|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by m!key:
nice change of subject. was cheney poaching quail? yes or no. is delay guilty? yes or no. who is the ignorant one here? 
You implied that Cheney was outright going against the law when you said "With all the strides this country has made against poaching" as if Cheney was going against all of that on purpose. It was a $7 stamp and you chose to kick Chney while he was down by suggesting he was knowingly poaching. A charge which I still have not read anywhere by the way. Cheney was not poaching quail.
And as far as I know, DeLay has not been proven quilty yet so that is yet to be determined.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
poaching...To take (fish or game) illegally. was cheney poaching? delay has admitted guilt yet still you are arguing with people.
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by m!key:
poaching...To take (fish or game) illegally.
was cheney poaching?
First I'm glad to see you address your ignorant comments you made MONTHS ago instead of ignoring my PMs like you did on the subject in the past.
Second, you said yourself that Cheney should resign because he poached quail when in fact he had all the correct stamps the local game enforcement told him he needed and THEY were wrong. So reguardless of wether he had a stamp or not, he wasnt doing anything that was wrong and thus the reason NO CHARGES OF POACHING WERE FILED! You can call it poaching if you want but the fact is, only the most extreme anti-Bush liberals like youself look for any and all ways to take down anyone related with this administration which was proven by your suggestion Cheney should go to jail for his actions. Thank you, have a nice day.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
so you dont have a leg to stand on and start your name calling again. the last thing i am is a liberal. i am an american that knows right from wrong and i can seperate myself from the party line and think for myself. it is something you should try doing. for the record clinton should have been impeached and i voted for bush. i am having a nice day.
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by m!key:
so you dont have a leg to stand on and start your name calling again. the last thing i am is a liberal. i am an american that knows right from wrong and i can seperate myself from the party line and think for myself. it is something you should try doing. for the record clinton should have been impeached and i voted for bush. i am having a nice day.
Liberalism is not a party. It's a mindset. I never called you names but I did call your comments ignorant. Thanks for responding about the whole Cheney thing again....almost.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour2:
Big contributors control elections because campaign money is the "mother's milk of politics." Just about the only way to win an election nowadays is to spend more on advertising, outreach, organization and payola than your opponent.
Define big contributors, there are a number of limits on campaign financing resulting from the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 that limit campaign contributions for the various elected offices. Are we talking about campaign finance only or are you lumping in PAC's and lobbyists into this discussion (which are an entirely different story really)? The fact is that the lions share of money (some 408 million in the 108th Congress alone) spent per year is on issue specific advertising (four out of every five dollars) in regard to K street/lobbyists, from corporations. This money has nothing to do with campaign finance of course, but the fact is that's where corporate America spends the majority of it's money when it comes to influencing votes in Congress, not on campaign finance for influencing individual votes.
Quote:
Come on, Cjbaldw. This has been all over the media for years now. Here's just one example:
Washington Post on big Republican money buying influence in Washington.
Money wins elections.
I generally put very little weight in what the press says. Since we live in a capitalist society, it would seem to make sense to me what you are saying, that money talks. I've also seen several studies that have stated that for all of the money spent on campaigns, very few people alter their votes when all is said and done. Most people vote along party lines no matter what because their belief system lines up better with one system than the other (or put in a way I prefer, voting for the lesser of two evils), and this rarely changes. Since roughly half of Americans vote in the national election, with much less of a percentage voting in local/state/congressional elections, the biggest determiner of who wins would seem to be whatever party can get the voters to the ballot box. The country seems pretty evenly split along party lines right now, so at least IMHO we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bring more people to the ballot box to give us the same end result percentage-wise when it comes to voting counts. What a waste.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by caltour2:
Big contributors control elections because campaign money is the "mother's milk of politics." Just about the only way to win an election nowadays is to spend more on advertising, outreach, organization and payola than your opponent.
