Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    Partly right:

    Except: Unionized members police your country-enforce your laws- fly your jet airliners- guide your traffic- and, since collective bargaining determines thier contracts- are your physicians...


    the higher up the curve you go- in 2020- the more likely it is you are unionized...
    But, professional unions like the Bar Association or ones for physicians and even teachers, is more about exclusion than inclusion. That is, they are intended to limit the supply of labor as much as anything. They do this by setting high bars for entry but are not particularly concerned about quality. So, if you have the right paper, like degrees and such, you get in. Doesn't matter if you're barely competent, so long as you pay your dues afterwards.
    This creates scarcity and drives the wages of those in the union up in return. That's not particularly good for the consumer on any level.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



      Once again, tell me why the decision is wrong?


      Your own quoted language explicitly includes labor unions. And yet you seem to have convinced yourself that it only applies to corporations. Those damn talking points misled you didn't they.

      Do you know what a corporation is?
      Do you know why a corporation retains free speech rights?

      Do you know what dark money is and why are you so in favor of unlimited dark donations supporting candidates? That's capitalist policy. IE: buying the government.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        why is the decision wrong?

        Money in elections is always an issue but that wasn't the point of the decision.
        It is based on the 1st Amendment.
        So you're saying free speech can be bought now? Got it. You sure bend over backwards to support your corporate overlords. Try supporting the middle class for a change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



          Still waiting.
          or does your silence mean that you've acknowledged that your talking point understanding of the citizens united case might have been wrong?
          Citizens United isn't middle class policy, which is why you support it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

            Influence is not the same as "buying", or manipulating.

            For a start, Bernie Sanders is influencing me to not vote for him because he's an idiot and socialist.

            Whether it's a candidate or an initiative, elections of either require some money to pay for campaign signs, literature, advertisements, and travel expenses for the candidate or printing expenses for the initiatives ~ and sometimes paid signature gatherers.

            I've yet to get actual cash from a candidate to vote for them, though most socialist ones will promise "free stuff", from the guv'mint, which is just redirected wealth taken from others. And I don't recall any cases of ballot counts or elections systems being "bought" by any candidate or faction within recent decades.

            One thing here that is disturbing is how many, usually on the Left-Wing fanatics, have such little regard or confidence in the average citizen/voter. Starts with the demeaning and denigrating reference to many of such as 'the little people', and carries through with the delusion that many of those voters can be "bought". I've seen numerous elections where the winner had a significantly smaller "war chest" for campaigning than did the loser.

            The "corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections' is a rather relative and subjective term. The Left Wing for example has most of the Unions on it's side, assorted PACs like 'Greenpeace' and other enviro-nazis, and persons like Soros and Styerer providing counter point to those "corporations"(which provide jobs and essential goods and services).
            If you get your information from radical RW sources, you're gonna end up with that conclusion. You'll end up with whatever conclusion your gossip artists give you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              Citizens United isn't middle class policy, which is why you support it.
              Once again, why is the decision wrong?

              How can you say it isn't "middle class" policy when you clearly don't understand it?
              It isn't policy at all and your attempt to change the subject shows you really haven't a clue of what it stands for.
              It is constitutional. The courts do not make "policy" that is what politicians do.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                So you're saying free speech can be bought now? Got it. You sure bend over backwards to support your corporate overlords. Try supporting the middle class for a change.
                Wow, you really haven't a clue of what you are talking about do you?

                Your lame effort to make it about me is exposing how ignorant you are of the subject you are trying to lecture about.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                  Do you know what dark money is and why are you so in favor of unlimited dark donations supporting candidates? That's capitalist policy. IE: buying the government.
                  I have a really bad habit of ignoring weak attempts to change the subject.

                  I'll repeat the post you are trying to ignore.

                  Once again, tell me why the decision is wrong?


                  Your own quoted language explicitly includes labor unions. And yet you seem to have convinced yourself that it only applies to corporations. Those damn talking points misled you didn't they.

                  Do you know what a corporation is?
                  Do you know why a corporation retains free speech rights?


                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                    So you're saying free speech can be bought now? Got it. You sure bend over backwards to support your corporate overlords. Try supporting the middle class for a change.
                    Try getting a clue on both economic reality and what the USA middle class really are.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                      Do you know what dark money is and why are you so in favor of unlimited dark donations supporting candidates? That's capitalist policy. IE: buying the government.
                      It's even more a socialist/communist policy, see Soros and Steyer, etc. Also the "in kind support" from a LW dominated MSM, your source of the propaganda you regurgitate.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                        Citizens United isn't middle class policy, which is why you support it.
                        Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. In 2010 the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The organization's current president and chairman is David Bossie
                        ...

