the court's decision say that corporations and unions have no rights of free speech, following the flawed belief that government can regulate commercial speech in advertising." A page later, Paul also decries limits on campaign fundraising, even though "the amount of money being spent on elections is obscene." Pro-Paul super-PACs have spent about $360,000.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:28 PM
Well I suppose that's their prerogative if they don't agree with the legislation. But I was referring
to the bills aimed at protecting children, not selling them.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Well I suppose that's their prerogative if they don't agree with the legislation. But I was referring
to the bills aimed at protecting children, not selling them.

Sure. And the war on drugs is aimed at stopping drug use.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-b3pB6M7s

Edit: But back to your OP. If you're really hopping to "unseat the enemies of reform" (those who agree with Citizens United?) where does that put in you relation to people like Ron Paul who support the Citizens United ruling?

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:33 PM
Sure. And the war on drugs is aimed at stopping drug use.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-b3pB6M7s

Okay first of all do not twist my meaning. The war on drugs is an epic failure.

Here my good friend Abby talks on that issue...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RtXulEjM1M

So in conclusion if you don't agree with the petition... don't sign it. lol

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 12:34 PM
Well I suppose that's their prerogative if they don't agree with the legislation. But I was referring
to the bills aimed at protecting children, not selling them.Adison, there is a big difference in the types of legislation being discussed.

When laws are there to protect liberty and prevent someone from infringing upon someone else's liberty, they are generally good laws.
But when laws are made that restrict liberty because someone doesn't like the way someone else uses their liberty, things go awry.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 12:34 PM
There's an incredible amount of threads and posts in this forum that are quintessentially authoritarian, statist and anti-liberty.

See why the "RNC should treat us well" mantra is just hogwash? A big part of Ron Paul hard supporters have a strong anti-capitalist and economically populist streak. People who are single issue voters on stuff like drugs, foreign policy and law&order issues and/or confuse Paul' stances on fiat currency and rent-seeking with a distaste and distrust for accumulation of wealth and private business and/or like the anti-establishment, anti-system, ethos. There's no ideological consistency whatsoever.

If Rand Paul becomes a serious challenger for the nomination, I bet a large percentage of them will jump ship. Not because his positions are substantively different; rather due to the fact he'll become a mainstream candidate, with plenty of establishment support.

On topic, this would be a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. As the current regulations already are. McCain and Feingold would be happy to sign up though.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:36 PM
Adison, there is a big difference in the types of legislation being discussed.

When laws are there to protect liberty and prevent someone from infringing upon someone else's liberty, they are generally good laws.
But when laws are made that restrict liberty because someone doesn't like the way someone else uses their liberty, things go awry.

But you see our government has a unlimited amount of economic reach from the Bilderberg group
to the CFR, to Rothschild family themselves. There needs to be equality. That is a liberty issue.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 12:37 PM
Um yes? Do you have something of substance add to that?

Yes, you still have a pretty significant learning curve ahead. Pretty much every regulation you have mentioned does an order of magnitude more harm than good. Regulations to protect children most often finds them kidnapped from loving families and forced into slave labor under families who hate them, abuse them, and often molest them. Hate crimes legislation creates protected classes who have more rights than everybody else, creating enmity and causing more hatred between them and other classes than ever existed befor the hate crimes laws. Caps on corporate donations also impact grassroots citizen activist groups and give the ability for corporates to bifurcate and work around the roadblock where grassroots cannot, thus advancing big corporate influence well beyond that of the grassroots.

You will probably reflexively reject this right off, but of you keep an open mind and do your own research, you will come to learn that we are correct.

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 12:39 PM
It's blocking super-pacs & replacing it with citizen funded campaigns. That sounds pretty
Constitutional to me... Super-PACs control the vote. Your opinion sounds very establishment tinted.
How then do we take that power away? Our vote system is bought and sold. The entire vote system is
a sham. We need a reboot. You're entitled to your opinion but don't discredit a great opportunity
to take a stand against economic tyranny.

So does this prevent unions from donating and taking part in politics?

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 12:39 PM
But you see our government has a unlimited amount of economic reach from the Bilderberg group
to the CFR, to Rothschild family themselves. There needs to be equality. That is a liberty issue.Agreed. Now keep thinking about that. You don't want to "force" equality, you want to remove power. You don't remove power by inviting the government to take more power.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:40 PM
There's an incredible amount of threads and posts in this forum that are quintessentially authoritarian, statist and anti-liberty.

See why the "RNC should treat us well" mantra is just hogwash? A big part of Ron Paul hard supporters have a strong anti-capitalist and economically populist streak. People who are single issue voters on stuff like drugs, foreign policy and law&order issues and/or confuse Paul' stances on fiat currency and rent-seeking with a distaste and distrust for accumulation of wealth and private business and/or like the anti-establishment, anti-system, ethos. There's no ideological consistency whatsoever.

If Rand Paul becomes a serious challenger for the nomination, I bet a large percentage of them will jump ship. Not because his positions are substantively different; rather due to the fact he'll become a mainstream candidate, with plenty of establishment support.

On topic, this would be a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. As the current regulations already are. McCain and Feingold would be happy to sign up though.

You're partially correct. The dog & pony show is greatly inconsistent. Why is that? Because the lobbyists control
the political flow. I do not support Rand. He is in bed with the mainstream media. Sad, but true. No one is exempt
from exposure of corruption.

I really do not see how this violates the 1st amendment. Super-Pacs have no place in government.
If you read the constitution not one time is a super pac discussed...why is that? Personally I think
its because too much allocation of money leads to excessive control. That's exactly what happened
to our political system.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:41 PM
Agreed. Now keep thinking about that. You don't want to "force" equality, you want to remove power. You don't remove power by inviting the government to take more power.

Please answer this question...how are citizen funded campaigns government control?

Travlyr
10-23-2012, 12:41 PM
But you see our government has a unlimited amount of economic reach from the Bilderberg group
to the CFR, to Rothschild family themselves. There needs to be equality. That is a liberty issue.

Legalizing competing currencies will neutralize the globalist unlimited money supply.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:42 PM
Legalizing competing currencies will neutralize the globalist unlimited money supply.

Agreed!

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:44 PM
So does this prevent unions from donating and taking part in politics?

No this just effects super pacs. Grass Root movements, which is what unions are considered, are not affected.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 12:45 PM
You're partially correct. The dog & pony show is greatly inconsistent. Why is that? Because the lobbyists control
the political flow. I do not support Rand. He is in bed with the mainstream media. Sad, but true. No one is exempt
from exposure of corruption.

I really do not see how this violates the 1st amendment. Super-Pacs have no place in government.
If you read the constitution not one time is a super pac discussed...why is that? Personally I think
its because too much allocation of money leads to excessive control. That's exactly what happened
to our political system.SuperPAC's are a creation of government! Someone thought regulating the political process was a good thing and bingo! SuperPAC's were formed!

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:49 PM
Yes, you still have a pretty significant learning curve ahead. Pretty much every regulation you have mentioned does an order of magnitude more harm than good. Regulations to protect children most often finds them kidnapped from loving families and forced into slave labor under families who hate them, abuse them, and often molest them. Hate crimes legislation creates protected classes who have more rights than everybody else, creating enmity and causing more hatred between them and other classes than ever existed befor the hate crimes laws. Caps on corporate donations also impact grassroots citizen activist groups and give the ability for corporates to bifurcate and work around the roadblock where grassroots cannot, thus advancing big corporate influence well beyond that of the grassroots.

You will probably reflexively reject this right off, but of you keep an open mind and do your own research, you will come to learn that we are correct.

First of all do not insult my intellect. I do nothing but look for other perspectives and research.
I'm investigative journalist, I do nothing but look for truth.

Once again if you do not agree with the legislation, do not sign it.
Same goes for every issue. However, to subvert and discredit
this law before even understanding how deep the roots of super-pacs go
is asinine. Plain and simple if you don't agree DON'T SIGN.

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 12:50 PM
No this just effects super pacs. Grass Root movements, which is what unions are considered, are not affected.

There is the problem, this is partisan bullshit. unions, which steal members money, who are forced to be part of the union are not voluntary grassroots movements.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:52 PM
SuperPAC's are a creation of government! Someone thought regulating the political process was a good thing and bingo! SuperPAC's were formed!

Exactly! There's no need for the superpac's at all. It comes down to this
we as a resistance get behind certain issues concerning the conservation
of money and the disbursement of such money. Now if that money
is being circulated through the stockmarket and not from direct
out of pocket donations, that money is not only dirty but is
also stealing from our citizens.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 12:54 PM
There is the problem, this is partisan bullshit. unions, which steal members money, who are forced to be part of the union are not voluntary grassroots movements.

great point. however eliminating big bank control of the vote is a step forward into a complete grass root
funding of campaigns.

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 12:57 PM
great point. however eliminating big bank control of the vote is a step forward into a complete grass root
funding of campaigns.

hey, let me know when you have a proposal that treats both traditionally GOP and traditionally DNC big money entities equally and then it will be worth considering. in the meantime this is nothing except a further step backwards.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 12:57 PM
First of all do not insult my intellect. I do nothing but look for other perspectives and research.
I'm investigative journalist, I do nothing but look for truth.I don't think Gunny was trying to insult you. He was trying to educate you.

Most of us in here have been in serious education mode for a long time. So when we see someone enter the lair with an obvious (to us) lapse in logic, we jump at the chance to educate them. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you are stupid, it just means we used to be exactly where you are until we realized something that you haven't yet. The problems with superPAC's is not with the buyers, it's with the sellers. When the sellers have a product, the buyers will always line up. When the product is removed, the buyers go away.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:02 PM
I don't think Gunny was trying to insult you. He was trying to educate you.

Most of us in here have been in serious education mode for a long time. So when we see someone enter the lair with an obvious (to us) lapse in logic, we jump at the chance to educate them. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you are stupid, it just means we used to be exactly where you are until we realized something that you haven't yet. The problems with superPAC's is not with the buyers, it's with the sellers. When the sellers have a product, the buyers will always line up. When the product is removed, the buyers go away.

So have I! Since HS I have been studying all forms of economics, and political ideologies. I understand the "impulse" as you would call it to jump at someone
for their view...but just because they have an outside view does that make it wrong? It could be innovative after all. Food for thought.

So as a movement how do you suggest removing the product in a system that is 100% controlled?
Just last week the election results, with projected numbers was leaked....how do we operate in a system that
ignores the votes?


http://patdollard.com/2012/10/disturbing-cbs-news-affiliate-accidentally-runs-khyron-dated-november-6-declaring-obama-winner-of-2012-election-4340-40237966-votes-to-38116216/?u#ooid=UycW9hNjoqkwlzWTy6bz-ziHRBBb2VLN

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 01:05 PM
Just last week the election results, with projected numbers was leaked....how do we operate in a system that
ignores the votes?

You dont' really believe that is true, right? Ever worked in an environment where you had to do QA and testing?

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 01:06 PM
I'm all in favor of eliminating Super PACs: just let people donate whatever they want to whoever they want. It's their money. Super Pacs would immediately disappear.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 01:06 PM
So as a movement how do you suggest removing the product in a system that is 100% controlled?

You have to become the political process that you want. We are not looking to control the system in our own manner, we are looking to remove controls from the system. If we remove their controls just to install our own... That's not a movement I want any part of.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:10 PM
You have to become the political process that you want. We are not looking to control the system in our own manner, we are looking to remove controls from the system. If we remove their controls just to install our own... That's not a movement I want any part of.

And how do we do that? There has to be action somewhere and frankly that's within the broken system.
If we don't take back our system we are bowing to them.

