Just so you know, I have a perfectly reasonable plan to limit the cludge we currently have with Campaign Finance.
1) Only people who can vote for a candidate, can donate to their campaign. Period. No exceptions. 2) Everyone else can spend their own money on whatever campaigning they want for whomever they want, directly (no donations to PACs of any sort) 3) No PACs. Period. No Union PACs, no Corporate PACs, no SuperPACs. Period. All those organizations can spend their own money campaigning directly (no hidden payments anywhere) If the Teachers Unions/Corporations/PACs want to support Clinton, they can pay for, and run their own ads. 4) No Corporate Donations to any candidate. 5) No other restrictions (unlimited money)
So, only citizens can donate to a candidate, and only for candidates they can actually vote for. Nobody is prohibited from "speech". Direct support is the only limit, and only to the actual constituents.
Hating something and making money are two separate things. I can hate something all day long, but if there is money to be made, I'll ignore my hate long enough to make a dime. I might even pretend to like something I hate, just to make a dime.
The funny thing is, you think Clinton is different. Let me assure you, she doesn't give a shit about anyone but herself.
Let me know when the MSM starts to spend any amount of time on the ongoing Clinton Scandal Saga.
When the MSM spends 50 minutes on Trump's "said mean things" to every minute of Clinton actually doing something illegal, immoral or unscrupulous, it is a narrative, and not actual news.
I can almost hear your rebuttal, "The MSM did cover _____ scandal of Clinton".
They'd drop Hilary in a second if they thought it was to their advantage.
Bullshit. There are two things wrong with this:
1) They are democrats and supporting any democrat above anyone and everyone else is their platform. 2) They are losing views left and right as they continue to ignore the scandals as other media outlets are covering (WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, Social Media)
The MSM is no longer covering news, it is covering up news. You know this, because people like WikiLeaks, Anonymous and people on social media are covering the scandals (too many to numerate) that the MSM press has been actively covering it up, and running interference for Hillary. At some point, someone in the MSM will realize that supporting Hillary is impossible, and start actually reporting the news of the day.
Any other person not named "Clinton" would be toast long ago.
The problem is, they can't see their own BS flowing from the MSM complex. They hate "Faux News" because it offers an alternative to the now fully exposed Left-Wing Press Corps. It is why they beat up a homeless black woman ("she deserved it") because she was defending the Trump Star in Hollywood. No, they aren't anti Homeless or AntiBlack, but if it were a Clinton Star, it would be pinned on Trump and his "radical supporters". Meanwhile the MSM doesn't cover it, or any number of crimes being committed by diehard liberals who are supporting Clinton.
The hypocrisy is so thick it might be ready for harvesting.
It is funny how the left doesn't like free speech, except when it comes from the likes of George Soros.They didn't complain a single bit about a convicted felon, with dual citizenship, pushing for a one world government at all. Then Citizen's United case leveled the field a bit, and they go ape shit crazy because they can no longer control the conversation.
Sorry, but all you left wingers complaining about CItizen's United are nothing short of hypocrites. Too bad you're all in an echo chamber.
If you think you can force people into caring, all you'll end up doing is pissing people off.
But then again, your idea of Caring might not include the use of taxes (and the requisite government guns) and the use of intimidation and force. In which case, you would sound more libertarian than "old fashion lefty"
And all the current government programs can't stop people from "falling through the cracks", even though that is exactly what their purpose is. And the left's only solution is more of the same, never really solving the problem (largely because it is unsolvable). There will ALWAYS be people who fall through the cracks.
And if the Veterans Administration is any indication of how a government provides obligated services to people, then it plain sucks. We did better on our own, and knew the people we were helping (real caring). I don't expect you to understand, but you CANNOT care for someone you have never met. And more so, you do not care for someone you've never met more than someone you love (actual caring, not the Pseudo progressive style kind )
In summary, forcing "society" caring actually removes care from the equation, since is is taken from people (us) and move to the realm of government (uncaring corporate environment), or worse, demanded by the same government at the end of a gun barrel.
Mail in ballots offer a whole new opportunity for voter fraud. Voting multiple times in multiple locations because your registered in multiple precincts.
I voted three times already. It isn't voter fraud, because democrats keep telling me that voter fraud doesn't exist.
The constitution had everything it needed, and the civil rights act gave special treatment to certain people that didn't apply to others. Racism to overcome racism isn't a virtue, it is tyranny. Not only is it bad for "whites" it is bad for "blacks" as well, and has enslaved them to the DNC for nearly 50 years.