Define big contributors, there are a number of limits on campaign financing resulting from the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 that limit campaign contributions for the various elected offices. Are we talking about campaign finance only or are you lumping in PAC's and lobbyists into this discussion (which are an entirely different story really)?
Good point; there are numerous kinds of money that can influence elections and policies. And you are correct that (so-called) campaign finance reform restricted one means of buying influence. But wealthy individuals and corporations can still buy power through "soft money" and "527 groups." (Not to mention outright illegal payola, see for example Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-San Diego).
The BIG contributions to political parties and to "527" organizations influenced the last election by paying for armed guards at polling places to intimidate minority voters in Ohio, by paying for operatives who challenged poor and minority voters' right to vote, and by paying for ads like the "Swift Boat Veterans" ads designed to derail the Kerry campaign.
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
I generally put very little weight in what the press says. Since we live in a capitalist society, it would seem to make sense to me what you are saying, that money talks.
I hope you don't mean that the wealthy SHOULD have greater political influence than the rest of us. That's called oligarchy, not democracy.
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
I've also seen several studies that have stated that for all of the money spent on campaigns, very few people alter their votes when all is said and done. Most people vote along party lines no matter what because their belief system lines up better with one system than the other (or put in a way I prefer, voting for the lesser of two evils), and this rarely changes.
I'd like to see the studies you are referring to. How could anyone reliably measure the influence of vast amounts of money contributed to campaign funds ("hard money"), to political parties ("soft money"), to Political Action Committies (PACs) and to 527 groups (like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth")? Just ask yourself the common-sense question: How could that money NOT have overwhelming influence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour2:
Good point; there are numerous kinds of money that can influence elections and policies. And you are correct that (so-called) campaign finance reform restricted one means of buying influence. But wealthy individuals and corporations can still buy power through "soft money" and "527 groups." (Not to mention outright illegal payola, see for example Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-San Diego).
The BIG contributions to political parties and to "527" organizations influenced the last election by paying for armed guards at polling places to intimidate minority voters in Ohio, by paying for operatives who challenged poor and minority voters' right to vote, and by paying for ads like the "Swift Boat Veterans" ads designed to derail the Kerry campaign.
In general I'd say we've seen quite a bit of change in how money affects politics. The amounts of dollars spent on political action across the board have skyrocketed over the last ten years. I've not given a ton of thought to why this is, except to say that the growth of technology specific to mass media services seems to have made it possible to influence both individual votes on specific issues and those in Congress.
Like I said, I tend not to put much weight in what the press has to say. The whole Ohio argument, at least according to some friends I have that live there, came down to people not following the law properly and then claiming they were not permitted to vote. The fact is there are ground rules for everything in life, yes even voting, and if the person decides not to adhere to the law, then they sacrifice their right to vote in so doing.
Quote:
I hope you don't mean that the wealthy SHOULD have greater political influence than the rest of us. That's called oligarchy, not democracy.
Well, define democracy. For all of the talk surrounding democracy, the fact is we don't live in a fully democratic society, nor would I ever want to. We live in a capitalist republic (or sometimes termed a representative democracy).
Capitalism limits our democracy -- defined as the majority of the moment -- to its only useful purpose: the electing of various individuals to various positions of public office. Other then this limited aspect, the power of the majority is severely limited. Capitalism in this sense only supports a limited "democracy", but not a pure one.
Under capitalism no individual, nor any group of individuals, whether they be a minority or a majority, can violate the inalienable rights of any other minority, including the most oppressed minority that has ever existed -- the individual. In the sense, commonly used, that democracy means egalitarianism -- the equality of results (wealth), by an unequal protection (violation) of rights -- capitalism is entirely opposed to it.
The founding fathers knew of the inherent weakness of a pure democratic system, and often wrote about it, here is one such quote:
To quote The Federalist, on democracies: "it may be concluded that a pure democracy...can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction...as there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
A capitalist system is a republic and not a pure democracy. It is a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the "public good." It is a limited "democracy".
