Am I mistaken or are you guys getting either the oldest or the youngest U.S. president ever?
Reagan was just a little older. JFK was just a little younger.
Are you forgetting that Unions are also lobbyists?
I'm not forgetting shit, Steve. I really hate it when you do that little dance.
I like the idea of getting most of your money from individual contributors as opposed to lobbyists, whether those lobbyists are from Wal-Mart, Big Tobacco, PETA, or even the SSSU (Society for people who want Steve to Shut the fuck Up), and I am the President of the DC Chapter of that global lobby.
The union lobbyist point was geared more towards chaosof99's comment, I should have been more clear and quoted him as well.
I'm with you on the money part but lobbyists are necessary for our system of government to work. If you silence the lobbyists how will our Representative system of government work?
Lobbyists are essential. Just like states have rights, groups with common interests have rights. The freedom to lobby is the constitutionally protected right to petition your government. If that right is repealed, it repeals all points of entry to the political process for both companies and individuals.
But just like the balance between federalism and states rights, the problem is when lobbyists have a disproportionate power over individuals. I agree there should be some way to stop the tyranny of the lobbying minority, but that can't be to outlaw lobbies.
Lobbyists are fine. The problem is when they "donate" money to essentially get whatever they want regardless of legality, or expect legislation specifically in their favor that hurts the greater population in some manner. The fact that the lobbies have senators, congressmen, and recently the entire executive branch "paid off" to do their bidding, and the obscene levels of greed and disregard for anyone else are the major problems. As it stands, many lobbies are simply corporations or special interests groups pouring mountains of cash over politicians to get what they want, no matter what the cost to the country as a whole or the citizens within it.
Lobbyists are fine. The problem is when they "donate" money to essentially get whatever they want regardless of legality, or expect legislation specifically in their favor that hurts the greater population in some manner. The fact that the lobbies have senators, congressmen, and recently the entire executive branch "paid off" to do their bidding, and the obscene levels of greed and disregard for anyone else are the major problems. As it stands, many lobbies are simply corporations or special interests groups pouring mountains of cash over politicians to get what they want, no matter what the cost to the country as a whole or the citizens within it.
Sounds like you are accusing members of the government of being guilty of taking bribes. Would you care to elaborate with examples?
There are very strict laws in place to insure lobbyists do not bribe elected officials. If you have proof of current members of congress or members of the executive branch being guilty of this sort of thing I would love to know about it.
Just saw Obama speak in Va. It was hot but I actually was able to get close to him, about 50 feet from the stage. The first 15 minutes of is speech was about Jim Webb (who introduced him) so I wonder if that will be his VP choice... No way to know though. Overall it wasn't too drastic of a change but he made plenty of jabs at McCain.
No, seriously. I asked you first: If you think lobbyists are so essential, then please explain why.
Nice try Mr. Post Editor.
Goddamn you. Goddamn you to hell. If you can't be bothered to allow someone to finish a post before you respond to it, I can't help you. I edited my post because you edited yours and added that stupid sentence about lobbyists being necessary to democracy. This is the type of shit that makes me earnestly, earnestly ask why you won't just die in a fire. What is this "Nice try" supposed to mean? Do you really think that I would try to get out of a debate with you? I debate for a LIVING, you fuck.
This is just so hard for me to understand about you. I don't know nearly as much about computers as you do, but you don't see me blabbing my opinions about computers on computer oriented threads and then challenging you and saying that my judgment about computers should be given the same weight as yours. I guess that's because I'm not an attention-whore fuckwad.
Likewise, if you're too stupid to enunciate your own position, then maybe you should get off my internets.
I'm sorry, but that type of attitude that you have just pisses me off. What is it that makes you so smarmy and stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child? DId you have a closed head injury as the result of a motor vehicle accident? Were you addicted to crank? Did you have a stroke? Why can't you just be quiet about shit you obviously don't know anything about?!!
"Lobbying" as such didn't really start until the Grant Administration, one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Lobbyists like Jack Abramoff are horribly corrupt, and their actions corrupt politicians (mostly your type of politician) and subvert the process. They make our system resemble a plutocracy more than a democracy. There is a right to petition the government, sure, but lobbyists are not essential to this right. People can and should be more involved with communicating to their elected representative without professional intermediaries. Even if there were such a need, the reality is that corporations and the wealthy utilize lobbies far more than the majority of individuals. Corporations and the wealthy should have just as much access to elected representatives that individuals have and no more.
But once again, you miss the point. You were trying to defend PAC campaign contributions and then you started talking about lobbyists. That's probably because you don't understand that there is a difference.
The first 15 minutes of is speech was about Jim Webb (who introduced him) so I wonder if that will be his VP choice...
Jim Webb is unlikely, in my opinion, since he's another Senator, meaning that he doesn't really add too much to Obama's campaign; furthermore, his Senate vote is probably worth more to the Dems than any value he'd have as VP, since he barely won it, and it's unlikely we'd win it again (the same is also true of Mark Warner, currently running for Senate in Virginia. Virginia has awesome Dem Senators / presumptive Senators, but they're too valuable in the Senate to be viable VP choices, especially given how red Virginia is).
Haha, what about Janet Napolitano, (D) Arizona? She's been the democratic governor of AZ since 2002, and is quite popular there. If we had her on the ticket, and we won McCain's home state? That would be great.
Also, I guess I'll second Joe's lengthy post above. He knows much more about the process than you or me, Steve.
Check out these polls. They're obviously inconclusive, and flawed in that they don't include a large range of potential candidates, but they are interesting.