Animal Farm was not supposed to be a manual. "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others"
"no evidence" is often cited reason by Democrats. Even when evidence is provided, it becomes "not proof". Or "I don't recall" or some other such nonsense. Everyone knows it is going on.
Madonna offered blowjobs to people voting for Clinton, this would be " other valuable consideration".
Now you might suggest that this was a "joke" (she seemed serious at the time), but if one blowjob was offered (already done), and accepted (vote cast for a blowjob), regardless of actual payment, then she should be prosecuted under this statute.
The market doesn't require slaves to operate. It requires free will of the operators to operate. Free will, and free operation in the marketplace are inseparable. I would suggest to you, that enslavement requires at minimum tacit acceptance by the state in order to function. Meaning that in order to have slavery, the state must at minimum accept it, and at worst, use the power to enforce it. Slavery negates the free will and self determination of those enslaved.
The fact that you cannot see how Free Will and Self Determination do not require any rules or regulations suprises me. Slavery actually requires one to enact rules to keep slaves enslaved. Which is why every rule, regulation and law should be evaluated on the premise that men ought to be free (and to which all that entails)
I'm not seeing what in True Capitalism prevents the enslaving.
A just government dedicated to the rights of the people (individually). As of right now, the US Constitution has indentured every working person (enslaved) in a violation of the 14th Amendment. Socialism by definition requires the taking of a mans effort, and giving it to another, under threat. The 16th Amendment is, a horrible case of government enslaving its people. A man ought to have complete and total control over the wages he makes, and not having any such protection, we are all slaves to government.
A government that can take whatever it wants from you (via taxes) can take everything you have. There is no limit.
The purpose of government is to ensure the liberties of its citizenry, not play mommy and daddy protecting people from themselves.
Constitution says so, but they are (patents and copyright) rights as in the same as "freedom of speech" is a right, but are the only rights that are limited (time in this case) Interestingly, because it is a right (granted, not natural) it also requires securing. Which is, IMHO, the duty and purpose of government.
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
There is no right of "contract" anywhere in the Constitution. Which is one of the reasons why I am opposed to government (at any level) defining marriage in any way shape or form (marriage being a contract). Keep in mind, I am a Libertarian, so my views are based on liberty. My views on Contracts (and incorporation) are that these are grants of the state (governments at any level) , and therefore are created and exist with the blessing of the state, which means the state can also dissolve them. Imagine a Corporation accused, tried and convicted of some crime, and the state having the power to dissolve it, sell off the assets and give the victims their due, how that would change the "moral" nature of the corporation itself. I call it the "corporate death sentence". Yes, corporations are legal entities, but only because the state allows it to be that way.
I am not anarchist. I have a very well defined purpose of government...
... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Such a government would lead to a very prosperous nation and people. Anything less is a road to tyranny.
Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation.
Most of those meme fail once you actually test them. The "Safety" regulations aren't just the obvious (Fire alarms), but go all the way down to "bedbugs". The problem is, that no amount of regulation actually solves any problem and the regulations aren't actually enforced when there is a failure. Yes, Hilton has fire detectors in every room because of regulation, but my view is that they would have them (eventually) anyways. It is kind of like "free wifi" is, it is a "selling point". Eventually everyone has "Free Internet" anyways, because those that do not have it will eventually lose business.
Hilton will take extra steps to get rid of "bedbugs" in because they rely upon their reputation. An AirBNB member probably cannot provide that level of service. Eventually, the marketplace will sort it out, it always does.
Rule changing is a function of a non-free economy. The only way there are rules, is because people want them. Enough rules, and you no longer are free.
I bet you can't even articulate why you think Capitalism is bad, and what the "better" option would be, without using anecdotal evidence and emotionalism.
Actually, under True Capitalism, the rich cannot enslave anyone, especially in a republic of laws that prohibit it. So instead of Capitalism and Republic, we are going down the tubes to Socialism and Democracy based on convenience and emotion.
They(Liberal socialists) never realize that markets want to be free, and the only way to keep them from being free is totalitarianism (rules, regulations, taxes and government guns)
Slashdot Mirror
She responded, "I'm not a witch, I'm your wife!"
Just so you know, I have a perfectly reasonable plan to limit the cludge we currently have with Campaign Finance.
1) Only people who can vote for a candidate, can donate to their campaign. Period. No exceptions.