That's the issue with our resistance no one is willing to work within our system.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 01:11 PM
No this just effects super pacs. Grass Root movements, which is what unions are considered, are not affected.

Haha, how convenient.

So, let me get this straight: you can organize political movements to spend money on politics. Unless you're rich - in that case, you lose the right to spend your money as you see fit. So much for the "equal protection of laws".


You're partially correct. The dog & pony show is greatly inconsistent. Why is that? Because the lobbyists control
the political flow. I do not support Rand. He is in bed with the mainstream media. Sad, but true. No one is exempt
from exposure of corruption.

I really do not see how this violates the 1st amendment. Super-Pacs have no place in government.
If you read the constitution not one time is a super pac discussed...why is that? Personally I think
its because too much allocation of money leads to excessive control. That's exactly what happened
to our political system.

You have the causality effect inverted. The reason there's so much money in politics is because the government is too large and has too much control. You believe you can solve that by giving it even more control.

Again, McCain and Feingold (and the SC Justices appointed by Obama) would agree with you. ACLU and other pro 1st Amendment organizations won't.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:12 PM
First of all do not insult my intellect. I do nothing but look for other perspectives and research.
I'm investigative journalist, I do nothing but look for truth.

Once again if you do not agree with the legislation, do not sign it.
Same goes for every issue. However, to subvert and discredit
this law before even understanding how deep the roots of super-pacs go
is asinine. Plain and simple if you don't agree DON'T SIGN.

Well, if you take disagreement and principled correction as an 'insult to your intelligence' than that pretty much tells me that you have no interest in learning the truth, if that truth should happen to disagree with your preconceptions. Where there was none before, now you can correctly assume there is an insult to your intelligence in this post.

I am pretty sure that investigative journalists who allow their preconceptions to cloud their judgement and eliminate facts rather than taking an objective attempt to uncover actual truth is why journalism is broken today.

Get over yourself. Simple disagreement, correction, and education is not an insult. This post tells me that you have too big an ego to ever imagine you may be wrong on any point. By your own words you have just significantly discredited yourself.

As a journalist that should concern you no?

But that's OK you can still toe the mainstream line and make plenty of money driving sheeple. :rolleyes:

If you really think I am ignorant as to the law or the influence and roots of Super-PACS, then once again you are presuming stupidity upon others merely because they hold a different opinion than your own.

Not something we really want from an investigative journalist, is it?

Perhaps you should consider becoming an editorial pundit. At least drop the pretense of objectivity, as you demonstrate here that you have none.

And yes, there are several genuine insults to your intelligence in this post, since you imagined them in my first post I felt obligated to actually include a few in this one.

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 01:17 PM
It's blocking super-pacs & replacing it with citizen funded campaigns. That sounds pretty
Constitutional to me... Super-PACs control the vote. Your opinion sounds very establishment tinted.
How then do we take that power away? Our vote system is bought and sold. The entire vote system is
a sham. We need a reboot. You're entitled to your opinion but don't discredit a great opportunity
to take a stand against economic tyranny.

The SuperPacs ARE funded by citizens- just ones with lots of money. Do you mean "taxpayer" funded campaigns? Forced contributions instead of voluntary? Or to use the "campaign contribution" checkoff box currently on income tax forms?

(signatures on online polls or petitions are meaningless anyways)

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:17 PM
Well, if you take disagreement and principled correction as an 'insult to your intelligence' than that pretty much tells me that you have no interest in learning the truth, if that truth should happen to disagree with your preconceptions. Where there was none before, now you can correctly assume there is an insult to your intelligence in this post.

I am pretty sure that investigative journalists who allow their preconceptions to cloud their judgement and eliminate facts rather than taking an objective attempt to uncover actual truth is why journalism is broken today.

Get over yourself. Simple disagreement, correction, and education is not an insult. This post tells me that you have too big an ego to ever imagine you may be wrong on any point. By your own words you have just significantly discredited yourself.

As a journalist that should concern you no?

But that's OK you can still toe the mainstream line and make plenty of money driving sheeple. :rolleyes:

If you really think I am ignorant as to the law or the influence and roots of Super-PACS, then once again you are presuming stupidity upon others merely because they hold a different opinion than your own.

Not something we really want from an investigative journalist, is it?

Perhaps you should consider becoming an editorial pundit. At least drop the pretense of objectivity, as you demonstrate here that you have none.

And yes, there are several genuine insults to your intelligence in this post, since you imagined them in my first post I felt obligated to actually include a few in this one.

you post isn't even worth replying to. It's all insults.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:18 PM
I don't think Gunny was trying to insult you. He was trying to educate you.

Most of us in here have been in serious education mode for a long time. So when we see someone enter the lair with an obvious (to us) lapse in logic, we jump at the chance to educate them. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you are stupid, it just means we used to be exactly where you are until we realized something that you haven't yet. The problems with superPAC's is not with the buyers, it's with the sellers. When the sellers have a product, the buyers will always line up. When the product is removed, the buyers go away.

No, I wasn't, but because she decided I was and then chose to insult me because of her own imagination, in my second post I certainly did. People who do what she just did here do not deserve to be called investigative journalists, and the last thing we need is paranoid people tossing their own imagination around as truth to be considered investigative journalists. If she is anything it's an opinion pundit like Bill o-really. Any objective examination of my original post would not have brought the same conclusion as she drew.

I consider it an insult to the intelligence of the whole human race to call one's self an investigative journalist when you abandon objectivity whenever it conflicts with your personal opinion.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:18 PM
you post isn't even worth replying to. It's all insults.

Exactly. You wanted them, so I gave them. That's not even a fraction of the insult you do to journalism by calling yourself one. :)

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:19 PM
Haha, how convenient.

So, let me get this straight: you can organize political movements to spend money on politics. Unless you're rich - in that case, you lose the right to spend your money as you see fit. So much for the "equal protection of laws".



You have the causality effect inverted. The reason there's so much money in politics is because the government is too large and has too much control. You believe you can solve that by giving it even more control.

Again, McCain and Feingold (and the SC Justices appointed by Obama) would agree with you. ACLU and other pro 1st Amendment organizations won't.

did you read the entire law as proposed? or are just mindlessly trolling on the focus of super-pacs?

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:20 PM
Exactly. You wanted them, so I gave them. That's not even a fraction of the insult you do to journalism by calling yourself one. :)

The amazing thing is I actually think for myself...so I could care less what you think...

However, I am proud to be part of a citizen journalism collective. We have to take
the media back.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:22 PM
The SuperPacs ARE funded by citizens- just ones with lots of money. Do you mean "taxpayer" funded campaigns? Forced contributions instead of voluntary? Or to use the "campaign contribution" checkoff box currently on income tax forms?

(signatures on online polls are meaningless anyways)

The majority of SUPER PAC's are funded by back door deals with wall st.

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 01:23 PM
However, I am proud to be part of a citizen journalism collective.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/voracious/borg.jpg

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:23 PM
The amazing thing is I actually think for myself...so I could care less what you think...

However, I am proud to be part of a citizen journalism collective. We have to take
the media back.

So pushing opinions as though they were facts is how you take the media back from people who's primary sin is....pushing opinions as though they were facts? Really?

LOL!

And to think, you could have avoided all of this simply by refraining from insulting me for offering an opinion.

I would not have kicked back so hard if you did not claim the title of investigative journalist while acting as bad or worse than any one of the talking heads currently corrupting the media.

If you are what 'taking the media back' is, then no thanks!

I'll take Ben Swann any day, who is actually objective.

We have enough opinion-pablum passed of as journalism as it is.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:26 PM
So pushing opinions as though they were facts is how you take the media back from people who's primary sin is....pushing opinions as though they were facts? Really?

LOL!

And to think, you could have avoided all of this simply by refraining from insulting me for offering an opinion.

I would not have kicked back so hard if you did not claim the title of investigative journalist while acting as bad or worse than any one of the talking heads currently corrupting the media.

If you are what 'taking the media back' is, then no thanks!

I'll take Ben Swann any day, who is actually objective.

We have enough opinion-pablum passed of as journalism as it is.

I'm sorry you are very misguided on how you view TRUE freelance media.
My show, and my articles are for our movement. If you can't accept that
I could care less. But keep this in mind I didn't slaughter anyone in MY
lifetime.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:26 PM
Just remember Miss Grace, you did this, not me. Go back and look at my first post and your response. If you want a better reception amongst critical thinking humans in the future, you may want to figure out what you did wrong.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:27 PM
I'm sorry you are very misguided on how you view TRUE freelance media.
My show, and my articles are for our movement. If you can't accept that
I could care less. But keep this in mind I didn't slaughter anyone in MY
lifetime.

I don't care if it's for "our movement." I don't want opinions passed off as objective fact no matter WHO you claim to support. That's evil. You don't overcome evil by becoming evil.

LOL - and are you now accusing me of slaughtering people? :)

Some 'journalist' lmao!

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:28 PM
Just remember Miss Grace, you did this, not me. Go back and look at my first post and your response. If you want a better reception amongst critical thinking humans in the future, you may want to figure out what you did wrong.

No you insulted me. Saying I needed to expand my view. You are the one who trolled and didnt take the time to read.
Have a wonderful day!

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:28 PM
I don't care if it's for "our movement." I don't want opinions passed off as objective fact no matter WHO you claim to support. That's evil. You don't overcome evil by becoming evil.

So ALL media is evil now? lol. gotcha.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:32 PM
No you insulted me. Saying I needed to expand my view. You are the one who trolled and didnt take the time to read.
Have a wonderful day!

LOL ok :rolleyes: Saying you need to expand your view is an insult? haha! well then. I don't know what to say about that, except that you are probably allied with the wrong movement then. Because we tell each other that we need to expand our views all the time, and you are the first person I've ever met amongst critical thinkers to consider that an insult. And critical thinking is pretty much a prerequisite for true journalism.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:34 PM
LOL ok :rolleyes: Saying you need to expand your view is an insult? haha! well then. I don't know what to say about that, except that you are probably allied with the wrong movement then. Because we tell each other that we need to expand our views all the time, and you are the first person I've ever met amongst critical thinkers to consider that an insult. And critical thinking is pretty much a prerequisite for true journalism.

I expand my view, and believe me JFKIII can vouch for me, I am always looking for new perspectives. However, you
stating that I need to expand my view and educate myself is arrogant, and misguided when you know nothing about me.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:34 PM
So ALL media is evil now? lol. gotcha.

Ahh yes, amplitude modulation and frequency modulation is inherently evil. Oh, and my praise for Ben Swann above was just a figment of your imagination. God forbid you learn my opinion of Judge Napolitano! you got me Miss Grace. :rolleyes:

Since when is is a tactic of journalists to just make stuff up out of your own rear end and present them as facts?

OH, you want to be one of those journalists. I get it.

Please don't do 'our movement' any favors. We don't want your kind.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:36 PM
I expand my view, and believe me JFKIII can vouch for me, I am always looking for new perspectives. However, you
stating that I need to expand my view and educate myself is arrogant, and misguided when you know nothing about me.

Beam, meet mote. Pot, meet kettle. Glass house, meet throwing stones.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 01:37 PM
did you read the entire law as proposed? or are just mindlessly trolling on the focus of super-pacs?

The entire law? I read the bullet points available in the site you linked. Has this stuff been written into a legislative bill? I doubt it. That would be great actually.

I read them all. Most seem to come out of some sort of totalitarian dystopia. Others are extremely vague (What the heck are "citizen funded elections"? Tax raises to pay for campaign elections? Thanks but no thanks. And what does it mean "disempowering Super Pacs while protecting the free speech of Americans?" Anything else than a populist platitude?). Others I just flat out disagree with because they're inconsistent with free speech.

