History Repeats Itself

Al Stevens wrote:

alice wrote:

Lobbyists shuld be outlawed.

A limit shoould be set on campaign contributions.
The length of a campaign shiould be 2 monthes max.
Special interest groups run our country.

Politicians are afraid of them.
This needs to stop.

You're messing with the 1st Amendment with those arguments. It isn't that simple.

Excuse me, Which things mess with the first amendment rights?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/opinion/14kristof.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

good article on taxes.

alice wrote:

Al Stevens wrote:

alice wrote:

Lobbyists shuld be outlawed.

A limit shoould be set on campaign contributions.
The length of a campaign shiould be 2 monthes max.
Special interest groups run our country.

Politicians are afraid of them.
This needs to stop.

You're messing with the 1st Amendment with those arguments. It isn't that simple.

Excuse me, Which things mess with the first amendment rights?

Regulating lobbying, campaign contributions and the length of time a candidate may actively campaign violates freedom of expression.

Al,

I claim the right to pursue happiness. All of these activities interefere with my goal.
Corruption bugs me.

Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as long as they don't do it at the expense of the rights of others.

Buying votes is violating my rights.
Why should someone, anyone be able to get their way by paying?

That is bribery. Corruption.

There are rules surrounding Presidential terms--they can only have two terms.
Rules are necessary and good.
I don't understand your problem, with lobbyists. Most reasonable people are bothered by their control. and undue influence.

Quote :

"We are all free to do whatever we want to do," he said that night. "Isn't taht simple and clean and clear? Isn't that a great way to run a universe?"

"Almost. You forgot a pretty important part," I said.

"Oh?"

"Wea re all free to do what we wnat to do, as long as we don't hurt somebody else," I chided. "I know you meant that, but you ought to say what you mean."

There was a sudden shambling sound in the dark, and I looked at him quickly. "Did you hear that?"

"Yeah. Sounds like there's somebody..." He got up, walked into the dark. He laughed suddenly, said a name I didn't catch. "It's OK, " I heard him say. "No, we'd be glad to have you...no need you standing around...come on, you're welcome, really..."

The voice was heavily accented, not quite Russian, nor Czech, more Transylvanian. "Thank you. I do not wish to impose myself upon your evening..."



....a small lean wolflike fellow, frightening to the eye, dressed in evening clothes, a black cape lined in red satin, he was uncomfortable in the light....

..."Make yourself comfortable, I said. "Can we help you at all?"...

..."Yes, you can help me. I need this very much or I would not ask. May I drink your blood?...."
............

"What are you saying?...What in the he** are you saying, mister? I don't know what you are, are you some kind of VAM__?"

Shimoda cut me off before I could say the word. "Richard, our guest was talking, and you interrupted...

"One more step and there will be blood....you touch me and you die..."
.....I won't drink your blood, Richard," he said in a perfectly friendly English, no accent at all...he faded as though he was turning out his own light.

Shimoda sat down by the fire. "Am I ever glad you don't mean what you say!"...dot was a thought-form of a wompire from Tronsylwania. If you ever want to make a point, you think somebody isn't listening, whip'em up a little thought-form to demonstrate what you mean.....We choose, ourselves, to be hurt or not to be hurt, no matter what. Us who decides. Nobody else...."
...........

"Listen," he said, "it's important. We are all. Free. To do. Whatever. We want. To do.

from Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, by Richard Bach.

Ann

Good point, Ann,

The lobbyists and corrupt folks have had too much freedom and protection.
It needs to reverse a bit.

The Supreme court removed all lids on corporate campaign contributions. That is a real travesty.

alice wrote:

Buying votes is violating my rights.
Why should someone, anyone be able to get their way by paying?

That is bribery. Corruption.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Al Stevens wrote:

alice wrote:

Buying votes is violating my rights.
Why should someone, anyone be able to get their way by paying?

That is bribery. Corruption.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Ah Ha!
You have admitted it is wrong. Your remedy?

We each have freedom of expression. But if we deny that freedom to others with whom we disagree, we put freedom itself at risk.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

- Benjamin Franklin

alice wrote:

Al Stevens wrote:

alice wrote:

Buying votes is violating my rights.
Why should someone, anyone be able to get their way by paying?