2) Everyone else can spend their own money on whatever campaigning they want for whomever they want, directly (no donations to PACs of any sort)
3) No PACs. Period. No Union PACs, no Corporate PACs, no SuperPACs. Period. All those organizations can spend their own money campaigning directly (no hidden payments anywhere) If the Teachers Unions/Corporations/PACs want to support Clinton, they can pay for, and run their own ads.
4) No Corporate Donations to any candidate.
5) No other restrictions (unlimited money)
So, only citizens can donate to a candidate, and only for candidates they can actually vote for. Nobody is prohibited from "speech". Direct support is the only limit, and only to the actual constituents.
I don't believe in compromising liberty. Our federal Government should be working on Liberty for everyone, not equality. There is a difference ;)
and you missed my point ;)
Which wing would you be talking about?
The fact that I have no clue should be unsettling. It doesn't matter which one you say, the other side says the exact same thing about yours ;)
Hating something and making money are two separate things. I can hate something all day long, but if there is money to be made, I'll ignore my hate long enough to make a dime. I might even pretend to like something I hate, just to make a dime.
The funny thing is, you think Clinton is different. Let me assure you, she doesn't give a shit about anyone but herself.
Let me know when the MSM starts to spend any amount of time on the ongoing Clinton Scandal Saga.
When the MSM spends 50 minutes on Trump's "said mean things" to every minute of Clinton actually doing something illegal, immoral or unscrupulous, it is a narrative, and not actual news.
I can almost hear your rebuttal, "The MSM did cover _____ scandal of Clinton".
They'd drop Hilary in a second if they thought it was to their advantage.
Bullshit. There are two things wrong with this:
1) They are democrats and supporting any democrat above anyone and everyone else is their platform.
2) They are losing views left and right as they continue to ignore the scandals as other media outlets are covering (WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, Social Media)
The MSM is no longer covering news, it is covering up news. You know this, because people like WikiLeaks, Anonymous and people on social media are covering the scandals (too many to numerate) that the MSM press has been actively covering it up, and running interference for Hillary. At some point, someone in the MSM will realize that supporting Hillary is impossible, and start actually reporting the news of the day.
Any other person not named "Clinton" would be toast long ago.
The problem is, they can't see their own BS flowing from the MSM complex. They hate "Faux News" because it offers an alternative to the now fully exposed Left-Wing Press Corps. It is why they beat up a homeless black woman ("she deserved it") because she was defending the Trump Star in Hollywood. No, they aren't anti Homeless or AntiBlack, but if it were a Clinton Star, it would be pinned on Trump and his "radical supporters". Meanwhile the MSM doesn't cover it, or any number of crimes being committed by diehard liberals who are supporting Clinton.
The hypocrisy is so thick it might be ready for harvesting.
unlimited money cannot be poured into elections
It is funny how the left doesn't like free speech, except when it comes from the likes of George Soros .They didn't complain a single bit about a convicted felon, with dual citizenship, pushing for a one world government at all. Then Citizen's United case leveled the field a bit, and they go ape shit crazy because they can no longer control the conversation.
Sorry, but all you left wingers complaining about CItizen's United are nothing short of hypocrites. Too bad you're all in an echo chamber.
society that cares for its people.
If you think you can force people into caring, all you'll end up doing is pissing people off.
But then again, your idea of Caring might not include the use of taxes (and the requisite government guns) and the use of intimidation and force. In which case, you would sound more libertarian than "old fashion lefty"
And all the current government programs can't stop people from "falling through the cracks", even though that is exactly what their purpose is. And the left's only solution is more of the same, never really solving the problem (largely because it is unsolvable). There will ALWAYS be people who fall through the cracks.
And if the Veterans Administration is any indication of how a government provides obligated services to people, then it plain sucks. We did better on our own, and knew the people we were helping (real caring). I don't expect you to understand, but you CANNOT care for someone you have never met. And more so, you do not care for someone you've never met more than someone you love (actual caring, not the Pseudo progressive style kind )
In summary, forcing "society" caring actually removes care from the equation, since is is taken from people (us) and move to the realm of government (uncaring corporate environment), or worse, demanded by the same government at the end of a gun barrel.
Tell me, how taxing us into oblivion is "caring"?
Civil Unrest by the America Hating left is acceptable, even encouraged. Civil Unrest by patriotic "Clingers" and "Deplorables" is not.
Mainly that's because Twitter understands that a vote for Trump is a vote for nuclear armageddon.
Thats Hillarious (sic) considering that Obama has brought us much closer to Nuclear war with Russia over Syria than anyone since Kennedy.
But keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Transgendered panda?
Mail in ballots offer a whole new opportunity for voter fraud. Voting multiple times in multiple locations because your registered in multiple precincts.