Lobbyists are fine. The problem is when they "donate" money to essentially get whatever they want regardless of legality, or expect legislation specifically in their favor that hurts the greater population in some manner. The fact that the lobbies have senators, congressmen, and recently the entire executive branch "paid off" to do their bidding, and the obscene levels of greed and disregard for anyone else are the major problems. As it stands, many lobbies are simply corporations or special interests groups pouring mountains of cash over politicians to get what they want, no matter what the cost to the country as a whole or the citizens within it.
Sounds like you are accusing members of the government of being guilty of taking bribes. Would you care to elaborate with examples?
There are very strict laws in place to insure lobbyists do not bribe elected officials. If you have proof of current members of congress or members of the executive branch being guilty of this sort of thing I would love to know about it.
I would if I thought bitchslapping you with evidence yet again would change anything. Joe does constantly, and I honestly don't know where he finds the fortitude. You've made it pretty clear that even when an undeniable fact is laid bare before you, you will come up with inane and irrelevant questions or ignore it entirely in order to dodge the fact that you are wrong or don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Evidence does not matter to you. Every bit of proof of anything anyone puts in your face on these forums, you rebuke and typically without any real reason or counter-evidence. Your belief that your gods of neo-conservatism can do no wrong causes you to simply ignore what's clear as day to everyone else. I absolutely will not waste my time with you.
In fact, I'm a little ashamed of myself for even responding to you directly.
He may have only raised that much from PACs, but what about lobbyists? Not to mention all the lobbyists he has/continues to employ on his campaign.
Why do lobbyist from places like the Sierra Group need to give campaigns money? They lobby for their cause through conversation, proposed litigation, and making their case before government officials and the US public. Why do they need to be in officials' and parties' pocket? Obviously it is a bid for greater attention to their cause by greasing the wheels. To deny that this is the case is simply naive.
I hate to break it to you Myself, but he is smirking in that picture.
I was gonna say smirk too. That's definitely a smirk. This is not to point out the inappropriateness of the image -- just to point out that a smirk is apparently more concrete than I thought.
I was gonna say smirk too. That's definitely a smirk. This is not to point out the inappropriateness of the image -- just to point out that a smirk is apparently more concrete than I thought.
Wait, do you not smirk once in a while then? Now that you mention it, I don't notice people smirking often... I myself do smirk though, smirks are awesome! Put more in your art!
Wait, do you not smirk once in a while then? Now that you mention it, I don't notice people smirking often... I myself do smirk though, smirks are awesome! Put more in your art!
I guess I wasn't very clear. I just meant that I tend to think of a smirk as one of the more nebulously-defined expressions. Everyone knows exactly what a smile or a frown looks like, but a smirk is a little harder to nail down. Like looking "wistful" is, or something like that. I promise that next time I have an appropriate panel in which to draw a smirk, I'll do it. For you.
I went to the "Check out my Mii" channel and found this:
He is now in my almost full army of Miis. What's even cooler, whenever I play Wii Fit, I see him in the audience or in whatever work out I do from time to time.
Comments
I like the idea of getting most of your money from individual contributors as opposed to lobbyists, whether those lobbyists are from Wal-Mart, Big Tobacco, PETA, or even the SSSU (Society for people who want Steve to Shut the fuck Up), and I am the President of the DC Chapter of that global lobby.
I'm with you on the money part but lobbyists are necessary for our system of government to work. If you silence the lobbyists how will our Representative system of government work?
But just like the balance between federalism and states rights, the problem is when lobbyists have a disproportionate power over individuals. I agree there should be some way to stop the tyranny of the lobbying minority, but that can't be to outlaw lobbies.
There are very strict laws in place to insure lobbyists do not bribe elected officials. If you have proof of current members of congress or members of the executive branch being guilty of this sort of thing I would love to know about it.
This is just so hard for me to understand about you. I don't know nearly as much about computers as you do, but you don't see me blabbing my opinions about computers on computer oriented threads and then challenging you and saying that my judgment about computers should be given the same weight as yours. I guess that's because I'm not an attention-whore fuckwad.
Likewise, if you're too stupid to enunciate your own position, then maybe you should get off my internets.
I'm sorry, but that type of attitude that you have just pisses me off. What is it that makes you so smarmy and stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child? DId you have a closed head injury as the result of a motor vehicle accident? Were you addicted to crank? Did you have a stroke? Why can't you just be quiet about shit you obviously don't know anything about?!!
"Lobbying" as such didn't really start until the Grant Administration, one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Lobbyists like Jack Abramoff are horribly corrupt, and their actions corrupt politicians (mostly your type of politician) and subvert the process. They make our system resemble a plutocracy more than a democracy. There is a right to petition the government, sure, but lobbyists are not essential to this right. People can and should be more involved with communicating to their elected representative without professional intermediaries. Even if there were such a need, the reality is that corporations and the wealthy utilize lobbies far more than the majority of individuals. Corporations and the wealthy should have just as much access to elected representatives that individuals have and no more.
But once again, you miss the point. You were trying to defend PAC campaign contributions and then you started talking about lobbyists. That's probably because you don't understand that there is a difference. That would be cool.
Also, I guess I'll second Joe's lengthy post above. He knows much more about the process than you or me, Steve.
Check out these polls. They're obviously inconclusive, and flawed in that they don't include a large range of potential candidates, but they are interesting.
In fact, I'm a little ashamed of myself for even responding to you directly.
Why do lobbyist from places like the Sierra Group need to give campaigns money? They lobby for their cause through conversation, proposed litigation, and making their case before government officials and the US public. Why do they need to be in officials' and parties' pocket? Obviously it is a bid for greater attention to their cause by greasing the wheels. To deny that this is the case is simply naive.
I promise that next time I have an appropriate panel in which to draw a smirk, I'll do it. For you.
He is now in my almost full army of Miis. What's even cooler, whenever I play Wii Fit, I see him in the audience or in whatever work out I do from time to time.