For those who are confused by the issue, the essential point is this: is it right for another man to rape, rob and murder another? Capitalism says never; democracy says yes -- if the majority wills it.
So, to address your question regarding the wealthy having influence. Sort of. If what you mean by wealthy equals our capitalist economic system, then yes, I'm a bigger believer in our capitalist economic system than I am or ever will be in our federal government and/or pure democracy, which by definition is somewhat shortsighted and temperamental based upon the current majority party and the election cycles.
Quote:
I'd like to see the studies you are referring to. How could anyone reliably measure the influence of vast amounts of money contributed to campaign funds ("hard money"), to political parties ("soft money"), to Political Action Committies (PACs) and to 527 groups (like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth")? Just ask yourself the common-sense question: How could that money NOT have overwhelming influence?
I'll try and dig one up. Of course I was paraphrasing/summarizing in my own words what I've read in the past. My underlying point was that from a democrat/republican voting perspective, few people change their voting patterns despite all of the money spent on campaign finance/advertizing. Where money seems to be effective is with issue specific advertizing, which has much more to do with K street/lobbyists and influencing the Congress.
Personally, I'm not a fan of big government (that fact should be fairly abvious by now!  ). I really have difficulty understanding how anyone can put faith in an entity that, in the final analysis, utilizes physical force as it's only method of manipulating people to do it's bidding for the "public good." Behind every single gov't program, ultimately, is a gun. Why anyone would want to have their lives in submission to such an entity, is really beyond my comprehension.
The last point in regard to PAC's, soft money, etc., is that the rampant growth of the federal gov't (and it's debt/deficit) is starting to take a serious toll on our economic ability to stay competitive. Because gov't has become increasingly intrusive all in the name of the "public good," the capitalist economic system ends up spending a larger percentage of it's output on influencing the growth of the democratic system of gov't. We see this through the PAC's, soft money, 527's, etc. This is money that could be better spent on employees, benefits, R&D, retained earnings, you name it, but instead it ends up flowing into an entity that does no real good with it (the federal/state gov'ts). It's bad enough that our taxes are as high as they are on businesses and individuals, now we have businesses, and individuals through orgs like moveon.org and many others, spending increasingly larger amounts of money (on top of the taxes paid) in an attempt to buy influence. Our focus is wrong here IMHO, big gov't will never solve the problems inherent in our society. Let me be clear, IT NEVER WILL. Europeans in some countries are burdened with 70-80% tax rates by their federal gov'ts, and they are still plagued with problems, in many cases the same types of problems that we have, only worse off. Taxing and gov't growth aren't the answer to the problems at hand. I really don't have the slightest understanding of why people look to a federal entity as the God that's going to save us from our plights. It is falsehood at it's best. 
If we would shrink the federal system and stop being such a litigious society, we'd see the political money problems go away all by themselves, as there would be little reason to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy influence, for their would be little influence to purchase, because gov't would stop it's increasingly harmful meddling with the capitalist economic system. Idealistic? Probably.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Like I said, I tend not to put much weight in what the press has to say.
My respect for the press has been dwindling lately, too. Most media outlets do little more than reprint press releases; the press is mostly just a messenger boy for the government and the business elite.
Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Journalists missed some of the biggest stories of out time: the savings and loan disasters, the Enron, WorldCom, GlobalCrossing (etc., etc.) disasters, the impending collapse of the Soviet Union, and the smokescreen of lies that led us to initially support the war in Iraq.
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Capitalism limits our democracy -- defined as the majority of the moment -- to its only useful purpose: the electing of various individuals to various positions of public office. Other then this limited aspect, the power of the majority is severely limited. Capitalism in this sense only supports a limited "democracy", but not a pure one.