                        Citizens United's stated mission is to restore the United States government to "citizens' control, through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass-roots organization" seeking to "reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security."[2] Citizens United is a conservative political advocacy group organized under Section 501(c)4 of the federal tax code, meaning that donations are not tax deductible. To fulfill this mission, Citizens United produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films.[3] CU films have won film festival awards, including Perfect Valor (Best Documentary at the GI Film Festival) and Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (Remi Award at Houston Worldfest International Festival).
                        ...
                        Citizens United is known for its support of conservatives in politics. The group produced a television advertisement that reveals several legislative actions taken by John McCain, which aired on Fox News Channel.[5] On October 2, 2006, in reaction to revelations of a cover-up of inappropriate communications between Republican Congressman Mark Foley and United States House of Representatives Page, Citizens United president David Bossie called on Dennis Hastert to resign over his role in covering up the scandal
                        ...
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize..._(organization) (for what Wiki is worth)
                        ...
                        http://citizensunited.org/
                        ................................................
                        CU is Conservative focused and in opposition to the machinery of the socialist/communist Left-Wing(LW), AntiFa, "Resist", and similar minded seditious organizations that seek to undermine and alter the Constitution and founding principles of our Government.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                          I just don’t have the smarts to understand your ever changing point.

                          You said the Citizens United decision was wrong.
                          I challenged that and asked you, repeatedly, to support that claim.
                          You have yet to explain why, under the law, the decision was wrong. That’s because you can’t.
                          You don’t have to like the result, but it is completely consistent with the 1st Amendment.


                          The fact that corruption may exist in donations (Of course it does) isn’t a 1st Amendment issue, but since you know you can’t support your original claim that the decision was wrong, you desperately want to change the subject. Sorry, that’s an admission you’ve lost.
                          The fact that corruption in donations justifies imposed limitations despite the fact that money is supposedly "freedom of speech" which cannot be touched as it was accepted in the Citizen United shows that you simply do not want to accept this obvious contradiction. I said that similar considerations should have been used to justify limitations in spending in the Citizen United case, and you have said nothing to counter my justification for such limitations.

                          The SCOTUS underestimated the issue of corruption when money is left unrestricted to influence the political elections and chose to arbitrary argue that freedom of speech is associated with the amount of money people can spend. Such monetizing of a right creates a situation where some people have more freedom of speech than others and can use their wealth to outbid the 1A right of others as there is competition for the use of the limited resources that are available to spread a political message. Reasonable people understand that when one's right intervenes with another's person's there must be limitations. The SCOTUS chose to be unreasonable



                          All the above have been explained with slightly different words in previous posts. You do not have to like my position regarding why the SCOTUS decision is wrong.. You need to first understand what I say (and either you cannot do or you do nt want to do it) and then explain why it is wrong. You have failed to do so. Sorry, but that is an admission of loss.
                          Last edited by pamak; 29 Feb 20, 13:10.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            Except with unions the association isn't necessarily voluntary or even a willing one.
                            Although corporations are free associations of individuals coming together to do business, it is still an association which includes certain forms of compulsion and passing cost to people who are not members of a corporation.. Example is the limited liability laws which protects the corporate investors from lawsuits and pass catastrophic losses to the society.

                            So it is necessary to clarify that corporations are not JUST free associations. They have characteristics which are not found in every free associations of individuals and which at times pass certain cost to people outside of these associations.
                            Last edited by pamak; 29 Feb 20, 12:55.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                              Do you know what dark money is and why are you so in favor of unlimited dark donations supporting candidates? That's capitalist policy. IE: buying the government.
                              Everyone knows what dark money is : the money that Hillary received 4 years ago, the money the Democrat candidates are receiving now .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                                Once again, why is the decision wrong?

                                How can you say it isn't "middle class" policy when you clearly don't understand it?
                                It isn't policy at all and your attempt to change the subject shows you really haven't a clue of what it stands for.
                                It is constitutional. The courts do not make "policy" that is what politicians do.
                                The decision leads to corruption. You sound like a fan of money in politics.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X