On October 24 2012 11:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney just cut an ad for this guy yesterday:
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
Incidentally, kind of depressing how there was a lot more actual discussion on policy than in the Romney/Obama debates.
Also, why do people attach this quasi-deity status to the Founding Fathers? Yeah they were influential obviously, but you don't have to take the words of people speaking 200 years ago as gospel.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
Well, there are technically limits on speech that make it unprotected and they tend to be strongest when you're lying. You cannot cite free speech as an excuse to falsely represent to others how you will use their image, as the creator of the protest-prompting tapes did, nor can you lie about whether or not an individual approved a message. There's an existing subset of speech that isn't legally protected.
Does that include corporate or union speech? Well, that's a gray area that certainly can't be explained in the context of the original constitution or founder's intent.
On October 24 2012 11:52 Wombat_NI wrote: Incidentally, kind of depressing how there was a lot more actual discussion on policy than in the Romney/Obama debates.
Also, why do people attach this quasi-deity status to the Founding Fathers? Yeah they were influential obviously, but you don't have to take the words of people speaking 200 years ago as gospel.
because intent plays a role in constitutional jurisprudence. what they said and what they meant and what they wrote matters when interpreting federal roles and powers.
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
shareholders, not employees.
shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
No. You just talked about people -- as in actual, living beings.
People coming together to speak about common political issues is called a POLITICAL PARTY, not a fucking corporation.
Citizens already have free speech, via themselves. Corporations are simple economic entities -- and some of them are internationally based. There is no need for corporations to have any say in our political process -- and giving them free reign to put money into our political process makes them worth MORE than actual people to our political process.
No actual living, breathing person was being denied free political speech before Citizens United. It's a horrible argument, for a horrible decision.
A corporation is made up of people. Without people in the corporation, there is no corporation. Also Citizens United isn't really a corporation; it is a non-profit organization. People in Citizens United wanted to promote their movie and weren't going to be allowed to. That's stopping free speech.
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
Hey, I hope Romney joins him and says the same thing. Women really respect that kind of religious commitment.
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
Hearing somebody saying that God intended for you to be raped is a new one for me.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
if a company is just the sum of its people then they already had free speech before the ruling and didnt need this?
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters.
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
yes you would, but the bible is full of contradictions. if you tell a christian rape victim its all part of the plan, she would hate you.
if you mention in conversation that 'everything' is in gods plan, she might nod a long.
so although he didnt actually say anything, a lot of people dont want to hear that phrasing. so hes probably fucked.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
See, modern technology should really be a great tool for stirring the political pot, but for the most case in the developed world it isn't. A combination of apathy, plus the massive, massive oversaturation of content for the politically inclined to me are really obstacles before the internet as a democratising tool is fully realised. For anybody that uses Facebook, I mean take a look and see the almost overwhelming amount of completely innane posts and compare it to how many thought-provoking points you see.
In addition, 'debate' over the internet degenerates much more quickly in general than any kind of face-to-face discussion, given the shield of a computer screen people just hurl insults at each other more often than not than doing anything constructive.
Not to say that there aren't examples where these hurdles haven't been overcome, but that's how I view it anyway
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
No, but how we interpret them changes over time, and sometimes someone comes along and completely revolutionizes how things are done. Should we listen to Machiavelli and go back to a system of Princes and Kings? Its old so it must be good right? No.
And still through all this, you have provided absolutely no evidence that we are still this loose knit coalition of states that you claim us to be. In practice, we are completely the opposite; the Federal government clearly answers directly to the people, and not first to the states, and then by proxy to the masses.
On October 24 2012 11:52 Wombat_NI wrote: Incidentally, kind of depressing how there was a lot more actual discussion on policy than in the Romney/Obama debates.
Also, why do people attach this quasi-deity status to the Founding Fathers? Yeah they were influential obviously, but you don't have to take the words of people speaking 200 years ago as gospel.
It is required when it comes to interpreting the Constitution (Supreme Court). Also, looking at the writings and ideas of the Founding Fathers can be good to have a better understanding of what America is and should be. No one is saying you should worship them, only that you should look at their ideas as guiding principles.
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters.
Specifics please? Not disputing that there may be instance of this across a continent that encompasses some 350 million people, but don't just throw those terms out there without anything to back it up.
The right to bear arms isn't considered one of our core civil liberties across the continent anyway, so it isn't there 'to lose' in the first place.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
shareholders, not employees.
shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees.
Incorrect.
Way incorrect.
The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by aminority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers.
Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution.
Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not.
EPT