You've touched on a very important point: capitalism and democracy are not necessarily compatible in every way. In fact, they are somewhat antagonistic. Not many people understand this. Many Americans think capitalism and democracy are a match made in heaven, that they mutually support each other, and together they make our nation indestrucible. But that's pure speculation; our little experiment in democracy and capitalism has not yet stood the test of time. It is entirely possible that the vast power of capitalism will eventually overwhelm our democracy. Then, the wealthy elite will control America, just as it has controlled every other nation state (at least every nation state that ever lasted long enough for them to so so).
Our history shows that Big Money periodically makes brazenly undemocratic grabs for power (for example, the "Gilded Age" of the Robber Barons, the 1920's pro-capitalist initiatives, the deregulation of the Reagan era, and the corporate-dominated agenda of the present administration). It's not yet clear whether the interests of the common man (fair wages and secure benefits, affordable health care, social security, well-funded public schools, access to affordable college education, etc.) will be crushed by the interests of Big Money (lower wages and benefits, health care only for the highest bidders, "personal retirement accounts" in lieu of social security, declining public schools, and reduced financial aid for college students.)
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Under capitalism no individual, nor any group of individuals, whether they be a minority or a majority, can violate the inalienable rights of any other minority, including the most oppressed minority that has ever existed -- the individual. In the sense, commonly used, that democracy means egalitarianism -- the equality of results (wealth), by an unequal protection (violation) of rights -- capitalism is entirely opposed to it.
Really? I have never understood capitalism to "oppose" the violation of anyone's rights, or to promote egalitarianism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Capitalism is all about maximizing the use of resources for the greatest possible profit. Is the local venture capitalist going to defend me when someone defrauds me of my life savings? Will real estate investors come to my aid if I am denied a home due to the color of my skin? That has never happened in our entire history.
Don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is the greatest engine for material well-being ever devised, and it has given us all amazing good lives. But it would also leave you and me for dead on the side of the road if we couldn't pay for an ambulance and a doctor.
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Personally, I'm not a fan of big government (that fact should be fairly abvious by now! ). I really have difficulty understanding how anyone can put faith in an entity that, in the final analysis, utilizes physical force as it's only method of manipulating people to do it's bidding for the "public good." Behind every single gov't program, ultimately, is a gun. Why anyone would want to have their lives in submission to such an entity, is really beyond my comprehension.
Two points:
1. To quasi-liberals like me, government is an expression of our Civilization (with a capital "C"). It is our way to defend ourselves from the barbarians, to organize our common affairs, and to care for those who would otherwise be left to die in the gutter. I like Civilization. It makes me proud to be part of it. I gladly pay taxes and support a (reasonably-sized) government because I want it to keep keep a lid on the capitalists who would otherwise cut down every last tree, dump mercury into every water source, and abscond with every last dollar of my pension fund. Like you, I don't like "Big Government." We have a bloated government now, and it needs to be a lot more efficient. But it sure as hell beats gutters filled with the dead and dying people. It beats having landscapes layed to waste by Big Mining, Big Lumber, and Big Development.
2. There is not a "gun" behind every government policy. Most government policies are willingly supported by the general public. Most people willingly obey laws concerning fraud, theft, pollution regulations, safe driving, etc., because they want to live in Civilization. They want to cooperate with their neighbors in creating a liveable society. So it's just not true that we obey government policies only under threat of force (i.e. guns).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour2:
My respect for the press has been dwindling lately, too. Most media outlets do little more than reprint press releases; the press is mostly just a messenger boy for the government and the business elite.
Ah, common ground.
Quote:
It's not yet clear whether the interests of the common man (fair wages and secure benefits, affordable health care, social security, well-funded public schools, access to affordable college education, etc.) will be crushed by the interests of Big Money (lower wages and benefits, health care only for the highest bidders, "personal retirement accounts" in lieu of social security, declining public schools, and reduced financial aid for college students.)