That is bribery. Corruption.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Ah Ha!
You have admitted it is wrong.

You seem to misunderstand. You think certain practices, certain expressions made by others, are wrong because you disagree with them. That's wrong #1 from your perspective. You would eliminate those practices by suppressing the rights of the practioners. Wrong #2. Two wrongs. Where is there any right?

It has nothing to do with my disagreeing or agreeing. It is an ethiical question. Should this entire country be run by a few special interest groups that buy influence?

I don't think so.

Who represents those without means?


Obviously no one.

The way this economy prospered until the rich got hold of it was when then President Clinton ignored lobbyists and raised taxes.

We had a surplus until George W started up his tax cuts.

Now the rich howl they are being punished?

What a sick joke!

alice wrote:

Should this entire country be run by a few special interest groups that buy influence?

I don't think so.

I understand your concern and share it. We're on the same page. But I do not share a belief in the remedies that some suggest (more government regulation). They probably wouldn't work, they'd be found to be unconstitutional, and we'd give up too much in order to try them out.

So what do we do?
Allow the rich to tramp down the poor?
Alllow the special interest goups to violate the will of the voters.
Keep giving them privileges?

I am all ears.

I don't feel a bit freeer since the Supreme Court lifted the ceiling on political contributions.

There have to be some limits in a civilized society

One way to reduce crime statistics is to do away with laws. Because someone will/might steal my car it makes no sense to do away with the law against it.

That was the reason everyone gave for legalizing abortion. "They will do it anyway."

Pretty soon it will be--"They are gonna shoot each other anyway, let them do it."

We will have the wild west all over again.

If I could solve all those problems, I'd be back in my home town (DC) stirring up some dust.

The US government should have two top priorities right now: Jobs and jobs. Create jobs at home and quit encouraging the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. (And quit sending our young people away to fight meaninglless expensive wars and die for pointless causes.)

Jobs. When all the people have jobs, a lot of these other problems go away. All the other remedies are meaningless when folks can't support their families.

Al,
I ageree with your statement.

I heard on the news yesterday that college students, in some States are now permitted to carry guns to school. I wonder if that will affect the number of students training to be teachers. Give me an A or else!

Abe, are you referring to the conceal/carry proposal that was floated for Texas schools? It was ultimately decided against. That was a real hot topic among faculty on college campuses! BAD IDEA!

I agree! Create jobs. Don't give a tax cut to the rich and depend on that doing it.
Both things would help--raise taxes and put everyone (able to work) to work.

LC,

YOU ARE SO RIGHT! THE LAST THING STUDENTS NEED ARE GUNS!

Texas was and is not the only state to consider such a law. The idea developed after the shootings at the University of Virginia a year or so ago. The groups who backed the idea went after Texas legislators first because they thought the concealed weapons law here meant that people would be sympathetic. It didn't work. When it first came up in the Texas legislature, it was quickly defeated. It did not come up again until after the recent elections. However, enough voters mailed in their objections for the more conservative Democrats to refuse to give support.

There are quite a few other places where the idea is gaining ground, and the recent elections are causing many state legislators across the country to consider it. The best thing anybody can do is to do what the citizens of Texas did, and make sure their lawmakers know how they feel.

Ann

Thank you, All, for your ideas.

Please forgive me for jumping into this thread again a little late!
The idea of buying a high position in ratings is a popular strategy. It's used in politics and advertising. It is a so called legal means of rigging results.
Politcal parties often buy union support with promises and policies.
Business men who contribute money to the election campaign of certain politicians get preferential treatment in return. Governments buy other nations support with aid and trade concessions to get first dib's on their oil resources.
We all have a price so they say!
Our votes also have a price in a way when we think about it! We vote for those who are most supportive to our way of living ( our price).
Yes it seems an unfair way of doing things and favors only those who have money. Buying a top place in Google search pages, buying youtube views, buying a book review or buying a bestseller spot in a publications ratings.
You scratch my back and for fifty bucks I'll scratch yours in public.

David,

Your comments are always welcome and "better late than never."