But the overriding issue here is that the rationale is all wrong. Take power away from politicians and this problem will disappear. Repeal the current restrictions on campaign donations - let people donate as much as they want as long as all contributions are made public - and Super Pacs will disappear. Implement this kind of solutions and nothing will be solved - we'll just get a few more uninteded consequences to deal with.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:38 PM
Ahh yes, amplitude modulation and frequency modulation is inherently evil. Oh, and my praise for Ben Swann above was just a figment of your imagination. God forbid you learn my opinion of Judge Napolitano! you got me Miss Grace. :rolleyes:

Since when is is a tactic of journalists to just make stuff up out of your own rear end and present them as facts?

OH, you want to be one of those journalists. I get it.

Please don't do 'our movement' any favors. We don't want your kind.

what kind of journalists? The amazing part about being a true
journalist, I have the right to think for myself...and guess what you have
no effect on that. I will still write. I will still question authority.
Your permission is not needed.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 01:38 PM
I expand my view, and believe me JFKIII can vouch for me, I am always looking for new perspectives. However, you
stating that I need to expand my view and educate myself is arrogant, and misguided when you know nothing about me.Adison, please take a moment to reflect upon the rep bars of the person you are fighting with. They are an indication of the respect this forum has for his input.

Trust me, we all see what you are seeing as the problem, we just know where your solutions end. They don't make things better - in fact, those types of solutions are what caused most of our problems to begin with. Gunny, and myself, are trying to make you understand. Gunny has just given up! lol.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:41 PM
The entire law? I read the bullet points available in the site you linked. Has this stuff been written into a legislative bill? I doubt it. That would be great actually.

I read them all. Most seem to come out of some sort of totalitarian dystopia. Others are extremely vague (What the heck are "citizen funded elections"? Tax raises to pay for campaign elections? Thanks but no thanks. And what does it mean "disempowering Super Pacs while protecting the free speech of Americans?" Anything else than a populist platitude?). Others I just flat out disagree with because they're inconsistent with free speech.

But the overriding issue here is that the rationale is all wrong. Take power away from politicians and this problem will disappear. Repeal the current restrictions on campaign donations - let people donate as much as they want as long as all contributions are made public - and Super Pacs will disappear. Implement this kind of solutions and nothing will be solved - we'll just get a few more uninteded consequences to deal with.

Citizen funded campaigns= out of citizen pockets...

Taking the power and influence gained from super pac money away is what the petition is speaking on.

Now I will adress this once again:
How do we take the power from the establishment
if we aren't willing to make change? Our votes
aren't being counted.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:43 PM
Adison, please take a moment to reflect upon the rep bars of the person you are fighting with. They are an indication of the respect this forum has for his input.

Trust me, we all see what you are seeing as the problem, we just know where your solutions end. They don't make things better - in fact, those types of solutions are what caused most of our problems to begin with. Gunny, and myself, are trying to make you understand. Gunny has just given up! lol.

I am not going to reflect because simply of rep bars...That's intellectual subversion.
How is gunny 'trying to make me understand' by calling what I do evil or
that I should just give up on journalism?

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:43 PM
Adison, please take a moment to reflect upon the rep bars of the person you are fighting with. They are an indication of the respect this forum has for his input.

Trust me, we all see what you are seeing as the problem, we just know where your solutions end. They don't make things better - in fact, those types of solutions are what caused most of our problems to begin with. Gunny, and myself, are trying to make you understand. Gunny has just given up! lol.

Meh, rep bars are irrelevant. This should be about objectivity, full stop. I wouldn't even have been slightly offended by her behavior had she not called herself an investigative journalist. This behavior, IMHO, is completely unacceptable in an investigative journalist, and doubly unacceptable in an investigative journalist who claims to be an ally of 'our movement.'

Except for that claim, I would be being twice as nice as you right now Capt.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 01:44 PM
Now I will adress this once again:
How do we take the power from the establishment
if we aren't willing to make change? Our votes
aren't being counted.Where are you getting that we aren't willing to make change?! We don't want this kind of change. And that's because it isn't really change at all but more of the same - crafting legislation to restrict liberty of other people so that the crafters of said legislation can get more of what they want. That's not what we are about.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:45 PM
I am not going to reflect because simply of rep bars...That's intellectual subversion.
How is gunny 'trying to make me understand' by calling what I do evil or
that I should just give up on journalism?

LOL, you keep digging your own hole deeper Miss Grace. Please stop lying about what I have said. That's not an attractive quality in an investigative journalist. :)

ETA - seriously, you don't like someone or what someone has said, so you resort to lying about them and what they said? And you can't see why someone who does that while claiming to be an investigative journalist makes me angry?

You represent everything we are fighting AGAINST in the media, whether you cal yourself an ally or not.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:46 PM
Where are you getting that we aren't willing to make change?! We don't want this kind of change. And that's because it isn't really change at all but more of the same - crafting legislation to restrict liberty of other people so that the crafters of said legislation can get more of what they want. That's not what we are about.

No I'm asking you how to make change in a broken system where our votes aren't being counted?
It's not restricting liberties. You really need to understand that this plan is set up to give the campaign power back
to the people.

fr33
10-23-2012, 01:48 PM
From the site:

*Outlaw members of congress from taking donations from entities they regulate.

That includes you and me. We are entities (over)regulated by congress.

I don't want anybody or anybody's business to be regulated on how they spend their money. Start a petition to repeal all campaign finance regulations and then I'll be on board.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 01:51 PM
Citizen funded campaigns= out of citizen pockets...

Taking the power and influence gained from super pac money away is what the petition is speaking on.

Now I will adress this once again:
How do we take the power from the establishment
if we aren't willing to make change? Our votes
aren't being counted.

Out of citizen pockets? So, a law that allows politicians to tax citizens, taking money of their pockets, to pay for their own campaigns? Yeah, no. Unless you mean voluntary contributions - which is exactly the system we have now.

Taking the power and influence gained from super pac money away is what the petition is speaking on? Funny, you just accused me of focusing too much on the SuperPac and not reading the law. Where's the law to read? Or "the law" is actually that dozen of bullet points? Again, super Pacs only exist because there's a campaign contribution limit. Get rid of it and super Pacs will become extinct.

I'm okay with making a change. This isn't a change I want to make. This is just a way of perpetuating the power of those who want an ever-growing Leviathan.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 01:52 PM
No I'm asking you how to make change in a broken system where our votes aren't being counted?
It's not restricting liberties. You really need to understand that this plan is set up to give the campaign power back
to the people.Get involved locally and educate people like we are attempting to educate you. You are proving how difficult this task is. I understand this plan. But it is NOT about limiting the power of the government, it's about deciding which people get to control that power. That's not what I'm about.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 01:52 PM
WOW, REALLY?

I have not heard anyone give her the "Here's how we remove the power" answer to her question after you told her that was how to do it. Am I missing something? Or is this a "we can beat the shit out of you faster than anyone, you ignorant human beings"?

edit: Is this a "Trial by fire" initiation or something? Or is there such a thing as gentle guidance? Or, maybe even listening?

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:54 PM
LOL, you keep digging your own hole deeper Miss Grace. Please stop lying about what I have said. That's not an attractive quality in an investigative journalist. :)

ETA - seriously, you don't like someone or what someone has said, so you resort to lying about them and what they said? And you can't see why someone who does that while claiming to be an investigative journalist makes me angry?

You represent everything we are fighting AGAINST in the media, whether you cal yourself an ally or not.

I represent the people of America. Those who have been effected by the empire.
If you don't believe my intentions are good, then why even speak to me?

Now, you insulted me and called what I do evil. How is that lying?
Your word is not law. Just as no one's word is law on this site.

My post was meant for those who actually support the elimination of super-pacs
as well as ousting corp. influnce from elections. If you don't agree with me...IGNORE IT.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:55 PM
WOW, REALLY?

I have not heard anyone give her the "Here's how we remove the power" answer to her question after you told her that was how to do it. Am I missing something? Or is this a "we can beat the shit out of you faster than anyone, you ignorant human beings"?

edit: Is this a "Trial by fire" initiation or something? Or is there such a thing as gentle guidance? Or, maybe even listening?

ONCE AGAIN HOW DO YOU REMOVE THE POWER IN A BROKEN SYSTEM? (sorry the computer broke off my reply)
No one will give me this answer.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:56 PM
WOW, REALLY?

I have not heard anyone give her the "Here's how we remove the power" answer to her question after you told her that was how to do it. Am I missing something? Or is this a "we can beat the shit out of you faster than anyone, you ignorant human beings"?

Kinda hard to do that when any response she doesn't like is met with radical fabrications.

And I have seen plenty of attempts in this thread to explain how to do it properly.

And yes, I will launch with all guns blazing against anybody who just makes up lies about people they disagree with while calling themselves and investigative journalist. That exact behavior is why America is broken today.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 01:57 PM
I represent the people of America. Those who have been effected by the empire.
If you don't believe my intentions are good, then why even speak to me?

Now, you insulted me and called what I do evil. How is that lying?
Your word is not law. Just as no one's word is law on this site.

My post was meant for those who actually support the elimination of super-pacs
as well as ousting corp. influnce from elections. If you don't agree with me...IGNORE IT.

You don't represent me by lying about me as soon as you become aware that I disagree with you, and I am a person of America. In fact, you are deliberately misrepresenting me. Which for someone who calls themselves an investigative journalist is indeed blatantly evil.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 01:58 PM
ONCE AGAIN HOW DO YOU REMOVE THE POWER IN A BROKEN SYSTEM? (sorry the computer broke off my reply)
No one will give me this answer.

I'm waiting for that answer as well.

I think that a discussion on that would be very interesting. I'll chime in if/when I have something to ask/add if any of the more educated/knowlegeable among us will kick it off.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 01:59 PM
You don't represent me by lying about me as soon as you become aware that I disagree with you, and I am a person of America.

lying? did you not call what I did evil? or tell me to become an editorial pundit hmmm...

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 02:01 PM
No I'm asking you how to make change in a broken system where our votes aren't being counted?
It's not restricting liberties. You really need to understand that this plan is set up to give the campaign power back
to the people.

That's just a vague populist drivel.

Why do people believe they can sell totalitarian stuff if they claim "it's to give power back to the people"? China and Cuba are "popular republics" too.

I'm willing to go back: back to 1906, back to the pre-Tillman Act times.

CaptUSA
10-23-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm waiting for that answer as well.

I think that a discussion on that would be very interesting. I'll chime in if/when I have something to ask/add if any of the more educated/knowlegeable among us will kick it off.Hey, go back up a few posts... I did just that. Get involved locally - take over your local parties. But most important - educate! Educate, educate, educate! This is what this whole thread is about. Education about what true liberty is about. You don't get more liberty by restricting liberty more.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:02 PM
I'm waiting for that answer as well.

I think that a discussion on that would be very interesting. I'll chime in if/when I have something to ask/add if any of the more educated/knowlegeable among us will kick it off.

Well, it's been said in this thread a dozen times already that one should eliminate all laws regarding campaign finance except for those requiring transparency and disclosure. It was explained that this would eliminate Super-PACs altogether as well as the 527's.

I know sometimes we, being human, only see and hear what we want to. That's something that pretty much every human being on the planet does. But the answer has been given multiple times in this thread.

My own idea is a bit more articulated, but I was never able to get to that point before Miss 'investigative journalist' went apoplectic and started lying about me.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 02:06 PM
WOW, REALLY?

I have not heard anyone give her the "Here's how we remove the power" answer to her question after you told her that was how to do it. Am I missing something? Or is this a "we can beat the shit out of you faster than anyone, you ignorant human beings"?

edit: Is this a "Trial by fire" initiation or something? Or is there such a thing as gentle guidance? Or, maybe even listening?

I'm not really sure what "removing the power" means.

If you want less rent-seeking and government capture - the factors that fuel such high levels of campaign spending - there's only one way of doing it: less laws and regulations, as that implies less power in the hands of politicians and the government.

You do that by trying to elect as many politicans keen on those ideas as possible. That's achieved via political advocacy and education and/or an involvement in electoral politics.

This kind of "solution" is just adding fuel to the fire.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:06 PM
Hey, go back up a few posts... I did just that. Get involved locally - take over your local parties. But most important - educate! Educate, educate, educate! This is what this whole thread is about. Education about what true liberty is about. You don't get more liberty by restricting liberty more.

Those answers have been given several times in this thread.

My answer is that if you force government to strictly conform to the Constitution, then government will be unable to do the things that big money special interests want in the first place, and therefore lobbying will not be cost effective and will stop.

The best way to force government to obey the Constitution is to make at a major felony with a minimum 15 years prison sentence for any elected official violating their oath of office, particularly in regards to upholding the Constitution as the law of the land.

Remove the ability for special interest to get what they want from government by enforcing the Constitution, and it becomes a waste of money to lobby, and thus special interests die off and government is no longer owned by big money.

And it's not even that complicated.

Simply make the violation of one's oath a major felony for which conviction holds a 15-25 year sentence at hard labor, and big money goes away. forever.

Anti Federalist
10-23-2012, 02:07 PM
you post isn't even worth replying to. It's all insults.

Which is why I said nothing more than..."oh boy".

Why waste my time typing out a series of thoughtful replies, just to get this? Especially when you are, based on the intial post I replied to, so "upside down" when it comes to understanding a few core concepts of political liberty.

I knew before it happened, how it would play out.

+rep to Glen for at least trying.

Carry on.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:07 PM
Hey, go back up a few posts... I did just that. Get involved locally - take over your local parties. But most important - educate! Educate, educate, educate! This is what this whole thread is about. Education about what true liberty is about. You don't get more liberty by restricting liberty more.

Thank you for the reply. However, our votes aren't being recognized.
Such was the case with Dr.Paul's campaign. We can organize all we
want locally and speak out and prostest. However that's not changing
things on a national level. We are still being led to slaughter by
shyster corps that control our entire system.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:08 PM
lying? did you not call what I did evil? or tell me to become an editorial pundit hmmm...

Investigative journalism is one of the finest and most noble callings in the world today. I firmly believe that with all of my heart, soul, and mind. I also believe that you have demonstrated yourself to be clearly unfit for that calling.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:09 PM
Those answers have been given several times in this thread.

My answer is that if you force government to strictly conform to the Constitution, then government will be unable to do the things that big money special interests want in the first place, and therefore lobbying will not be cost effective and will stop.

The best way to force government to obey the Constitution is to make at a major felony with a minimum 15 years prison sentence for any elected official violating their oath of office, particularly in regards to upholding the Constitution as the law of the land.

Remove the ability for special interest to get what they want from government by enforcing the Constitution, and it becomes a waste of money to lobby, and thus special interests die off and government is no longer owned by big money.

And it's not even that complicated.

Simply make the violation of one's oath a major felony for which conviction holds a 15-25 year sentence at hard labor, and big money goes away. forever.

However, if you haven't been following what has been happening, our voice isn't being heard. Banksters, nor politicians aren't being held accountable. Votes are ignored.
Which is why we need to take a stand.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:10 PM
Well, it's been said in this thread a dozen times already that one should eliminate all laws regarding campaign finance except for those requiring transparency and disclosure. It was explained that this would eliminate Super-PACs altogether as well as the 527's.

I know sometimes we, being human, only see and hear what we want to. That's something that pretty much every human being on the planet does. But the answer has been given multiple times in this thread.

My own idea is a bit more articulated, but I was never able to get to that point before Miss 'investigative journalist' went apoplectic and started lying about me.

I think a lot of it is "tone of voice". Calling people's stuff names is as bad as calling them names, it tends to cause defenses to go up. Saying someone is naive or their stuff "drivel" is not going to persuade or educate.

As you can see above, I took offense on her behalf because I felt her pain (even if she didn't, but I think she did).

Gentle discussion and listening will get much farther. Do you know exactly what she is missing from her education that has led her to where she is? Listen first, ask questions, listen, ask questions. Sometimes we might even learn something, I do all the time, even if it's not about libertarianism or politics but rather "human relations".

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:12 PM
Investigative journalism is one of the finest and most noble callings in the world today. I firmly believe that with all of my heart, soul, and mind. I also believe that you have demonstrated yourself to be clearly unfit for that calling.

But wait you said I was lying about that right?

Journalism has been a dream of mine for my entire life and to call what I do evil is arrogant when
you are blinded to unknown facts.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:13 PM
However, if you haven't been following what has been happening, our voice isn't being heard. Banksters, nor politicians aren't being held accountable. Votes are ignored.
Which is why we need to take a stand.

LOL, yes I haven't been following what has been happening. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake, please, stop making assumptions. Right here, right now, in this post I am not trying to insult, I am trying to help you. Investigative journalists do not make assumptions, they assume they know nothing until they find out the truth via objective journalism. You have made a pretty grand series of assumptions about me in this thread, that pretty much any regular poster here knows is false. I'm not trying to derogate you with that, but to provide evidence that your approach is in error and needs to be significantly revised.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:13 PM
Okay first of all do not twist my meaning. The war on drugs is an epic failure.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm making and argument from a point of agreement. I'm certain you understand the war on drugs is an epic failure. Yet, despite the same epic failure on "protecting kids", you apparently view that "war" differently and you're now ready to launch a "war" against SuperPACS. I guess I'm wondering why you think one failure is different, or will be different, than the next?



So in conclusion if you don't agree with the petition... don't sign it. lol

I won't.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:16 PM
I'm not twisting anything. I'm making and argument from a point of agreement. I'm certain you understand the war on drugs is an epic failure. Yet, despite the same epic failure on "protecting kids", you apparently view that "war" differently and you're now ready to launch a "war" against SuperPACS. I guess I'm wondering why you think one failure is different, or will be different, than the next?



I won't.

It's not a war against superpac's...that's not all that petition is about. its ousting economic influence from government
and giving campaign control back to the people, so that we can have fair elections.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:16 PM
But wait you said I was lying about that right?

Journalism has been a dream of mine for my entire life and to call what I do evil is arrogant when
you are blinded to unknown facts.

Again your are missing the point. Journalism is noble. You are ignoble. If you want to be a journalist, then you should learn to do it right. Just 'making stuff up' is not doing it right.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:18 PM
LOL, yes I haven't been following what has been happening. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake, please, stop making assumptions. Right here, right now, in this post I am not trying to insult, I am trying to help you. Investigative journalists do not make assumptions, they assume they know nothing until they find out the truth via objective journalism. You have made a pretty grand series of assumptions about me in this thread, that pretty much any regular poster here knows is false. I'm not trying to derogate you with that, but to provide evidence that your approach is in error and needs to be significantly revised.

My approach works. I wake people up. You really don't understand how arrogant you come off. But guess what
I'm not telling you how to approach things....I'm not telling you how to conduct your life or educate yourself...
when you know nothing of ow much I already know. Or even how much time a day I spend researching issues.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:19 PM
Again your are missing the point. Journalism is noble. You are ignoble. If you want to be a journalist, then you should learn to do it right. Just 'making stuff up' is not doing it right.

tell me what I have made up? I posted a petition, you trolled my intellect without knowing me.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:19 PM
LOL, yes I haven't been following what has been happening. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake, please, stop making assumptions. Right here, right now, in this post I am not trying to insult, I am trying to help you. Investigative journalists do not make assumptions, they assume they know nothing until they find out the truth via objective journalism (she needs education on being one of these?). You have made a pretty grand series of assumptions about me in this thread, that pretty much any regular poster here knows is false. I'm not trying to derogate you with that, but to provide evidence that your approach is in error and needs to be significantly revised.

Gunny, I have a lot of respect for you, but requiring everyone to know that they have met the gods when they come to RPF is only going to run people off and is insulting.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:26 PM
Which is why I said nothing more than..."oh boy".

Why waste my time typing out a series of thoughtful replies, just to get this? Especially when you are, based on the intial post I replied to, so "upside down" when it comes to understanding a few core concepts of political liberty.

I knew before it happened, how it would play out.

+rep to Glen for at least trying.

Carry on.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

LOL thanks brother, I find the whole thing rather amusing, and wouldn't even be offended except for the claim of being an investigative journalist representing 'our movement.' There is a whole other level of accountability for those who make that claim, IMHO. I was planning on stopping after the one post was rejected as her being a hopeless case as you did, but the IJ claim frankly outraged me. This is the very behavior why America is broken. Journalists claiming objectivity while lying through their teeth to to promote their opinions as fact. I don't care if the lies are in our favor, I don't want it. Ben Swann is the perfect example of a proper and noble investigative journalist. Judge Napolitano is the perfect example of a proper and noble pundit, and he is actually objective and factual enough to be an investigative journalist if he wanted to, but he prefers to deal with opinion-making.

Don't piss on my back and call it rain. I have had plenty of "journalists" lie about me and pretend to be objective. There is a reason this behavior pisses me of, and doubly so from someone who claims to be an ally. We could well have sound currency in NC today except for journalists lying about me and pretending to be objective, so I know from where I speak.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:28 PM
Oh boy....

Answer my question:

(Answer provided)

You still haven't answered my question.

Where to start? I know. How about by repeating the point I made at the start of the thread which you ignored, namely that Ron Paul supports the Citizen's United ruling? Right. Ron, not Rand (though Rand supports it as well). You just aren't going to get any traction pushing for a "reform" on a Ron Paul forum that calls for removal of people like Ron Paul from office. (Your website calls for removal of those in opposition to the reform).

Now, what to do about the problem? Well if you can muster up enough support to get the constitution amended to overturn Citizen's United, because that's what's required to get rid of "Super-PACs", then you can muster up enough support to make real changes like repeal of the Patriot Act or auditing the Fed or a host of other real initiatives that most people here actually care about. And if your "reform" allows unions to still steal people's money and then campaign with it, what kind of a reform is that?

Hey, if ending Super-PACS is your baby, go for it. I have more important things to do.


You're partially correct. The dog & pony show is greatly inconsistent. Why is that? Because the lobbyists control
the political flow. I do not support Rand. He is in bed with the mainstream media. Sad, but true. No one is exempt
from exposure of corruption.

I really do not see how this violates the 1st amendment. Super-Pacs have no place in government.
If you read the constitution not one time is a super pac discussed...why is that? Personally I think
its because too much allocation of money leads to excessive control. That's exactly what happened
to our political system.


No this just effects super pacs. Grass Root movements, which is what unions are considered, are not affected.


There is the problem, this is partisan bullshit. unions, which steal members money, who are forced to be part of the union are not voluntary grassroots movements.


great point. however eliminating big bank control of the vote is a step forward into a complete grass root
funding of campaigns.


You have to become the political process that you want. We are not looking to control the system in our own manner, we are looking to remove controls from the system. If we remove their controls just to install our own... That's not a movement I want any part of.


And how do we do that? There has to be action somewhere and frankly that's within the broken system.
If we don't take back our system we are bowing to them.