I don't have the time to put in the effort right at the moment on these points, however I believe the idea that the wealthy, or Big Money, as you say, are inherently selfish and evil and have no ability to care for the less fortunate, is in reality way off base. The fact is that the vast majority of wealthy people in this country give away a majority of the wealth they accumulate, mostly to the poor, helpless, and less fortunate.
I would also argue the long term viability of any pay-as-you-go social security system given the reality of demographics and our declining fertility rates which are no longer capable of sustaining an increase in the U.S. population. Simple math indicates that our current socsec system will not suffice. Three counties in the Galveston, TX, area who opted out of the current socsec system in 1981 and privatized their retirement system, are able to provide 250% of the current socsec system's benefits (5k per month instead of 2k per month) using less withholding for much of that time period (I believe they recently increased the withholding between individual/business to pretty much match the federal socsec system). Study Chile's socsec system, which uses privatized accounts and is one of the strongest socsec systems in existence on the planet. I am a huge supporter of capitalism and it's principles, including emphasis on individual rights and the illegality of forced wealth redistribution.
That said, the socsec system isn't our biggest problem down the line, it's our medicare/medicaid system, which according to the most recent figures, as baby boomers retire, will produce a 40 trillion dollar liability.
The reality of our social programs will become ugly over the next several decades, as we will be forced to entertain massive tax hikes (to rates similar to many European nations), massive benefit cuts, or a combination thereof. Demographics is destiny, it cannot be demonstrated against or argued with, and demographics will produce profound cultural and economic changes on our and many other societies across the globe over the next 50 years.
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Under capitalism no individual, nor any group of individuals, whether they be a minority or a majority, can violate the inalienable rights of any other minority, including the most oppressed minority that has ever existed -- the individual. In the sense, commonly used, that democracy means egalitarianism -- the equality of results (wealth), by an unequal protection (violation) of rights -- capitalism is entirely opposed to it.
Quote:
Really? I have never understood capitalism to "oppose" the violation of anyone's rights, or to promote egalitarianism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Capitalism is all about maximizing the use of resources for the greatest possible profit. Is the local venture capitalist going to defend me when someone defrauds me of my life savings? Will real estate investors come to my aid if I am denied a home due to the color of my skin? That has never happened in our entire history.
Don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is the greatest engine for material well-being ever devised, and it has given us all amazing good lives. But it would also leave you and me for dead on the side of the road if we couldn't pay for an ambulance and a doctor.
You misread what I wrote, I was referring to the definition there of democracy, not capitalism. Democracy is egalitarianism when purely implemented, the majority of the moment. Capitalism keeps democracy in check, and vica versa. As you wrote, the systems at times are at odds and at times on the same page with each other, so far we've got the best mix of the two, or as I am so fond of saying, we have the least of the evils on the globe at present.
Quote:
Two points:
1. To quasi-liberals like me, government is an expression of our Civilization (with a capital "C"). It is our way to defend ourselves from the barbarians, to organize our common affairs, and to care for those who would otherwise be left to die in the gutter. I like Civilization. It makes me proud to be part of it. I gladly pay taxes and support a (reasonably-sized) government because I want it to keep keep a lid on the capitalists who would otherwise cut down every last tree, dump mercury into every water source, and abscond with every last dollar of my pension fund. Like you, I don't like "Big Government." We have a bloated government now, and it needs to be a lot more efficient. But it sure as hell beats gutters filled with the dead and dying people. It beats having landscapes layed to waste by Big Mining, Big Lumber, and Big Development.
2. There is not a "gun" behind every government policy. Most government policies are willingly supported by the general public. Most people willingly obey laws concerning fraud, theft, pollution regulations, safe driving, etc., because they want to live in Civilization. They want to cooperate with their neighbors in creating a liveable society. So it's just not true that we obey government policies only under threat of force (i.e. guns).
Interesting, I'd say that the capitalist economic system is my preferred expression of our Civilization IMHO. But hey, that's just me.
More to come later...
|
|
|
|
|
