I haven't actually addressed it directly, but you do understand I don't actually believe it's possible or that one should keep all money whatsoever out it politics? So your pointing out that unions spend lots of money in politics is not necessarily relevant.
In any case I actually do have a direct response, but first I want a response to the above quote of mine. I actually wrote both parts of the response at once at once (both parts being a reason why corporations shouldn't have unlimited spending power and a justification for union spending), but I'm curious how you'll respond to the first part, about corps.
Then post the shit then! I already have responded you here on the first page of this thread regarding my thoughts on corporations donating to politics.
This is the shit that annoys me... the sidestepping and splitting of hairs. Just post your damn response. It's apparent you either forget what was posted in here already or you just play this game just to piss people off. At least Foob and Tgas will engage in honest debate.
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
More noise, but no response to any substantive issues raised.
That's a shocking amount of copy to say nothing.
I will respond to a particular question, or I won't. Repeating the question, or misinterpreting what I've written in order to ask the question, or pointing out that responses to your posts are not actually responses to particular posts of yours, will not actually make me answer, at all, or any faster.
If you do not wish posts written by me on non-substantive issues, you should stop posting on non-substantive issues, because all these posts are responses to your posts.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
All that copy and not a response in sight.
Obviously you are now labeling everything that doesn't respond to a particular question as not a response.
It's just a pet peeve, but I don't like it when ppl distort the meanings of words in order to achieve something.
Pushing me at all, or doing that specifically, is not going to have the effect you desire.
You didn't label this response as a response to a non-substantive issue I notice. Obviously as this is a response, or a follow up to a response, on an issue you feel is substantial.
So it's not a response to one particular question, but like I said: Your repeating your question, your misinterpreting posts I make in order to ask the question again, or simply stating that every response I make to a post of yours is not a response to a particular post of yours will not actually make me answer the question, at all, or any faster.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: TexasBlue
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
I haven't actually addressed it directly, but you do understand I don't actually believe it's possible or that one should keep all money whatsoever out it politics? So your pointing out that unions spend lots of money in politics is not necessarily relevant.
In any case I actually do have a direct response, but first I want a response to the above quote of mine. I actually wrote both parts of the response at once at once (both parts being a reason why corporations shouldn't have unlimited spending power and a justification for union spending), but I'm curious how you'll respond to the first part, about corps.
Then post the shit then! I already have responded you here on the first page of this thread regarding my thoughts on corporations donating to politics.
This is the shit that annoys me... the sidestepping and splitting of hairs. Just post your damn response. It's apparent you either forget what was posted in here already or you just play this game just to piss people off. At least Foob and Tgas will engage in honest debate.
Honestly, I forgot.
So it's true you already made a statement on donations, even if it was just implied. Who I really wanted to answer was dbl.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
I would submit, given the latest turns in this thread, that we are there.
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
No. My response to your last post was entirely appropriate to the content of that post. You single out corporations as being the root of corruption in politics while ignoring the most obvious source of corruption in America today - crony capitalist politicians and the tax code that makes them so powerful - a tax our founders PURPOSELY made unconstitutional because of the naked power it would have put into the hands of govenment.
The article you posted at the start of this thread speaks volumes about your agenda. Written by a self-confessed socialist, it singled out only TWO individuals, allegedly conservative (but actually Libertarian), as PLANNING (with no proof naturally) to their vast financial wealth to forward conservative causes.
You didn't post an article decrying the hundreds of millions being spent to elect leftist politicians and to influence the government to forward a leftist agenda by the likes of Soros, Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Turner, Sperling, Lewis, the Sandler's, Doer, Robertson, Berggruen, Sussman, Hunter and the many leftist foundations (Tides, etc.) and union bosses so involved.
No... you selected an article by a socialist decrying alleged conservatives "planning" to allegedly do what all these leftist billionaires have actually been doing for years!
It is all too clear that you could give a flying squirrel's nut stash (to borrow a phrase) about corporate influence in elections when it is aimed at promoting leftist causes and politicians. It is only when corporations seek to forward a conservative agenda or conservative politicians that we find you speaking out in opposition to corporate influence.
Your agenda is quite clear. You could not be any more transparent. It is why you refuse to engage me in any meaningful way on the substantive issues I've raised in this thread and others.
Those "conceptions" I have of the "writer" are entirely accurate as I see it. Your posts are proof of that.
Your entire post is built upon a misconception of what I said. I said, in fact, that you allowed your conceptions, or personal bias against the writer, cloud your judgement of the text in question. So your judgement of the text was not necessarily a true judgement of the text itself, but rather a reflection of the issue you have with the writer.
Do you actually have a problem with this idea (not the person writing it ) :
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
And after I'm satisfied, I will respond to a particular post of yours. Really, I will. And It will be a meaningful response. I know this for I have already written it.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Obviously you are now labeling everything that doesn't respond to a particular question as not a response.
It's just a pet peeve, but I don't like it when ppl distort the meanings of words in order to achieve something.
Pushing me at all, or doing that specifically, is not going to have the effect you desire.
You didn't label this response as a response to a non-substantive issue I notice. Obviously as this is a response, or a follow up to a response, on an issue you feel is substantial.
So it's not a response to one particular question, but like I said: Your repeating your question, your misinterpreting posts I make in order to ask the question again, or simply stating that every response I make to a post of yours is not a response to a particular post of yours will not actually make me answer the question, at all, or any faster.
It's like watching those newscasters covering an accident scene where they haven't gotten any facts yet, but they still talk and talk and talk some more, all the time saying not a damn thing that's relevant or meaningful. It's filling dead air with blather till the facts come in.
THAT'S a "pet peeve" of mine!
Respond to the MANY points I have made.
All the rest of this copy you are churning out is useless dead air.
I would submit, given the latest turns in this thread, that we are there.