I voted three times already. It isn't voter fraud, because democrats keep telling me that voter fraud doesn't exist.
The constitution had everything it needed, and the civil rights act gave special treatment to certain people that didn't apply to others. Racism to overcome racism isn't a virtue, it is tyranny. Not only is it bad for "whites" it is bad for "blacks" as well, and has enslaved them to the DNC for nearly 50 years.
Animal Farm was not supposed to be a manual. "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others"
"no evidence" is often cited reason by Democrats. Even when evidence is provided, it becomes "not proof". Or "I don't recall" or some other such nonsense. Everyone knows it is going on.
Madonna offered blowjobs to people voting for Clinton, this would be " other valuable consideration".
Now you might suggest that this was a "joke" (she seemed serious at the time), but if one blowjob was offered (already done), and accepted (vote cast for a blowjob), regardless of actual payment, then she should be prosecuted under this statute.
Just sayin ;)
The market doesn't require slaves to operate. It requires free will of the operators to operate. Free will, and free operation in the marketplace are inseparable. I would suggest to you, that enslavement requires at minimum tacit acceptance by the state in order to function. Meaning that in order to have slavery, the state must at minimum accept it, and at worst, use the power to enforce it. Slavery negates the free will and self determination of those enslaved.
The fact that you cannot see how Free Will and Self Determination do not require any rules or regulations suprises me. Slavery actually requires one to enact rules to keep slaves enslaved. Which is why every rule, regulation and law should be evaluated on the premise that men ought to be free (and to which all that entails)
I'm not seeing what in True Capitalism prevents the enslaving.
A just government dedicated to the rights of the people (individually). As of right now, the US Constitution has indentured every working person (enslaved) in a violation of the 14th Amendment. Socialism by definition requires the taking of a mans effort, and giving it to another, under threat. The 16th Amendment is, a horrible case of government enslaving its people. A man ought to have complete and total control over the wages he makes, and not having any such protection, we are all slaves to government.
A government that can take whatever it wants from you (via taxes) can take everything you have. There is no limit.
The purpose of government is to ensure the liberties of its citizenry, not play mommy and daddy protecting people from themselves.
Constitution says so, but they are (patents and copyright) rights as in the same as "freedom of speech" is a right, but are the only rights that are limited (time in this case) Interestingly, because it is a right (granted, not natural) it also requires securing. Which is, IMHO, the duty and purpose of government.
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
There is no right of "contract" anywhere in the Constitution. Which is one of the reasons why I am opposed to government (at any level) defining marriage in any way shape or form (marriage being a contract). Keep in mind, I am a Libertarian, so my views are based on liberty. My views on Contracts (and incorporation) are that these are grants of the state (governments at any level) , and therefore are created and exist with the blessing of the state, which means the state can also dissolve them. Imagine a Corporation accused, tried and convicted of some crime, and the state having the power to dissolve it, sell off the assets and give the victims their due, how that would change the "moral" nature of the corporation itself. I call it the "corporate death sentence". Yes, corporations are legal entities, but only because the state allows it to be that way.
I am not anarchist. I have a very well defined purpose of government ...
... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Such a government would lead to a very prosperous nation and people. Anything less is a road to tyranny.
Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation.
Most of those meme fail once you actually test them. The "Safety" regulations aren't just the obvious (Fire alarms), but go all the way down to "bedbugs". The problem is, that no amount of regulation actually solves any problem and the regulations aren't actually enforced when there is a failure. Yes, Hilton has fire detectors in every room because of regulation, but my view is that they would have them (eventually) anyways. It is kind of like "free wifi" is, it is a "selling point". Eventually everyone has "Free Internet" anyways, because those that do not have it will eventually lose business.
Hilton will take extra steps to get rid of "bedbugs" in because they rely upon their reputation. An AirBNB member probably cannot provide that level of service. Eventually, the marketplace will sort it out, it always does.
Rule changing is a function of a non-free economy. The only way there are rules, is because people want them. Enough rules, and you no longer are free.
I bet you can't even articulate why you think Capitalism is bad, and what the "better" option would be, without using anecdotal evidence and emotionalism.
Actually, under True Capitalism, the rich cannot enslave anyone, especially in a republic of laws that prohibit it. So instead of Capitalism and Republic, we are going down the tubes to Socialism and Democracy based on convenience and emotion.
They(Liberal socialists) never realize that markets want to be free, and the only way to keep them from being free is totalitarianism (rules, regulations, taxes and government guns)