The Billionaire's Third Party

No I'm opposed to people being harassed at their homes and business because some third party doesn't like their political beliefs. You have every right to complain in any public forum you wish about policies and opinions of others. You have no right whatever to do so while standing in their front yards nor do you have any right to interfere with their day to day lives.

 

Never mind.

Since you can't actually defend secret influence buying (but support it none the less), you try and excuse it with some made up nonsense about people showing up at some imaginary person's door.

Not much of an argument.......

 

Except for the fact that it has happened and continues to happen.

 

It's something that you made up. Care to talk about things that right wingers do to people they don't agree with?

 

No it isn't something I made up. Hell OWS was harassing kindergartners and their nannies on the way to school. One bunch showed up in the front yard of some wall street guy.

Name it. If you're a leftist politician we'll try to vote you out of office and unless you bring your kids into the political fray we pretty much leave them out of the equation.

 

I'm not interesed in arguing your absurd rationalization that secret campaign contributions are necessary to keep people from talking back.

Care to document how OWS discovered the identies of secret contributors to 501c4 groups so they could harass their nannies???????

We'll wait.

 

They didn't have to know there names that harassed everyone coming though gate at that school. When the IRS made a donor list available from a TEA Party group to a leftwing group their donors almost immediately began to receive harassing phone calls from leftist twits.

 

Ayuh,.... Pure Bullship, 'n Lies,..... The McCain/ Riengold act shut the NRA out of political advertizing market, 30/ 60/ 90 days before an election,...
Silenced,....

Yet MSM, 'n the Artistic community was still allowed to produce "Movies" with strong political messages, against the Right,.....
Right up til the polls closed,...
Millions, 'n Millions of dollars worth of Political Advertizing,.... Untouched by the 1st amendment killin' M/R act,.....
That's where all the Dark Money is,....

Yer the one in denial, thinkin' the progressive left, 'n Obo have yer best interest in mind,....
Obo is doin' a Fine job, all by hisself, Killin' the middle class,.....

If the Tea Party, 'n the Koch Bros. are successful, atleast I'll have the Opportunity to better myself, rather than bein' trapped as I am with the crushin' weight of Progressive rule,.....

Open yer eyes moron,.... the progressives are hellbent on keepin' YOU under their thumb,......

 

No you won't. But that's the fantasy they're selling you.

Never heard of it.

 

Ayuh,.... My fantasy is much better alternative, than the reality of crushing progressive policies,....

 

And that is what the Leftists are suppose to do. You want free speech? It's a two way street. If you want to say Big Business should have another tax break, you should also have to hear, "No they shouldn't!" If someone doesn't want your business profits to support a candidate they don't like, then it should be perfectly acceptable to not patronize your business to deny you those profits. Value your profits more than your politics? Then keep your business out of politics.

The Founding Fathers knew they risked their fortunes when they spoke out publicly. Why should a modern Billionaire get a free pass to hide his name? Afraid some poltical nut would shoot you? Same can be said of every elected politician in the Country. When you signed the Declaration of Independence, it was signing your own death warrant if the colonies lost. Now a Billiinaire with body guards is afraid of putting his name out in public? If you believe in your politics strongly enough, then stand in the line of fire with everyone else.

 

Yeah right. You have no right to march about private property and threaten people. The Koch brothers name in case you hadn't noticed is out in public. It's not them I'm concerned about. If you found an organization your name will be all over it and it should be. However merely contributing to this or that organization shouldn't carry with it the possibility of some jackass showing up on your door step trying to intimidate you. Put it this way do you want Exxon to have a list of all of the donors to Greenpeace?

 

Do you have some reason to doubt Exxon has a list if Greenpeace Donors? If they don't, I'm betting they can buy one from a number of Internet sources. And there is nothing particularly scary about them having it.

You don't seem to get it. If you are going to exercise your right to free speech, then be ready to acknowledge that it was you that said it. Could that result in a counter protest in your front yard? Yeah, within legal limits. You want to get out your message, others have the same right. You both have a right to close the windows and change the channel, but the voices must have an equal chance to be heard. A public street is no different that a public airway. And if what you say results in The Village on your porch with pitchforks and torches, then you need to both be wiser in your choice of words and be thankful you live in a country where the authorities will protect your person and still defend your rights to say it.