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
No. My response to your last post was entirely appropriate to the content of that post. You single out corporations as being the root of corruption in politics while ignoring the most obvious source of corruption in America today - crony capitalist politicians and the tax code that makes them so powerful - a tax our founders PURPOSELY made unconstitutional because of the naked power it would have put into the hands of govenment.
The article you posted at the start of this thread speaks volumes about your agenda. Written by a self-confessed socialist, it singled out only TWO individuals, allegedly conservative (but actually Libertarian), as PLANNING (with no proof naturally) to their vast financial wealth to forward conservative causes.
You didn't post an article decrying the hundreds of millions being spent to elect leftist politicians and to influence the government to forward a leftist agenda by the likes of Soros, Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Turner, Sperling, Lewis, the Sandler's, Doer, Robertson, Berggruen, Sussman, Hunter and the many leftist foundations (Tides, etc.) and union bosses so involved.
No... you selected an article by a socialist decrying alleged conservatives "planning" to allegedly do what all these leftist billionaires have actually been doing for years!
It is all too clear that you could give a flying squirrel's nut stash (to borrow a phrase) about corporate influence in elections when it is aimed at promoting leftist causes and politicians. It is only when corporations seek to forward a conservative agenda or conservative politicians that we find you speaking out in opposition to corporate influence.
Your agenda is quite clear. You could not be any more transparent. It is why you refuse to engage me in any meaningful way on the substantive issues I've raised in this thread and others.
Those "conceptions" I have of the "writer" are entirely accurate as I see it. Your posts are proof of that.
Your entire post is built upon a misconception of what I said. I said, in fact, that you allowed your conceptions, or personal bias against the writer, cloud your judgement of the text in question. So your judgement of the text was not necessarily a true judgement of the text itself, but rather a reflection of the issue you have with the writer.
Do you actually have a problem with this idea (not the person writing it ) :
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
And after I'm satisfied, I will respond to a particular post of yours. Really, I will. And It will be a meaningful response. I know this for I have already written it.
I responded to that comment TWICE, unlike you who has yet to do anything but play semantic games.
I can't help that you object to my response. Businesses should have the right to make unlimited donations for as long as government and private sector unions possess the same rights. Otherwise there is no balance and everything goes the way government and leftists wish.
And as you only express an objection to corporate participation, one is led to believe you desire that unbalanced state.
And now that makes THREE times I have responded to a single point of yours.
I'm gonna guess you'll now want to make that four.
After I am satisfied, I will respond to a particular post of yours. Really I will. And it will be a meaningful response. I know this for I have already written it.
So, more than a week after this was posted by you, I see that is just another lie.
You have absolutely zero intention of addressing any of the substantive issues I have raised.
You are a troll. You troll by pretending to engage in debate, but all of your posts are meaningless distractions from the real issues in debate.
You are a fraud, and you lack the intellectual objectivity necessary to engage in a head-to-head debate on real issues.
Mindless bickering over the definition of words and/or silence is your modus operandi for trolling.
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
All that copy and not a response in sight.
Obviously you are now labeling everything that doesn't respond to a particular question as not a response.
It's just a pet peeve, but I don't like it when ppl distort the meanings of words in order to achieve something.
Pushing me at all, or doing that specifically, is not going to have the effect you desire.
You didn't label this response as a response to a non-substantive issue I notice. Obviously as this is a response, or a follow up to a response, on an issue you feel is substantial.
So it's not a response to one particular question, but like I said: Your repeating your question, your misinterpreting posts I make in order to ask the question again, or simply stating that every response I make to a post of yours is not a response to a particular post of yours will not actually make me answer the question, at all, or any faster.
It's like watching those newscasters covering an accident scene where they haven't gotten any facts yet, but they still talk and talk and talk some more, all the time saying not a damn thing that's relevant or meaningful. It's filling dead air with blather till the facts come in.
THAT'S a "pet peeve" of mine!
Respond to the MANY points I have made.
All the rest of this copy you are churning out is useless dead air.
My response to pressure. Don't think that you can compel me to do anything, especially not while misinterpreting things I've written.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
wrong thread. Maybe I over hyped it a bit, but that's what I was gonna post.
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Put plainly, I don't believe that business should have an effect (at least not directly) on our political process.
As an ideal, perhaps, I see the possibility of there being no money whatsoever in politics. But I don't think of myself as an idealist, nor that an ideal, by definition, is neccesarily achievable.
I do believe in Democracy, which is hardly an ideal. Communism is an ideal, and, unsurprisingly, there are no communist countries. After it's revolution, Russia was briefly communist, as I understand it, but then the country was taken over. There is socialism, of course, but socialism is merely a stepping stone to communism, as Marx described.
If there is to be money in politics, I believe contributions ought to be tied to the individual voter and normalized per individual as much as possible, per the principle of Democracy. That's to say, I don't believe that the fact that a company has sold a whole bunch of product, or whatever, should give the CEO (or whoever is in control of the corporation's accounts) more political will than anyone else (or any more than a person with at least a little money to spend). The money in a corporation's accounts need not have come from a conglomerate source normalized over the individual sources, and those sources need not be, themselves, individuals.
Perhaps, Tex, this is why other people focus on corporations over unions on the issue of money, though I can't speak for anyone else.
I am not totally adverse to the idea of an organization in some way directing the political will of a group of it's contituents, for the express and indicated purpose of political contributions, be it a union, collecting dues, or a corporation, perhaps taking money off employee paychecks, provided that there are limits per individual.
As far as what you said, Tex, about Democratic officials somehow directing money to unions, well, I don't quite know what you're talking about, but I'll trust your description. Per what you described, such a thing is in confict with the above principle and should be stopped.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
All that copy and not a response in sight. 
) :
Previous Topic
Index