That's the issue with our resistance no one is willing to work within our system.


Haha, how convenient.

So, let me get this straight: you can organize political movements to spend money on politics. Unless you're rich - in that case, you lose the right to spend your money as you see fit. So much for the "equal protection of laws".



You have the causality effect inverted. The reason there's so much money in politics is because the government is too large and has too much control. You believe you can solve that by giving it even more control.

Again, McCain and Feingold (and the SC Justices appointed by Obama) would agree with you. ACLU and other pro 1st Amendment organizations won't.


Citizen funded campaigns= out of citizen pockets...

Taking the power and influence gained from super pac money away is what the petition is speaking on.

Now I will adress this once again:
How do we take the power from the establishment
if we aren't willing to make change? Our votes
aren't being counted.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:28 PM
Gunny, I have a lot of respect for you, but requiring everyone to know that they have met the gods when they come to RPF is only going to run people off and is insulting.

What in the world are you talking about?

I don't care if she knows who I am or not. Hell, too many people already know who I am.

I'm pissed because she claims to be a journalist while passing off assumptions and lies as though they were objective facts.

How would you like I just passed off assumptions about you as though they were fact?

"Clyde, I respect and like you, but you are only defending her because she's attractive."

That would piss you off no? And I don't even make the claim of objectivity.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:29 PM
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

LOL thanks brother, I find the whole thing rather amusing, and wouldn't even be offended except for the claim of being an investigative journalist representing 'our movement.' There is a whole other level of accountability for those who make that claim, IMHO. I was planning on stopping after the one post was rejected as her being a hopeless case as you did, but the IJ claim frankly outraged me. This is the very behavior why America is broken. Journalists claiming objectivity while lying through their teeth to to promote their opinions as fact. I don't care if the lies are in our favor, I don't want it. Ben Swann is the perfect example of a proper and noble investigative journalist. Judge Napolitano is the perfect example of a proper and noble pundit, and he is actually objective and factual enough to be an investigative journalist if he wanted to, but he prefers to deal with opinion-making.

Don't piss on my back and call it rain. I have had plenty of "journalists" lie about me and pretend to be objective. There is a reason this behavior pisses me of, and doubly so from someone who claims to be an ally. We could well have sound currency in NC today except for journalists lying about me and pretending to be objective, so I know from where I speak.

So again I ask what have I lied about?

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:29 PM
So, when I was young and naive and didn't know everything there is to know about government, politics and monetary policy (as though I do now...eh) I would have been torn to shreds and would have learned nothing by coming here, other than to stay away.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:31 PM
It's not a war against superpac's...that's not all that petition is about. its ousting economic influence from government
and giving campaign control back to the people, so that we can have fair elections.

Fine. Answer just this one question. Why should any Ron Paul supporter sign a petition that calls for the removal of office holders opposed to this "reform" when, based on everything I know about Ron's opinion on the Citizen's United ruling, he would be opposed to this "reform" at least the way you have it written up?

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:32 PM
My approach works. I wake people up. You really don't understand how arrogant you come off. But guess what
I'm not telling you how to approach things....I'm not telling you how to conduct your life or educate yourself...
when you know nothing of ow much I already know. Or even how much time a day I spend researching issues.

I am not ashamed of telling you how to conduct yourself, because you have made the claim to being an investigative journalist and an ally to 'our movement' while passing off assumptions and lies as objectivity. Just like I will call out M$M liars for doing that I will call you out too. If you don't like it, stop lying, or stop pretending to be a journalist.

You have two paths to relieve this tension. 1) Become objective like an investigative journalist is supposed to be (see Ben Swann) or 2) stop claiming to be an investigative journalist. EITHER ONE of those two directions will end this animosity.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:34 PM
So, when I was young and naive and didn't know everything there is to know about government, politics and monetary policy (as though I do now...eh) I would have been torn to shreds and would have learned nothing by coming here, other than to stay away.

When you were young and naive and didn't know everything, did you claim to be an investigative journalist, while pretending to know everything and treating personal assumptions as objective fact?

I'm sorry Clyde, someone who claims total objectivity is held to a higher standard, as they should be.

John F Kennedy III
10-23-2012, 02:35 PM
Adisongrace is my friend that I live with. She has been my best friend for nearly a decade. She is insanely intelligent and at least as well versed versed on the government, NWO, TPTB as I am. Do not confuse her with some random progressive like the ones that pop in here sometimes. She agrees with us on 99.99% of... I guess you would call it the end game, what we are trying to achieve. How to get there is where the disagreement comes in. And honestly, I'm not sure if I disagree since we don't address that issue much beyond trying to get liberty people elected. So let's have a discussion on how to achieve our end game.

Adisongrace is very intelligent and on our side. Address her with real responses and you will get real discussion. Don't troll or insult please.

Thank you,

JFKIII

Anti Federalist
10-23-2012, 02:36 PM
So again I ask what have I lied about?

Maybe, instead of letting this just go around and around in a ridiculous series of "You suck, no YOU suck" posts, take a deep breath, and look over the thread again.

The problem lies in the fact that you have, from "our" point of view, some ideas that would tend to skew everything you were trying to propose, based on just the first couple of posts.

Drop back ten and punt, and try it again.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:36 PM
So, when I was young and naive and didn't know everything there is to know about government, politics and monetary policy (as though I do now...eh) I would have been torn to shreds and would have learned nothing by coming here, other than to stay away.

If, when you were young and naive, you started a thread with a petition that included "Let's work to remove all office holders who oppose Roe v Wade - want to privatize social security" etc, yeah you probably would have been torn to shreds.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:36 PM
So again I ask what have I lied about?

I've already called them out. You called them 'insults' and refused to read them.

You are the one who asked to be held to the standard of objectivity, and failed miserably.

Objectivity does not allow you to make assumptions about people.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:37 PM
I am not ashamed of telling you how to conduct yourself, because you have made the claim to being an investigative journalist and an ally to 'our movement' while passing off assumptions and lies as objectivity. Just like I will call out M$M liars for doing that I will call you out too. If you don't like it, stop lying, or stop pretending to be a journalist.

You have two paths to relieve this tension. 1) Become objective like an investigative journalist is supposed to be (see Ben Swann) or 2) stop claiming to be an investigative journalist. EITHER ONE of those two directions will end this animosity.

I will not adhere to your view of how I should be...because guess what I have a free mind and conduct myself as
an individual. My view will not change. All I will ever do is keep enriching my mind, but that's for my sake not yours.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:40 PM
What in the world are you talking about?

I don't care if she knows who I am or not. Hell, too many people already know who I am.

I'm pissed because she claims to be a journalist while passing off assumptions and lies as though they were objective facts.

How would you like I just passed off assumptions about you as though they were fact?

"Clyde, I respect and like you, but you are only defending her because she's attractive."

That would piss you off no? And I don't even make the claim of objectivity.

What? Really. Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think. And, are you sure that's her picture? I don't know this person other than I'm assuming she is human, and I'm assuming she is a she by the handle name.

I read this thread from the begining, but did not make it past the 50th post (I think) before chiming in. I began feeling more and more frustrated with each post I read.

I am not condoning anything she has said or what she is doing. But I "feel" like she was led into a personal conflict instead of a proper discussion. Look back at post #30 which is response to your post #21. That's where it started, post #21. Before that, there was some conversation in a fairly good direction. At least there was discussion.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:41 PM
Maybe, instead of letting this just go around and around in a ridiculous series of "You suck, no YOU suck" posts, take a deep breath, and look over the thread again.

The problem lies in the fact that you have, from "our" point of view, some ideas that would tend to skew everything you were trying to propose, based on just the first couple of posts.

Drop back ten and punt, and try it again.

It's not me that proposed this. I co-sponsored this bill because I believe in it.

However, I will do a reboot of ideas if someone will listen.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:41 PM
Adisongrace is my friend that I live with. She has been my best friend for nearly a decade. She is insanely intelligent and at least as well versed versed on the government, NWO, TPTB as I am. Do not confuse her with some random progressive like the ones that pop in here sometimes. She agrees with us on 99.99% of... I guess you would call it the end game, what we are trying to achieve. How to get there is where the disagreement comes in. And honestly, I'm not sure if I disagree since we don't address that issue much beyond trying to get liberty people elected. So let's have a discussion on how to achieve our end game.

Adisongrace is very intelligent and on our side. Address her with real responses and you will get real discussion. Don't troll or insult please.

Thank you,

JFKIII

I'm only responding to being trolled and insulted. My very real response was derogated and called an insult, and then following were several gross assumptions passed off as fact while claiming the mantle of objectivity. I'd be hammering Ron Paul's own progeny right now having behaved as she has in this thread.

Investigative journalists are supposed to be objective, and they are supposed to know assumptions from verified facts. I would call out my own mother for pretending to be an investigative journalist while acting like Bill o-really and Plush Limbaugh, intelligence notwithstanding.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:42 PM
What? Really. Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think. And, are you sure that's her picture? I don't know this person other than I'm assuming she is human, and I'm assuming she is a she by the handle name.

I read this thread from the begining, but did not make it past the 50th post (I think) before chiming in. I began feeling more and more frustrated with each post I read.

I am not condoning anything she has said or what she is doing. But I "feel" like she was led into a personal conflict instead of a proper discussion. Look back at post #30 which is response to your post #21. That's where it started, post #21. Before that, there was some conversation in a fairly good direction. At least there was discussion.

Told you that would piss you off.

Now think about it a little deeper and figure out why she is pissing me off.

ETA - I never said that was TRUE, I was using it illustrate my point. As the context should have made clear.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:42 PM
I've already called them out. You called them 'insults' and refused to read them.

You are the one who asked to be held to the standard of objectivity, and failed miserably.

Objectivity does not allow you to make assumptions about people.

I am objective. I just will not change my view or the way I conduct myself to please you.
I am who I am.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:43 PM
It's not me that proposed this. I co-sponsored this bill because I believe in it.

However, I will do a reboot of ideas if someone will listen.

If you want people to listen to you, then you have to be willing to listen to them. Listening is a 2 way street.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:44 PM
I am objective. I just will not change my view or the way I conduct myself to please you.
I am who I am.

LMAO! Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :D

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:44 PM
If, when you were young and naive, you started a thread with a petition that included "Let's work to remove all office holders who oppose Roe v Wade - want to privatize social security" etc, yeah you probably would have been torn to shreds.


Too bad for RPF then. There are ways to handle things, and there are ways to ensure nothing good happens.

We spend time here posting. Sometimes just getting kicks out of bashing others ignorance for our pleasure. But if you really want to make a difference by spreading the message, it is better to be patient and lead to the truth, not to bash the hell out of people. Is a good thashing how you came to know what you do?

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:45 PM
Maybe, instead of letting this just go around and around in a ridiculous series of "You suck, no YOU suck" posts, take a deep breath, and look over the thread again.

The problem lies in the fact that you have, from "our" point of view, some ideas that would tend to skew everything you were trying to propose, based on just the first couple of posts.

Drop back ten and punt, and try it again.

Well put! The C4L is a superpac. RevPAC is a superpac. Libertypac is a superpac. You have some folks who maxed out to Ron Paul and still wanted to do more to help the cause. SuperPACs allow that. And more importantly, Ron Paul supports them. That doesn't mean everyone else has to support them. Jesse Ventura would like to see Citizen's United overturned. The issue (for me anyway) is that is this the type of "single issue" issue that should be used to determine who we want to drive from office? I'm all for driving anyone who voted for the NDAA out of office. (Yes that includes Jim Demint). Same for those who voted for the bailouts. Same for those who voted for Patriot Act re-authorization. Same for those voting against an audit of the fed. But I don't see getting on board with driving those opposed to this set of reforms out of office. While Ron is retiring now (sad I know), if he wasn't this petition would be aimed at him.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:47 PM
Too bad for RPF then. There are ways to handle things, and there are ways to ensure nothing good happens.

