fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Before you embarrass yourself any further, make sure you at least know what you are talking about. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.php?cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php The Unions were by far the largest political contributors in the 2008 election cycle, I support the Super Pacs. I think it was a good decision to have come out of the Supreme Court. Obama spent 740 Million dollars in 2008 and McCain spent 330 Million. Of course they weren't complaining then, now that they see that may lose the money edge, they cry like little bitches. Good, let them cry! The Obama CAMPAIGN will still outraise the Romney CAMPAIGN. You're arguing in favor of buying elections. Good for you. 740 Millions huh? Subract the union donations and guess what? He still had tons more money raised. Super PACs are just making the political process even dirtier than it was in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 You'll have to stay with me here for a minute I know nothing about political finance. Why is it that the SuperPacs are what changes that? Because the way they are structured now, there can be more money given through the SUPERPACS on behalf of individuals and corporations then the way it use to be structured. I have no problem with this, Unions dominated campaign financing for years, and all these states that are having to slash budgets can blame the public sector unions and the corrupt politicians who pandered for their money at the expense of childrens education and the local/state taxpayers, and now when the cuts are coming, they have the nerve to blame conservatives for the current layoffs that they themselves brokered. That's like someone lighting a fire on a house and then calling the fire department to put out the fire, only for the fire department to not get there on time, and have the same person who lit the fire come out and criticize the fire department for not getting there on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Because the way they are structured now, there can be more money given through the SUPERPACS on behalf of individuals and corporations then the way it use to be structured. I have no problem with this, Unions dominated campaign financing for years, and all these states that are having to slash budgets can blame the public sector unions and the corrupt politicians who pandered for their money at the expense of childrens education and the local/state taxpayers, and now when the cuts are coming, they have the nerve to blame conservatives for the current layoffs that they themselves brokered. That's like someone lighting a fire on a house and then calling the fire department to put out the fire, only for the fire department to not get there on time, and have the same person who lit the fire come out and criticize the fire department for not getting there on time. AHHHH...individual contribution cap gone...brain fart on my part. Thanks. EDIT: Honestly as liberal as I may come off to many of you I'm w/ you here. Still "evolving" on the issue of public sector unions but honestly if we are real about it there's two retirement ages looking toward the future...65 for gov't and 75 for the rest of us. Just today I was browsing some openings at various agencies for lawyers. Those are some damn good jobs....not that I hate or am jelous just saying. There is a political process for public sector employees. It's not the same. Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The Obama CAMPAIGN will still outraise the Romney CAMPAIGN. You're arguing in favor of buying elections. Good for you. 740 Millions huh? Subract the union donations and guess what? He still had tons more money raised. Super PACs are just making the political process even dirtier than it was in the past. What are you, 13? So after I just made mincemeat of your fallacious (or ignorant) claim, I'm guessing the latter, now you deviate to another point? Who cares? As long as Romney has the money along with the SUperPacs, which he will, thats all that matters. ANd I'm glad that all this "dirty" money is making little whiny bitches cry foul about it. Get use to it, because the hammer is gonna get dropped on Obama's miserable record, and thank goodness that there is this money to expose Obama for the failure he has been on both he economy and the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 What are you, 13? So after I just made mincemeat of your fallacious (or ignorant) claim, I'm guessing the latter, now you deviate to another point? Who cares? As long as Romney has the money along with the SUperPacs, which he will, thats all that matters. ANd I'm glad that all this "dirty" money is making little whiny bitches cry foul about it. Get use to it, because the hammer is gonna get dropped on Obama's miserable record, and thank goodness that there is this money to expose Obama for the failure he has been on both he economy and the debt. It will make me smile when Obama wins and you'll have four more years of your own WHINING. You're only happy with Super PACs because they are helping your "team". That's a sad stance. How'd did I change the point? You kept WHINING about unions and their never ending donations and I said take those away and it still wouldn't matter! What's wrong with my stance of unions not being allowed to donate? Your "team" still doesn't make it out?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 It will make me smile when Obama wins and you'll have four more years of your own WHINING. You're only happy with Super PACs because they are helping your "team". That's a sad stance. How'd did I change the point? You kept WHINING about unions and their never ending donations and I said take those away and it still wouldn't matter! What's wrong with my stance of unions not being allowed to donate? Your "team" still doesn't make it out?? What's sad is your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 So just to get this straight...public unions could (in the past) donate an incredible amount as one lump on grounds that they represent many...but private corporations/rich individuals (often w/ private business) could not? Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 What's sad is your ignorance. What's wrong with my compromise? Seriously?! Only individuals can donate. If you have an actual vote in the election, donate then. Place a reasonable cap on it. Is that not an even playing field for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 So just to get this straight...public unions could (in the past) donate an incredible amount as one lump on grounds that they represent many...but private corporations/rich individuals (often w/ private business) could not? Correct? That is correct, and now that the playing field is getting evened out, you have the little whiny bitches coming out and crying foul. (see fjl2nd) I'm glad they are there, it gives an opportunity to examine the record of our elected officials under microscope. For far too long Unions gave a huge advantage to Democrats, just in 2008 alone, 3 out of the top four contributors were Unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 What's wrong with my compromise? Seriously?! Only individuals can donate. If you have an actual vote in the election, donate then. Place a reasonable cap on it. Is that not an even playing field for everyone? This is what I was basically leading toward/getting it w/ my post above. But is this practical? And...the unions...shouldn't be allowed to give under this either... That is correct, and now that the playing field is getting evened out, you have the little whiny bitches coming out and crying foul. (see fjl2nd) I'm glad they are there, it gives an opportunity to examine the record of our elected officials under microscope. For far too long Unions gave a huge advantage to Democrats, just in 2008 alone, 3 out of the top four contributors were Unions. I am generally with you here but I wouldn't go so far as to say the superpacs give us a better opportunity to examine elected officials... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) What's wrong with my compromise? Seriously?! Only individuals can donate. If you have an actual vote in the election, donate then. Place a reasonable cap on it. Is that not an even playing field for everyone? Nope, too late for compromise on this issue. Unions have unfairly influenced elections at the expense of the taxpayer for too long, and now that there is an opportunity for conservatives to finally have large contributions,you want compromise? yeah right! Maybe in about 30 years we can revisit this "compromise" Edited May 18, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Nope, too late for compromise on this issue. Unions have unfairly influenced elections at the expense of the taxpayer for too long, and now that there is an opportunity for conservatives to finally have large contributions,you want compromise? yeah right! Maybe in about 30 years we can revisit this "compromise" ...now that is no good.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 ...now that is no good.... Funny how people NOW see a problem with money and politics, but when the Unions were buying elections, not a peep from the left, now that businesses wants to influence elections there is all this outrage. Sorry, but all this whining from the left is falling on deaf ears, and I gotta tell ya, I'm glad they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Nope, too late for compromise on this issue. Unions have unfairly influenced elections at the expense of the taxpayer for too long, and now that there is an opportunity for conservatives to finally have large contributions,you want compromise? yeah right! Maybe in about 30 years we can revisit this "compromise" Wow I don't even know what to say. You are probably the most partisan person I've ever talked with. Your whole argument is bogus. Well, they did it for years so now it's our turn! Because unions (see: Police, Fire, etc) never give to Republicans..... If someone were to read this thread objectively, they'd probably find you to be the person whining...big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Funny how people NOW see a problem with money and politics, but when the Unions were buying elections, not a peep from the left, now that businesses wants to influence elections there is all this outrage. Sorry, but all this whining from the left is falling on deaf ears, and I gotta tell ya, I'm glad they exist. From a strict 1st amendment perspective I also am glad they exist. But let's be real here...finding a way for the political process to give off less noise (from both sides) is important. And also I would like to add...it's not like the political process has been unkind to these corporations and big single donors in the past...I would hardly call them a repressed sect... The anonymous nature of it is a huge concern for me btw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Funny how people NOW see a problem with money and politics, but when the Unions were buying elections, not a peep from the left, now that businesses wants to influence elections there is all this outrage. Sorry, but all this whining from the left is falling on deaf ears, and I gotta tell ya, I'm glad they exist. Buying elections like in 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2010? Those years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Buying elections like in 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2010? Those years? Or any other year you care to name. It's always been about money. Politics is marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Wow I don't even know what to say. You are probably the most partisan person I've ever talked with. Your whole argument is bogus. Well, they did it for years so now it's our turn! Because unions (see: Police, Fire, etc) never give to Republicans..... If someone were to read this thread objectively, they'd probably find you to be the person whining...big time. Holy hypocritical Batman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Or any other year you care to name. It's always been about money. Politics is marketing. I think his point is the right has bought as much (if not more...but I won't speak for him) than the left even w/ union spending. Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I think his point is the right has bought as much (if not more...but I won't speak for him) than the left even w/ union spending. Depends on the elections, too. He seemed to have focused on federal. I'd bet that union money exerts more influence at state and local levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts