Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I think the difference is in the word, "pac"

---

That's my point. In these days of illiterate smartphone users, homonyms are dangerous. (He used 'homonym,' somebody call GLAAD!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

That's my point. In these days of illiterate smartphone users, homonyms are dangerous. (He used 'homonym,' somebody call GLAAD!)

---

lol and don't use oxymoron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

How much of your money
as much as I choose. That's why I support the Citizen's United and the McCutcheon v FEC decisions.

---

And that's why you are doomed to remain an oligarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

And that's why you are doomed to remain an oligarchy.

---

not if I get my way with term limits.

Quote:

---

not if I get my way with term limits.

---

(a) you won't
(b) it in no way affects the inequity in financial leverage for laws and policy between an individual and corporations/special interest groups

you mean like Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental extremist who has pledged to give $100 million to Democratic candidates who do his bidding ,and has been instrumental in the blocking of the Keystone pipeline? I don't care about inequity . That exists and always will . What you libs fail to appreciate is that only limits to the size and power of the government will acheive your desired result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you mean like Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental extremist who has pledged to give $100 million to Democratic candidates who do his bidding ,and has been instrumental in the blocking of the Keystone pipeline? I don't care about inequity . That exists and always will . What you libs fail to appreciate is that only limits to the size and power of the government will acheive your desired result.

---

Come on Tom, you know the system cuts both ways here. There are examples on both sides of politics where this type of thing will become rife. The means the McCutcheon decision means you can donate unlimited amounts to political parties and you can also give a stated maximum contribution to any and every candidate. No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh, that way you can lessen any disparity between parties.

As NK points out limited terms won't solve anything. All that will be required is more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Come on Tom, you know the system cuts both ways here. There are examples on both sides of politics where this type of thing will become rife. The means the McCutcheon decision means you can donate unlimited amounts to political parties and you can also give a stated maximum contribution to any and every candidate. No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh, that way you can lessen any disparity between parties.

As NK points out limited terms won't solve anything. All that will be required is more money.

---

Quote:

---

No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh,

---

yes as a matter of fact it is a good idea. If the libs don't like it ;repeal the 1st Amendment.

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?

The more blood in the water, the more sharks you get. The weaker the central government to govern the nation, the more powerful the oligarchs are. The real solution is voter participation, and some intelligent voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes as a matter of fact it is a good idea. If the libs don't like it ;repeal the 1st Amendment.

---

That's the spirit Tom. Instead of having one political party in your back pocket you can now have two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?

The more blood in the water, the more sharks you get. The weaker the central government to govern the nation, the more powerful the oligarchs are. The real solution is voter participation, and some intelligent voters.

---

The central government is far, FAR too strong now... and that's why we have the problems we have, its one step away from becoming a dictatorship now. The constitution was set up to prevent precisely that, because that was one of the problems that lead us to form this nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?

---

Yes that's correct Tom's solution won't work. As you point out it will make first timers even more susceptible to doing political favours.

Tal you are wrong . The biggest obstacles to 1st time candidates is the incumbency advantage. Every one of the incumbents get to use tax payer money to send out thousands upon thousands of what is essentially campaign fliers under the guise of constituency services. Every one of them add pork at tax payer expence to court constituencies . Why aren't you concerned about that "inequity " ?

The powerful grabbing more power, and passing the responsibility onto ordinary peoples backs. The numbers don't lie. The rich have prospered greatly, the rest, not so much. Close the country down for one day of voting with an biometric Social Security Card, with a picture on it* and let the people have their voice as laid out in the Constitution.

*Optional.

besides ;the corporations would still be influencing government policy if they couldn't spend a dime on a candidate's election. All your bleating doesn't do a thing to prevent earmarking .Corporations, unions, and special interests already use government in this way. What you need to do is reign in elected officials . But you won't find bills restricting that get any attention except from the tea party members. The special interests love them old time lifers because they are the ones that head committees that push through legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The powerful grabbing more power, and passing the responsibility onto ordinary peoples backs. The numbers don't lie. The rich have prospered greatly, the rest, not so much. Close the country down for one day of voting with an biometric Social Security Card, with a picture on it* and let the people have their voice as laid out in the Constitution.

*Optional.

---

Biometric card? No thanks. Do you really want this corrupt government to have your DNA on file?

Money corrupts, eliminate the money, you eliminate the corruption. At least some of it. If money is the root of all evil, why do we patronize it?

Most of corruption has nothing to do with money... but about the devient NEED and desire to control and push around others... Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi are the standard bearers for that crowd.

THey will just parlay that power and influence while in office into cash when they get out of it as thousands have done over the decades.

Both parties have done that and if you hang Harry, and Nancy, you have to get them all. Party affiliation is but a distraction to divide and hide money, and its many forms of power through costs and control. POWER=MONEY.

Your notion of they are bad, but you are good, while doing the same thing, is erroneous, and illogical, and self serving. Do better you flawed human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Both parties have done that and if you hang Harry, and Nancy, you have to get them all.

---

Did you just agree with mandated term limits here?