We spend time here posting. Sometimes just getting kicks out of bashing others ignorance for our pleasure. But if you really want to make a difference by spreading the message, it is better to be patient and lead to the truth, not to bash the hell out of people. Is a good thashing how you came to know what you do?

Do you really think that's what's happening?

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:48 PM
If you want people to listen to you, then you have to be willing to listen to them. Listening is a 2 way street.

Let me refresh your memory...
You came onto this thread, insulted my intelligence (I'm not the only one that thinks you did)
then when I asked you to not insult me you proceeded to call me a liar, state that what
I do is evil, and tell me how to conduct myself because you say so...

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 02:48 PM
Too bad for RPF then. There are ways to handle things, and there are ways to ensure nothing good happens.

We spend time here posting. Sometimes just getting kicks out of bashing others ignorance for our pleasure. But if you really want to make a difference by spreading the message, it is better to be patient and lead to the truth, not to bash the hell out of people. Is a good thashing how you came to know what you do?

I've been bashed for much less. But tell me this. Why do you think you wouldn't get bashed on a Ron Paul forum for pushing a proposal that in effect called for Ron Paul's removal from office? And after that was pointed out to you, don't you think you'd at least say "Well I didn't think about that. My bad." :confused: And I don't think this has been a "pleasure bashing". In the first set of post I didn't see any bashing at all. I haven't (and won't) read every post so I don't know how the "tit-for-tat" got started.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 02:50 PM
Let me refresh your memory...
You came onto this thread, insulted my intelligence (I'm not the only one that thinks you did)

LOL then both of you are blatantly and obviously wrong.


then when I asked you to not insult me you proceeded to call me a liar, state that what
I do is evil, and tell me how to conduct myself because you say so...

Investigative journalists should also not live in meticulously constructed fantasy worlds.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:55 PM
Do you really think that's what's happening?

Yes, I do.

We have a journalist (I assume) that wants to do something to help. She see's that at every turn the establishment just ignores the rules and will prevent us at every turn.

What to do? Take over from the local level? How's that working out so far? Yea, we have people here and there that have succeeded and they will be thrown out one by one, if what we have seen this year is any perspective. We already know that, but we keep trying.

Now, if she has an idea, however naive or non-libertarian, let's talk about it. There is a "real" world out there and there are "ideal" concepts. How to fit them together. Even Ron Paul supported some legislation that was not "ideal" because it assisted in freedom.

Wickedness drives the wise crazy. Let's talk about how maybe to proceed.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 02:55 PM
LOL then both of you are blatantly and obviously wrong.



Investigative journalists should also not live in meticulously constructed fantasy worlds.


According to you we are wrong. But it wasn't you that was insulted.
What fantasy world am I living in?

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 02:57 PM
I've been bashed for much less. But tell me this. Why do you think you wouldn't get bashed on a Ron Paul forum for pushing a proposal that in effect called for Ron Paul's removal from office? And after that was pointed out to you, don't you think you'd at least say "Well I didn't think about that. My bad." :confused: And I don't think this has been a "pleasure bashing". In the first set of post I didn't see any bashing at all. I haven't (and won't) read every post so I don't know how the "tit-for-tat" got started.

Right, at first it was a good discussion. You can read that there were questions and answers, discussion.

edit: And I was beat as a child, but I don't want that for my children.

John F Kennedy III
10-23-2012, 03:01 PM
I'm only responding to being trolled and insulted. My very real response was derogated and called an insult, and then following were several gross assumptions passed off as fact while claiming the mantle of objectivity. I'd be hammering Ron Paul's own progeny right now having behaved as she has in this thread.

Investigative journalists are supposed to be objective, and they are supposed to know assumptions from verified facts. I would call out my own mother for pretending to be an investigative journalist while acting like Bill o-really and Plush Limbaugh, intelligence notwithstanding.

This thread is moving way too fast to keep up with on my phone. But she is not acting like either of them. That's going a bit far. You on the otherhand, I have noticed have turned into an asshole.

I once started a thread that got you over $500 for your campaign. I used to have alot of respect for you. But you have been going downhill since you attacked Alex Jones and Donnay. What happened? Did you lose your election?

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 03:01 PM
Let me refresh your memory...
You came onto this thread, insulted my intelligence (I'm not the only one that thinks you did)
then when I asked you to not insult me you proceeded to call me a liar, state that what
I do is evil, and tell me how to conduct myself because you say so...

Yes. Let's refresh everyone's memory.


Yes, you still have a pretty significant learning curve ahead. Pretty much every regulation you have mentioned does an order of magnitude more harm than good. Regulations to protect children most often finds them kidnapped from loving families and forced into slave labor under families who hate them, abuse them, and often molest them. Hate crimes legislation creates protected classes who have more rights than everybody else, creating enmity and causing more hatred between them and other classes than ever existed befor the hate crimes laws. Caps on corporate donations also impact grassroots citizen activist groups and give the ability for corporates to bifurcate and work around the roadblock where grassroots cannot, thus advancing big corporate influence well beyond that of the grassroots.

You will probably reflexively reject this right off, but of you keep an open mind and do your own research, you will come to learn that we are correct.

Here Gunny is saying what I attempted to say earlier when I pointed out the failure of the war on drugs and the Texas Youth commission. Namely that the regulations you listed as being "good" have had a history of causing more harm than good just like the war on drugs. I brought up the war on drugs to try to get you to see that. You accused me of "twisting" your meaning. My mistake. I should have stuck with hammering my point about the raping and assaulting Texas Youth Commission.

The larger point was a counter to your "regulations can be a good thing" argument because you didn't actually provide any examples of overall good regulations. At least not in my opinion. Okay, moving on.


First of all do not insult my intellect. I do nothing but look for other perspectives and research.
I'm investigative journalist, I do nothing but look for truth.

Once again if you do not agree with the legislation, do not sign it.
Same goes for every issue. However, to subvert and discredit
this law before even understanding how deep the roots of super-pacs go
is asinine. Plain and simple if you don't agree DON'T SIGN.

So what's the point of putting this up on a discussion forum if you aren't interested in discussion?



So, when I was young and naive and didn't know everything there is to know about government, politics and monetary policy (as though I do now...eh) I would have been torn to shreds and would have learned nothing by coming here, other than to stay away.

So Gunny said you have a "steep learning curve" and that's insulting. ClydeCoulter compared you to his "young and naive" self and that's not. I'm sure you've done a lot of research into SuperPACs. Have you researched Ron Paul's SuperPAC? I keep bringing this up and getting no response. Is wrong Paul wrong for supporting SuperPACs? Should he have been driven from office for doing so? Rule #1 in sales is "know your audience". That doesn't mean you have to agree with your audience. But know what buttons not to push.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:06 PM
Come on, jmdrake, you knew that I was making an extreme example to show a point when I said "when I was young and naive". I meant, she is perhaps younger in her travels in this message.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:06 PM
This thread is moving way too fast to keep up with on my phone. But she is not acting like either of them. That's going a bit far. You on the otherhand, I have noticed have turned into an asshole.

I once started a thread that got you over $500 for your campaign. I used to have alot of respect for you. But you have been going downhill since you attacked Alex Jones and Donnay. What happened? Did you lose your election?

Your perceptions are quite wrong. I never attacked Alex Jones, and it was Donnay who attacked me. You are also wrong on what is happening here.

I appreciate your help, but I am not going to pretend that wrong is right just because someone helped me. I don't care if some billionaire gives me a million dollars, if he's wrong he's wrong.

You may not believe me. You may continue to believe that I attacked Alex Jones and Donnay until the day we all stand in the judgement, but at the very least I know the truth will be known there.

I also find it interesting that my quality as a person seems to depend on how closely we agree on ancillary issues...

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:09 PM
Yes. Let's refresh everyone's memory.



Here Gunny is saying what I attempted to say earlier when I pointed out the failure of the war on drugs and the Texas Youth commission. Namely that the regulations you listed as being "good" have had a history of causing more harm than good just like the war on drugs. I brought up the war on drugs to try to get you to see that. You accused me of "twisting" your meaning. My mistake. I should have stuck with hammering my point about the raping and assaulting Texas Youth Commission.

The larger point was a counter to your "regulations can be a good thing" argument because you didn't actually provide any examples of overall good regulations. At least not in my opinion. Okay, moving on.



So what's the point of putting this up on a discussion forum if you aren't interested in discussion?




So Gunny said you have a "steep learning curve" and that's insulting. ClydeCoulter compared you to his "young and naive" self and that's not. I'm sure you've done a lot of research into SuperPACs. Have you researched Ron Paul's SuperPAC? I keep bringing this up and getting no response. Is wrong Paul wrong for supporting SuperPACs? Should he have been driven from office for doing so? Rule #1 in sales is "know your audience". That doesn't mean you have to agree with your audience. But know what buttons not to push.

First off it seemed like you were twisting my meaning. I don't want anyone to assume anything about me.
Now I disagree that ALL regulations are bad for us. I won't go into examples of this because I really don't want
to start a another thread war here. But I will private message examples.

As far as the Ron Paul SuperPac goes I believe that the dirty money donated
by bigbanks should never be used to win an election. However I do believe
in grassroot donations. It should be left up to the citizens, not a corporation, choose
our leaders. *PS: sorry I didn't see your question, I didn't mean to dodge you.

I don't believe in the "know your audience" mindset. I will speak my mind regardless. No one will change that.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:10 PM
@adisongrace,

Would you start a new thread and ask for input as to why or why not do as you have suggested for discussion, please. I'm interested to see how it goes. I am interested to see how we might move forward in some meaningful way in this country. Some in the movement will go the GOP route, others are blogging, others... Well, you want to do something, you have a position that may be unique. Just realize that if someone says "naive", "lacking", etc... try not to take it personally and just move on with the topic.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 03:11 PM
Right, at first it was a good discussion. You can read that there were questions and answers, discussion.

FWIW I got a snarky response from the OP when I tried to explain how her position on the "good" regulations have done is analogous to what people say about the drug war. That was before Gunny got involved.



edit: And I was beat as a child, but I don't want that for my children.

As the old saying goes "I'm going to beat you at home so the police don't beat you later". Or better than that "I'm telling you not to touch that red hot stove so you won't get burned." But hey, some people only learn from experience I suppose. As early as post 6 the OP was calling someone else's view "establishment tinted". That's touching a red hot stove at RPF. CaptUSA didn't respond in kind. He went so far as to say "I know you are new here but...." The warning went unheeded. The red stove got touched.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:14 PM
@adisongrace,

Would you start a new thread and ask for input as to why or why not do as you have suggested for discussion, please. I'm interested to see how it goes. I am interested to see how we might move forward in some meaningful way in this country. Some in the movement will go the GOP route, others are blogging, others... Well, you want to do something, you have a position that may be unique. Just realize that if someone says "naive", "lacking", etc... try not to take it personally and just move on with the topic.

Will do!

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:16 PM
First off it seemed like you were twisting my meaning.

Hallelujah!


I don't want anyone to assume anything about me.

If you don't want people to make assumptions about you, it will help for you to stop making assumptions about others. Respect is a two way street Ma'am. One of the reasons you have made me so angry is how you demand respect while refusing to give it.


Now I disagree that ALL regulations are bad for us. I won't go into examples of this because I really don't want
to start a another thread war here. But I will private message examples.