 

Yes, Wall Steet and its conservative allies have been selling you this same "trickle down" fantasy for thirty years now.

How much longer do you plan to wait for the payoff?

 

Gyrd is trying to derail this thread.

He ran out of excuses for defending secret big money buying American political speech long ago, so he spends his time on this bogus line, and sticks to it, because he's out of other excuses.

He's telling you that a billionaire should have the right to sell you his message in secret by pretending that he is someone he's not as a way to prevent people from talking back.

That's his argument. It's juvenile, but there it is!

 

People's political contributions that aren't party -specific, just like their votes, just like their wills, just like their contracts, just like their charitable donations, are PRIVATE by default in many circumstances, and as others point out, there's strong public policy favoring that. If you want to demand every single contribution to political philosophy be public, then the burden's on you to demonstrate REAL PUBLIC POLICY arguments why, including FACTS and numbers, not a wall of union label screed and Kochanoia, and you have come nowhere close to doing that. You can't do that because as all reasonable adults know, and several posters have pointed out, mere ADS don't "buy elections." IF it were ever proven that they DID, then step one would be curtailing the voting franchise for people so immutably lazy and retarded that they cast their votes based solely or mostly on advertisements. Somehow I think that rational solution would burn you Complex types like holy water on a vampire.

The only political money to be concerned about is money in brown bags used for graft, not advertisements, and we all know why Complex union label apologists never go there... they know -exactly- where that trail of breadcrumbs leads, and it's straight to their corrupt, big city, DEMOCRAT machines, not the Koch Brothers.

This whole NON ISSUE is a deflection from the real Democrat machine graft the Complex likes to keep truly "dark."

 

Free speech is one thing, bribing political officials and committing election fraud is something completely different. If you cannot legally cast a vote for a potential candidate, you shouldn't be allowed to meddle and/or manipulate the process simply because you have enough money to do so.

 

I love the idea, but then reality gets in the way. How do you account for National Political Parties? If one of my employees can vote in the district, can I give the money for political ads to him? I am a resident of a neighboring district but my business is directly effected by the next election, can I not comment on the effects? It gets ugly in a hurry.

 

The reality is an elected official (representative) should only be swayed or interested in what their constituents want or need. Th main reason the wrong decisions are being made is because too many outside influences, are not only meddling in the process, but purchasing the results.

Political parties are nothing more than another way of getting around the people making the right decisions. It is all about emotional BS, and organized parties are best fit to peddle irrelevant propaganda that stirs up emotional handicaps than anything out there.

You shouldn't be and if you are caught doing this both of you need to be fined and/or jailed. Tampering with elections is a criminal offense. It just isn't a priority with the rich/elites two party scam.

Decisions are supposed to be made by what is best for the legal residents and the community as a whole. What kind of business interests are you worried about? Higher taxes? Or gay marriage? Or maybe you just want to be able to bribe political figures with your sizable donations to obtain preferential treatment and keep the people silent on matters that concern them more than they do you? Do you have an example?

Actually it gets ridiculously inept, and the process is broken down to a point it no longer works. As it is now.

 

Ayuh,.... I've prospered quite nicely from '80, til Obama took power,....

Since then every time Obama says he's gonna tax the rich, or give a tax break to somebody else, it's cost ME money, 'n higher taxes,...

'n I'm sure I'll prosper once again, when Obama, 'n his progressive policies are booted from the Whitehouse,...

Which of course is why I'll continue to fund the NRA, 'n the Freedom Partners Action Fund,......

 

Yeah, we're not talking about things that are already crimes here, we're talking about political free speech. Legal.

 

America is a fascinating place. The sentiments voiced in the quoted post are so unusual in some western nations, that the groups who hold them are literally tiny minorities. Very much fringe dwellers.

 

Finding a legal loophole to bribe elected officials blatantly or by financial supporting their campaign, or manipulating an election because you have the money to do so, is not free speech. That is exactly what these PAC's are. Legal loopholes, and intellectually dishonest semantics.

 

DURRRRRRRR! Stop conflating ADVERTISING with BRIBERY.

 

Sorry, neither of those meets the stated criteria of reaching a large audience. Want to try again?