j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Hey, if you got something to say, go raise some money and say it. If you can't get anybody to pony up, sorry man. you jumped the shark The Citizens decision does have the practical effect of leveling the playing field in favor of those who challenge incumbents, the latter of which enjoy the advantage of battle tested fund raising engines and name recognition. Case in point: Murray v Rossi - she outspent him 10:1 in direct funding, but swift boaters made up the difference for Dino, apparently. so one swift boater or one corp funding a candidate or one issue against a candidate funded by thousands or more is a level playing field? you suck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 [video:youtube]BtwC67DCfPg Any questions? Sounds great. Go for it. Of course, it doesn't address independent political messaging - the very thing you've been whining so much about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I have a ready solution for independent political messaging: corporations don't have free speech; they don't have the rights of people. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Hey, if you got something to say, go raise some money and say it. If you can't get anybody to pony up, sorry man. you jumped the shark The Citizens decision does have the practical effect of leveling the playing field in favor of those who challenge incumbents, the latter of which enjoy the advantage of battle tested fund raising engines and name recognition. Case in point: Murray v Rossi - she outspent him 10:1 in direct funding, but swift boaters made up the difference for Dino, apparently. so one swift boater or one corp funding a candidate or one issue against a candidate funded by thousands or more is a level playing field? you suck! Well, regarding your 'editing', you cuntz are no better than the swift boaters you claim to hate so much. To repeat: Citizens United most certainly levels the playing field between challengers and incumbents - that effect is obvious in this last election. Whether or not you agree with the rightness or wrongness of that effect is pretty much irrelevant, because that's pretty much the way it is now. BTW...have either of you whiny fucks given a dime to any organizations pushing for the campaign reforms you care so deeply about? Have those organizations made any measurable progress legislatively...ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I have a ready solution for independent political messaging: corporations don't have free speech; they don't have the rights of people. End of story. Magic! Why didn't anyone else think of that? Has it already happened? What, not yet? Oh, shit, we forgot about that little execution problem.... If I could only dream myself to the top of mountains. Fucking climbing...too much work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 why should the playing field be level for a corporation you moron! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Not to introduce data into this metaphysical discussion of spending but I saw this article by one of the regressive warmongering neo-con corporate shills at the NYT: "Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending By MICHAEL LUO and GRIFF PALMER Published: October 26, 2010 Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 why should the playing field be level for a corporation you moron! How about sole proprietorships, limited partnerships, unions, fraternal organizations, co-ops, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) To repeat: Citizens United most certainly levels the playing field between challengers and incumbents - that effect is obvious in this last election. Where's the decision that levels the playing field between those flush with corporate money and those that aren't? Challengers and incumbents?! Who gives a fuck, if they're essentially the same fucking people? Quit changing the goal posts, stop apologizing for moneyed interest monopoly over the political system and start accepting what you know is true: this system is corrupt as all get-out and Citizens United has made it worse. Edited November 4, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I have a ready solution for independent political messaging: corporations don't have free speech; they don't have the rights of people. End of story. Magic! Why didn't anyone else think of that? Has it already happened? What, not yet? Oh, shit, we forgot about that little execution problem.... If I could only dream myself to the top of mountains. Fucking climbing...too much work. Nobody claimed it'd be easy to beat back the corporatists, but it certainly would be easier if people like you stopped dragging their feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 why should the playing field be level for a corporation you moron! How about sole proprietorships, limited partnerships, unions, fraternal organizations, co-ops, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? Fine. It's a fair trade-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) No shit. The Dems are (were?) the incumbents. Incumbents always have a fund raising edge. Hey progressives, if you're going to reform elections, you might try take some time off yoga and blogging to learn the basics. Your lack of even rudimentary knowledge in the areas you care so deeply about may have something to do with your inability to raise money for your agendas. Juuuuussssssst sayin.... Edited November 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Not to introduce data into this metaphysical discussion of spending but I saw this article by one of the regressive warmongering neo-con corporate shills at the NYT: "Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending By MICHAEL LUO and GRIFF PALMER Published: October 26, 2010 Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html "As long as we maintain the illusion that there are fundamental differences between the two parties, the illusion that the system isn't fundamentally corrupt remains intact." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 why should the playing field be level for a corporation you moron! How about sole proprietorships, limited partnerships, unions, fraternal organizations, co-ops, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? democratic non-profit associations should be able to take part in elections. There should be spending limits anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil K Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Not to introduce data into this metaphysical discussion of spending but I saw this article by one of the regressive warmongering neo-con corporate shills at the NYT: "Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending By MICHAEL LUO and GRIFF PALMER Published: October 26, 2010 Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html Try reading the next two paragraphs, and the truthiness changes substantially. Not that that's relevant. "Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending. As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times." Next lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Well, regarding your 'editing', you cuntz are no better than the swift boaters you claim to hate so much. wtf is wrong with you? what are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Jay's citations usually don't require a fine-toothed comb. His glaring omissions usually start right after the page break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 You might start by quoting complete sentences rather than out of context soundbites...a common tactic you pretend to rail against. With your painfully obvious lack of self awareness, I realize this suggestion may as well be a fart in a closet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Sure is quiet regarding my personal donation, past performance questions...No surprise there. In the progressive world, money is evil and results mean nothing when you're THAT FAR AHEAD OF YOUR TIME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 You might start by quoting complete sentences rather than out of context soundbites...a common tactic you pretend to rail against. With your painfully obvious lack of self awareness, I realize this suggestion may as well be a fart in a closet. The entire quote is there for everyone to see. What more do you want? I am entitled to respond to part of your diatribe if I want to. Helloooo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I do like to poke the stingless hornets nest on occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Sure is quiet regarding my personal donation, past performance questions...No surprise there. How did Gay Weed do? Are we free, yet? Keep us posted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Sure is quiet regarding my personal donation, past performance questions...No surprise there. In the progressive world, money is evil and results mean nothing when you're THAT FAR AHEAD OF YOUR TIME! wow! check out the super-sized ego! IN the progressive world, we are egalitarians! get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 "It's okay if a pay-to-play political system is inherently undemocratic and corrupt, as long as they have those yummy dinner rolls at the fundraiser this year." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) Sure is quiet regarding my personal donation, past performance questions...No surprise there. How did Gay Weed do? Are we free, yet? Keep us posted! Well...lets see now WA domestic partnership law 2009: all of the more than 1000 rights of marriage guaranteed for all committed couples - more than 10,000 same sex couples in our state so far. CA: Prop 8 overturned - affecting more than 50,000 same sex couples in that state so far. 2 national same sex marriage lawsuits in process. Not mentioning the many legislative victories in other states for the sake of brevity. Weed: Decrim of pot in CA. Lowest level of enforcement priority in Seattle. Overdose amnesty law passed in WA. Various tax regimens passed at the municipal level in CA. How am I doing so far? Is my ego inflating too rapidly for you guys? Edited November 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.