Ron Paul himself opposed the repeal of Glass Stegall. The vast majority of people here to not knee-jerk oppose all regulation. That would be another unfounded assumption.


As far as the Ron Paul SuperPac goes I believe that the dirty money donated
by bigbanks should never be used to win an election. However I do believe
in grassroot donations. It should be left up to the citizens, not a corporation, choose
our leaders. *PS: sorry I didn't see your question, I didn't mean to dodge you.

I don't believe in the "know your audience" mindset. I will speak my mind regardless. No one will change that.

Speaking one's mind is not what investigative journalists are supposed to do, that's what pundits are supposed to do. Investigative journalists report evidence and facts and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. Again, see Ben Swann for a proper example of investigative journalism.

Travlyr
10-23-2012, 03:17 PM
Those answers have been given several times in this thread.

My answer is that if you force government to strictly conform to the Constitution, then government will be unable to do the things that big money special interests want in the first place, and therefore lobbying will not be cost effective and will stop.

The best way to force government to obey the Constitution is to make at a major felony with a minimum 15 years prison sentence for any elected official violating their oath of office, particularly in regards to upholding the Constitution as the law of the land.

Remove the ability for special interest to get what they want from government by enforcing the Constitution, and it becomes a waste of money to lobby, and thus special interests die off and government is no longer owned by big money.

And it's not even that complicated.

Simply make the violation of one's oath a major felony for which conviction holds a 15-25 year sentence at hard labor, and big money goes away. forever.
Bravo!

Enforce Article VI. Clauses 2 & 3. And make the penalty for disobeying their oath a serious felony without possibility of parole.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:18 PM
FWIW I got a snarky response from the OP when I tried to explain how her position on the "good" regulations have done is analogous to what people say about the drug war. That was before Gunny got involved.



As the old saying goes "I'm going to beat you at home so the police don't beat you later". Or better than that "I'm telling you not to touch that red hot stove so you won't get burned." But hey, some people only learn from experience I suppose. As early as post 6 the OP was calling someone else's view "establishment tinted". That's touching a red hot stove at RPF. CaptUSA didn't respond in kind. He went so far as to say "I know you are new here but...." The warning went unheeded. The red stove got touched.

So let me ask you does mean that the requirement
for new members is to not adress a different idea
than the MO of the site? Because if they don't
they'll face the threat of the red stove?

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:18 PM
FWIW I got a snarky response from the OP when I tried to explain how her position on the "good" regulations have done is analogous to what people say about the drug war. That was before Gunny got involved.



As the old saying goes "I'm going to beat you at home so the police don't beat you later". Or better than that "I'm telling you not to touch that red hot stove so you won't get burned." But hey, some people only learn from experience I suppose. As early as post 6 the OP was calling someone else's view "establishment tinted". That's touching a red hot stove at RPF. CaptUSA didn't respond in kind. He went so far as to say "I know you are new here but...." The warning went unheeded. The red stove got touched.

As experienced debaters on political issues, shouldn't we be the "bigger" person in these things? Don't we all know that we came from naive backgrounds, at least most of us? IF we are the "grownups" then let's act like it. Let's give new people a bit of room to learn without being yelled at when they knock over the tablelamp while learning to walk. That's all I'm asking. (Yes, another metaphore that's a bit over the top).

edit: Is our goal to be "right", "perfectly right" or to lead or teach?

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:22 PM
This thread is moving way too fast to keep up with on my phone. But she is not acting like either of them. That's going a bit far. You on the otherhand, I have noticed have turned into an asshole.

I once started a thread that got you over $500 for your campaign. I used to have alot of respect for you. But you have been going downhill since you attacked Alex Jones and Donnay. What happened? Did you lose your election?

And also, I lived 35 years thinking I was the only person left on Earth who cared about the truth, and should every last single patriot fall by the wayside and leave me again alone, I will continue to stand up for truth even if I am really the last one left amongst the whole human race.

You perception of what has happened in this thread is wrong. Your perception of what happened in the Alex Jones debacle is wrong.

I know what it feels like to have a journalist make up lies about me and present them as objective truth, because I have had that happen to me in the actual widest-circulation press in North Carolina. It pissed me off when the Raleigh News and Observer and the Charlotte Observe did it in actual news print, and it pisses me off when Miss Grace does it here on the forums.

The victim here is not myself or Miss Grace, the victim is truth itself, and that's why I'm so angry.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:23 PM
Hallelujah!



If you don't want people to make assumptions about you, it will help for you to stop making assumptions about others. Respect is a two way street Ma'am. One of the reasons you have made me so angry is how you demand respect while refusing to give it.



Ron Paul himself opposed the repeal of Glass Stegall. The vast majority of people here to not knee-jerk oppose all regulation. That would be another unfounded assumption.



Speaking one's mind is not what investigative journalists are supposed to do, that's what pundits are supposed to do. Investigative journalists report evidence and facts and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. Again, see Ben Swann for a proper example of investigative journalism.

So I'm not allowed to state an opinion? That sounds very much like subversion to me...
But to clarify: I report objectively. This is not journalism. This is a public forum therefore I can state my opinion as I see fit. Just as my social networks are vocal on my view on things.
It was you that perpetrated this flame war. This thread has become nothing more than that.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 03:24 PM
First off it seemed like you were twisting my meaning. I don't want anyone to assume anything about me.
Now I disagree that ALL regulations are bad for us. I won't go into examples of this because I really don't want
to start a another thread war here. But I will private message examples.

Fair enough. I was arguing from example. I believe that CPS and the drug war are just as evil. I wish RT would do an expose' on the evils of the CPS system sometime.



As far as the Ron Paul SuperPac goes I believe that the dirty money donated
by bigbanks should never be used to win an election.


You have evidence of "big bank" donations to the Ron Paul SuperPAC? Or are you assuming that just because something has the term "SuperPAC" it must include dirty money? Or are you saying something else altogether?



However I do believe in grassroot donations. It should be left up to the citizens, not a corporation, choose
our leaders. *PS: sorry I didn't see your question, I didn't mean to dodge you.


No problem about missing the question. I do that too from time to time. That said, I wonder if you have ever read the Citizen's United ruling? Those involved were citizens. The constitution allows not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of association. Can associations speak? Can the NAACP speak? The UAW? The RNC? The DNC?



I don't believe in the "know your audience" mindset. I will speak my mind regardless. No one will change that.

Well then just be fully prepared to accept the results. If you want to communicate effectively it's important to know your audience as you speak your mind. If effective communication isn't important, then just speak your mind.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:25 PM
And also, I lived 35 years thinking I was the only person left on Earth who cared about the truth, and should every last single patriot fall by the wayside and leave me again alone, I will continue to stand up for truth even if I am really the last one left amongst the whole human race.

You perception of what has happened in this thread is wrong. Your perception of what happened in the Alex Jones debacle is wrong.

I know what it feels like to have a journalist make up lies about me and present them as objective truth, because I have had that happen to me in the actual widest-circulation press in North Carolina. It pissed me off when the Raleigh News and Observer and the Charlotte Observe did it in actual news print, and it pisses me off when Miss Grace does it here on the forums.

The victim here is not myself or Miss Grace, the victim is truth itself, and that's why I'm so angry.

Once again what I lying about? Please present facts. That's all I'm asking.
If you can't do that you truly are just trolling.

Travlyr
10-23-2012, 03:25 PM
The victim here is not myself or Miss Grace, the victim is truth itself, and that's why I'm so angry.

I don't know how Ron Paul did it all those years. The media and people all over twisting his words calling him names and misrepresenting his views year after year and he persevered anyway. Good on you Gunny.

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 03:29 PM
So let me ask you does mean that the requirement
for new members is to not adress a different idea
than the MO of the site? Because if they don't
they'll face the threat of the red stove?

There is no "requirement". The red hot stove is there. People eventually run into it. Moderators do their best to soften the blow, but nothing I've seen in this thread goes beyond forum rules. You can address different ideas all of the time. Look at it this way. If I went on "Obamaforums.com" and called for any politician who supported bailouts to be driven from office, what do you think would happen? Now if I went on that same forum and simply discussed why I thought bailouts were a bad idea, I might actually get somewhere.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:31 PM
FWIW I got a snarky response from the OP when I tried to explain how her position on the "good" regulations have done is analogous to what people say about the drug war.

Exactly. We have a pretty clear history of treating people with respect when they treat us with respect, no matter how outrageous or wrong they may be. People who claim to want a discussion but sarcastically dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, and then start acting childish and making assumptions about those who disagree with them, we don't treat so nicely.


As early as post 6 the OP was calling someone else's view "establishment tinted". That's touching a red hot stove at RPF. CaptUSA didn't respond in kind. He went so far as to say "I know you are new here but...." The warning went unheeded. The red stove got touched.

Yep, that's what started it. Funny how none of her defenders noticed that eh? I overlooked that post too, considering it noob naiveté and my first post was very cordial and respectful as I see it, but when she came back from my post how she did, when taken with post #6, the hard core troller alarms went off.

So maybe she isn't a troll. I'm more than willing to accept that impression may have been wrong. Will she ever consider the possibility for one millisecond that she may have been wrong here? Her personality as displayed thus far says no.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:31 PM
Once again what I lying about? Please present facts. That's all I'm asking.
If you can't do that you truly are just trolling.

Don't know how you keep overlooking it every time I point it out only to come back and pretend I've never pointed it out.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:34 PM
Exactly. We have a pretty clear history of treating people with respect when they treat us with respect, no matter how outrageous or wrong they may be. People who claim to want a discussion but sarcastically dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, and then start acting childish and making assumptions about those who disagree with them, we don't treat so nicely.



Yep, that's what started it. Funny how none of her defenders noticed that eh? I overlooked that post too, considering it noob naiveté and my first post was very cordial and respectful as I see it, but when she came back from my post how she did, when taken with post #6, the hard core troller alarms went off.

So maybe she isn't a troll. I'm more than willing to accept that impression may have been wrong. Will she ever consider the possibility for one millisecond that she may have been wrong here? Her personality as displayed thus far says no.

There, fixed it for ya :)

jmdrake
10-23-2012, 03:34 PM
As experienced debaters on political issues, shouldn't we be the "bigger" person in these things? Don't we all know that we came from naive backgrounds, at least most of us? IF we are the "grownups" then let's act like it. Let's give new people a bit of room to learn without being yelled at when they knock over the tablelamp while learning to walk. That's all I'm asking. (Yes, another metaphore that's a bit over the top).

edit: Is our goal to be "right", "perfectly right" or to lead or teach?

We who? I didn't flame Adison. I'm not putting down anyone who did because I've done my share of flaming people. All I'm saying is that certain results can be expected from certain actions. Unless we're going to have some hard fast "civility rule" people are eventually going to get flamed. The best we can do individually is not flame (and I'm not there yet, though I try at times to be) and to help newbies understand when their headed into flame territory.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:35 PM
So I'm not allowed to state an opinion? That sounds very much like subversion to me...

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion. When you make the claim that you know I have insulted you (when it's pretty obvious I did not) and proceed to dump some pretty insane assumptions on me, all because of some fiat given to you by being an investigative journalist, well, that's pretty darn crooked.


But to clarify: I report objectively. This is not journalism. This is a public forum therefore I can state my opinion as I see fit. Just as my social networks are vocal on my view on things.

It was you that perpetrated this flame war. This thread has become nothing more than that.

LOL there's another one assumption/fabrication.

Look, this is me pointing out to you the things you keep claiming I have not pointed out.

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 03:37 PM
Most SuperPac donations coming from individuals (very rich ones) and not corporations- and only ten account for one third of all donations:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/04/26/8753/top-10-donors-make-third-donations-super-pacs



Top 10 donors make up a third of donations to super PACs

Contrary to expectations, the much-criticized court decisions that gave us “super PACs” have not led to a tsunami of contributions flowing from the treasuries of Fortune 500 corporations — at least not yet anyway.

What the Citizens United decision and a lower court ruling have done is make household names out of a bunch of relatively unknown, very wealthy conservatives. Of the top 10 donors to super PACs so far in the 2012 election cycle, seven are individuals — not corporations — and four of those individuals are billionaires.
The top 10 contributors gave more than a third, or $68 million of the nearly $202 million reported by the outside spending groups this election, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

Rounding out the top 10 are two labor unions and a physicians’ medical malpractice insurance group.

The top donor list is mostly Republican, which is not surprising given the competitive GOP presidential primary season. Even so, Democrats have had less success in raising money for super PACs so far


More details at link.


Edgar admits he is surprised that fewer corporations haven’t flexed their political muscle by giving to super PACs, but he predicts that a few “brand-sensitive” corporations will wade into the super PAC water.

“Corporations are discovering that they have to be careful,” he said. “They can tarnish their brands if they are seen as meddling in partisan politics.”

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:38 PM
There, fixed it for ya :)

Sorry Clyde, you are wrong. I don;t like being lied about and insulted. I'm supposed to just roll over and think it's wonderful why? Because she's a journalist? Because she's a she?

I came into this thread kind, cordial, and constructive, and this crazy person starts spitting in my face and has been spitting in the faces of those whom I respect this whole thread.

That's fine if you are OK with that, but I find it unacceptable and will nor hesitate to call it out.

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:38 PM
We who? I didn't flame Adison. I'm not putting down anyone who did because I've done my share of flaming people. All I'm saying is that certain results can be expected from certain actions. Unless we're going to have some hard fast "civility rule" people are eventually going to get flamed. The best we can do individually is not flame (and I'm not there yet, though I try at times to be) and to help newbies understand when their headed into flame territory.

I'm not pointing fingers at you. That was a general response, sorry if I didn't come across well. (it was a note to self, also).

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:38 PM
Fair enough. I was arguing from example. I believe that CPS and the drug war are just as evil. I wish RT would do an expose' on the evils of the CPS system sometime.

So do I..CPS is doing nothing but destroying lives.




You have evidence of "big bank" donations to the Ron Paul SuperPAC? Or are you assuming that just because something has the term "SuperPAC" it must include dirty money? Or are you saying something else altogether?

All donations from big banks to SuperPacs are documented, as well as direct to the politician themselves. I'll gather the info I have an PM you. But I'm not saying ALL donations are dirty money.[/QUOTE]




No problem about missing the question. I do that too from time to time. That said, I wonder if you have ever read the Citizen's United ruling? Those involved were citizens. The constitution allows not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of association. Can associations speak? Can the NAACP speak? The UAW? The RNC? The DNC?

Yes I have actually. But that's exactly the same idea presented here. I would never want free speech subverted. Anyone can speak. Unlike what has happened at the national conventions as of today.




Well then just be fully prepared to accept the results. If you want to communicate effectively it's important to know your audience as you speak your mind. If effective communication isn't important, then just speak your mind.

I guess it really comes down to who sets those standards...

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:40 PM
Sorry Clyde, you are wrong. I don;t like being lied about and insulted. I'm supposed to just roll over and think it's wonderful why? Because she's a journalist? Because she's a she?

I came into this thread kind, cordial, and constructive, and this crazy person starts spitting in my face and has been spitting in the faces of those whom I respect this whole thread.

That's fine if you are OK with that, but I find it unacceptable and will nor hesitate to call it out.

I only struck out the last part, because it defeated the part right before it. I understand your frustration with the media, but did she write an article for them that flamed you? This could be a good teaching moment for you, you have a journalist at hand that could make a difference some day.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 03:41 PM
Don't know how you keep overlooking it every time I point it out only to come back and pretend I've never pointed it out.

You haven't addressed anything I've asked. All you are giving is your opinion of me based on an experience with another journalist. I pointed out in detail what your
statements were towards me. I own up to the slaughter comment. I apologize. Now let's move forward...what fantasy am I living in again?

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 03:46 PM
ya'll are nuts

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 03:46 PM
ya'll are nuts

Pass the jelly :D

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 03:48 PM
All donations from big banks to SuperPacs are documented, as well as direct to the politician themselves.

FYI, there are no donations from big banks to candidates or political campaigns themselves.

I also doubt that big banks - or, for that matter, small banks - have made any meaningful contributions to Super PACs if any at all. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen; it's just a matter of checking the records.

Finally, I have no idea why should banks - or any other association of people, from an union to a pro-environment group - be forbidden from donating to political campaigns. Although the only reason they would - the only reason their stakeholders do - is because the type of policies and "solutions" you propose are so popular. Nobody cares about buying powerless politicians. If you don't want politicians to be bought, make them powerless.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:48 PM
I only struck out the last part, because it defeated the part right before it. I understand your frustration with the media, but did she write an article for them that flamed you? This could be a good teaching moment for you, you have a journalist at hand that could make a difference some day.

I don't want a journalist as an ally if that's the way she is going to be.

I started off very cordial and explained like a rational adult talking to another rational adult why the assumption about regulatory examples she gave was wrong

She decided to spit in my face and go nuts. She did so under the self-selected imprimatur of investigative journalism.

I have explained, eventually I even explained quite pedantically, what exactly she was doing wrong, and how she could avoid the hostile reception around here. She doesn't care. So apparently she WANTS to piss people off rather than have a rational discussion as adults.

That's how it looks to me, anyway.

Personally, I prefer rational discussions as adults, even if we vehemently disagree. I'm not the one rejecting that course, she is, and she has been since post #6 in this thread.

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 03:52 PM
You haven't addressed anything I've asked. All you are giving is your opinion of me based on an experience with another journalist.

More random assumptions that are blatantly false. Here I am calling out your fabrications as fabrications, which you continually accuse me of not doing.


I pointed out in detail what your
statements were towards me. I own up to the slaughter comment. I apologize. Now let's move forward...what fantasy am I living in again?

Stop. take a deep breath. Hit the reset button if you need to. Stop making stuff up without any knowledge of what you are talking about and I will stop calling them out as fiction. Deal? :)

tod evans
10-23-2012, 03:52 PM
But you see our government has a unlimited amount of economic reach from the Bilderberg group
to the CFR, to Rothschild family themselves. There needs to be equality. That is a liberty issue.

Equality is never legislated, it is fought and died for one person at a time....Same for liberty, "blood of patriots"...

Kodaddy
10-23-2012, 03:58 PM
She looks cute....

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 03:59 PM
FYI, there are no donations from big banks to candidates or political campaigns themselves.

I also doubt that big banks - or, for that matter, small banks - have made any meaningful contributions to Super PACs if any at all. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen; it's just a matter of checking the records.

Finally, I have no idea why should banks - or any other association of people, from an union to a pro-environment group - be forbidden from donating to political campaigns. Although the only reason they would - the only reason their stakeholders do - is because the type of policies and "solutions" you propose are so popular. Nobody cares about buying powerless politicians. If you don't want politicians to be bought, make them powerless.

I am not able to find information on any banks contributing to major PACs either. If you look at "contributors" at Open Secrets you do see financial institutions listed, but that list is of individuals who made contributions and indicated that those institutions were their employers.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 04:04 PM
Yeah, I was pretty sure there wouldnt' be any. It's just a convenient red herring. Thanks for checking it.

Working Poor
10-23-2012, 04:07 PM
So, when I was young and naive and didn't know everything there is to know about government, politics and monetary policy (as though I do now...eh) I would have been torn to shreds and would have learned nothing by coming here, other than to stay away.

Journalist IMO are tough and they can take criticism if they are any good. I can see that Grace is trying to hang in there. I think it is possible she will learn something from the people who have been fighting for liberty since before she was born.

The old timers in Liberty want less laws not more. We want to repeal laws and regulations that give corporations more power over the little guy and stifle the market. I do not know how to get big money out of politics but good luck with it.

I hope you can think about some of the things that have been said and maybe your young brite self can come up with a really good answer.;)

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 04:32 PM
I agree with the original intent of taking the corrupting force that money can buy out of the political equation but for a Libertarian that is a problem. Libertarianism says that the market must decide- and in the free market, the powers is to those with the most money. Everybody should be free to donate whatever they want to whomever they want. It takes money to get elected so polititians look to who can provide them with the most money and support laws to benefit that group. Unless they all band together, that leaves out the middle and lower income people. Survival of the fittest (or the wealthiest in this case).

GunnyFreedom
10-23-2012, 04:51 PM
I
I agree with the original intent of taking the corrupting force that money can buy out of the political equation but for a Libertarian that is a problem. Libertarianism says that the market must decide- and in the free market, the powers is to those with the most money. Everybody should be free to donate whatever they want to whomever they want. It takes money to get elected so polititians look to who can provide them with the most money and support laws to benefit that group. Unless they all band together, that leaves out the middle and lower income people. Survival of the fittest (or the wealthiest in this case).

In this case I am willing to legislate a new felony none that makes it a serious felony to violate one's oath of office. Ignore or violate the Constitution and go to prison for 15 to 25. That would take big money out of politics lickety split.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 04:58 PM
Implement a balanced budget Constitutional ammendment and most of the big money would quickly leave politics.

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 05:07 PM
Most states require balanced budgets. Has big money left them?

ClydeCoulter
10-23-2012, 05:11 PM
I am not able to find information on any banks contributing to major PACs either. If you look at "contributors" at Open Secrets you do see financial institutions listed, but that list is of individuals who made contributions and indicated that those institutions were their employers.

Corporations are made up of people, although not the same ones in control at any given time. Contributions from employees within corporations can be used to influence legislation to make the corporation more profitable (eg, stiffle competition, etc) and perhaps enhance bonuses of employees of the corporation.
Is this not so?

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 05:11 PM
I Re-posted a new version of this thread as requested by clyde. :)
Now let's actually have an actual discussion.

adisongrace
10-23-2012, 05:14 PM
I am not able to find information on any banks contributing to major PACs either. If you look at "contributors" at Open Secrets you do see financial institutions listed, but that list is of individuals who made contributions and indicated that those institutions were their employers.

If you go through Romney's records you will see major corps. connected to back door deals with st., including big banks, have donated in massive numbers to his campaign. But let's move this discussion to the other thread.

Zippyjuan
10-23-2012, 05:25 PM
Corporations are made up of people, although not the same ones in control at any given time. Contributions from employees within corporations can be used to influence legislation to make the corporation more profitable (eg, stiffle competition, etc) and perhaps enhance bonuses of employees of the corporation.
Is this not so?

By the same listing, Ron Paul's top contributors are branches of the US military.

Ron's list:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906
First Ten:


US Army $115,458

US Navy $92,350

US Air Force $90,611

Google Inc $42,478

US Dept of Defense $39,500

US Marine Corps $30,855

Microsoft Corp $30,259

Boeing Co $27,917

IBM Corp $26,606

US Government $25,766


Mitt Romney's list:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286


Top Contributors {I am also listing just Top Ten for him}

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.


Goldman Sachs $965,140

Bank of America $844,734

Morgan Stanley $768,216

JPMorgan Chase & Co $749,918

Credit Suisse Group $588,841

Wells Fargo $524,601

Deloitte LLP $477,812

Kirkland & Ellis $470,672

Citigroup Inc $448,408

Barclays $426,800