Aerik Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 If I understand the European model correctly, candidates have to meet a certain threshold of signatures before they qualify for public funds. After that point, there is no room for the donation-backscratchery we have here; the source of the money is easy to trace-- it's us.However, I'd settle for the oversight you've mentioned, although how they spend the money doesn't bother me nearly as much as where they got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 <snipped a year old irrelevant vf photoUmmm.....ok.....this is relevant because?If I understand the European model correctly, candidates have to meet a certain threshold of signatures before they qualify for public funds. After that point, there is no room for the donation-backscratchery we have here; the source of the money is easy to trace-- it's us.However, I'd settle for the oversight you've mentioned, although how they spend the money doesn't bother me nearly as much as where they got it.Dude, they're already using my tax dollars so people will buy new cars - lets not let them continue to squander my money to run every Tom, Dick, and Harry that can get enough signatures to qualify.If you or I want a new job we have to go out and get it. The government doesnt pay for the paper you printed your resume on, or the gas you burned getting to the interview. why should tax dollars fund some hump getting elected? Simply limit the amount of money that can be raised, and make sure that they don't spend more than that. Make the limit low and while you're at it, the "soft money" has to be eliminated as well. No more campaigns from the respective "parties". If they're going to be campaigning put severe limits on them as well.The source of the money isn't the problem so much as the AMOUNT that an individual can give. Limit that too, and take out the loopholes and you'll be on your way.The best way to cut the bullshit in Washington is LIMIT the terms. Two terms is enough for the president, should be good for the house and senate too. Get rid of the giant retirement these fools get while you're at it. Most of them dont deserve it anyway.I could go on and on...but we're losing the point of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Ummm.....ok.....this is relevant because?It's not. I just thought it was funny because someone posted one of Obama like that. I just happened to stumble across it. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 It's not. I just thought it was funny because someone posted one of Obama like that. I just happened to stumble across it. Carry on.Because no matter what happens one side is always going to be vocal and the other side is going to be defensive.Every 4-8 years it's just different people being vocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 It's not. I just thought it was funny because someone posted one of Obama like that.Admitting you have a problem is the first step in recovery..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 It's not. I just thought it was funny because someone posted one of Obama like that. I just happened to stumble across it. Carry on.I saw the vanity fair article today, but it didn't even make the news when they had that in their magazine last year (when W. was in office). I just thought it was amusing of the double standard, when someone did the same thing to Obama the left wing media was in a tizzy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 You rang?Whatta ya want? Free speech... I've got no problem with it, no matter the degree of wrongitude. As long as people are laughing...Yeah, you're opinion is wrong.Our system is fucked up because "political service" has become something it was never intended to be - a career. In the beginning, the President's term was limited because we didn't want anyone to become "king" of the country. It was thought that those who held office in the house or the senate would serve their term then go back home and get back to doing whatever it was they were doing. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way and we have many Congressmen and Senators who have served more than 20 years, and a few that have served more than 50. They dont have the same "retirement" as we do, and they certainly wouldn't be covered under the "national health care" plan..Correct. Look at Ted Kennedy. "Ted Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than four decades, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors." He does just enough to stay in his seat. And when most people go to vote for someone, they say oh well I don't really know this other guy so I just stay with the one we have. Look at one term vs. two term presidentsCorrection: The 2 term limited did not begin in the beginning, this was started with FDR after he was elected to 4 terms. The maximum allowed is 10 years for the president.The money is only part of the issue.By and large the electorate are a bunch of sheep. They vote for whomever they're told to vote for - whether its by their Union, the media, their church, etc. Sheep is the perfect word.This is why those hate ads are run nonstop. Most people will not research anything they just see the ad that say "Joe Schmo fondles little boys" and whether or not this is true, they remember that and vote for the other guy. Or like in this election people voted for Obama because he is black and we need a black president. Yeah your skin color dictates how good of a president you'll be. Is that considered reverse racism? (let see who understand that.)+1 to ToddMost people stop listening to me after I say it but oh well.... I don't vote for president.The electoral college is flawed and will constantly under represent the people. Why should 1% of voters in CA have more say than 100% of voters in RI? Just because CA has more residents? Sorry I have a major problem with that.Discount, discredit, or disregard me if you choose to, but nothing any of you say will change my feelings on this.I agree with the system being flawed by the electoral college. How can someone be elected without having the majority poplular vote? Would it be hard to make every vote count? Especially now with voting being done on computers, I would imagine (but dont know for sure) this would be more feasible. We don't live in a DemocracyIt's a Representative Republic, get it right.Socialistic Republic Because no matter what happens one side is always going to be vocal and the other side is going to be defensive.Every 4-8 years it's just different people being vocal No matter who is president, .....Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, we will always find fault with them. BUT depending on the party of the current president dictates how everything is spun. Clinton got a blow job, whooptie do, but he lied under oath! If A replublican was in the same situation, he would have been thrown out of office. Obama told a guy opposing him at a rally that he needs to come down so he (obama) could kick the change out of his pockets. Then proceeded to go "blah blah blah) Yeah thats the maturity level I want in a president. Sounds like a winner to be. Not saying I agree with all that McCain stood for but he was the lesser of two evils. And unlike Gore, he stepped down from the lost race with some dignity. Trends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilTwin Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Socialistic Republic More and more socialist every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Because no matter what happens one side is always going to be vocal and the other side is going to be defensive.Every 4-8 years it's just different people being vocal OMG...Thank you. Quoted for the mutherfuckin' truth. Rep sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I saw the vanity fair article today, but it didn't even make the news when they had that in their magazine last year (when W. was in office). I just thought it was amusing of the double standard, when someone did the same thing to Obama the left wing media was in a tizzy.Right wing media gets in a tizzy too. People just choose to pay attention to whatever serves their cause...on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) "Ted Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than four decades, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors." He does just enough to stay in his seat. And when most people go to vote for someone, they say oh well I don't really know this other guy so I just stay with the one we have. Look at one term vs. two term presidentsAnd there are congressmen that have served longer than Kennedy. Some are well over 50 years - they haven't done much either.Correction: The 2 term limited did not begin in the beginning, this was started with FDR after he was elected to 4 terms. The maximum allowed is 10 years for the president.While it wasn't official until the 22 Amendment, many of the early presidents supported a two term limit for the office.This is why those hate ads are run nonstop. Most people will not research anything they just see the ad that say "Joe Schmo fondles little boys" and whether or not this is true, they remember that and vote for the other guy. Or like in this election people voted for Obama because he is black and we need a black president. Yeah your skin color dictates how good of a president you'll be. Is that considered reverse racism? (let see who understand that.)The negative ads can point out the shortcomings of a particular candidate, but you cant lie. That's libel, and you'd get sued so fast your head would spin.I've never understood why it was ok to vote for Obama BECAUSE he was black (not racism), but not ok to not vote for him because he was black (racism).By the way, bias against the dominant race is considered reverse racism, although I dont know why. Racism should be racism, no?I agree with the system being flawed by the electoral college. How can someone be elected without having the majority poplular vote? Would it be hard to make every vote count? Especially now with voting being done on computers, I would imagine (but dont know for sure) this would be more feasible.The electoral college is necessary as it keeps one densely populated area from having undue influence in the presidential election. Politics are local, even if you're electing a national candidate and the electoral college balances that out. Edited August 5, 2009 by Todd#43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 The electoral college is necessary as it keeps one densely populated area from having undue influence in the presidential election. Politics are local, even if you're electing a national candidate and the electoral college balances that out.I posted that map earlier to show that the urban areas had undue influence on the last election. http://philhardwickblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008_election_map-counties.jpgI know someone else said something about gore getting the popular vote and bush still getting elected, so it looks like its broke either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Right wing media gets in a tizzy too. People just choose to pay attention to whatever serves their cause...on both sides.I can agree with your comment "generally speaking" but specifically with concern to the joker illustration, I could not find one right wing outcry about it (prior to today), or left wing commentaries saying it went too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 It's what Obama looks like after eating Michelle out on her period... we covered that in the Cock thread.:lol:I bet MJ didn't see that......she would whoop ur ass:beating: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can agree with your comment "generally speaking" but specifically with concern to the joker illustration, I could not find one right wing outcry about it (prior to today), or left wing commentaries saying it went too far.Cuz everyone is in an outcry over other things. Cash for clunkers, Palin stepping down, swatting a fly, Iran, North Korea, healthcare... etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 good thing we have helen thomas to cover it all today was her bday too! I wonder how she feels about universal healthcare since she'd be the first to go under the new system lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Yeah, you're opinion is wrong.Not as wrong as "you are" (supposed to be your, not you're) grammar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Politics vs ReligionReligion:This means you believe in a God or Gods but cannot prove that praying to them works.Politics:This means you believe in your candidate but cannot prove that voting for them makes it any better.Ergo, politics is a religion. Edited August 5, 2009 by Strictly Street Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V4junkie Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Ergo, politics is a religion.QFT, rep to you sir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I posted that map earlier to show that the urban areas had undue influence on the last election. http://philhardwickblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008_election_map-counties.jpgI know someone else said something about gore getting the popular vote and bush still getting elected, so it looks like its broke either way.The purpose of the electoral college is to give each STATE reasonable impact as to who becomes president. Not each county, not each city, and not each individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 If you or I want a new job we have to go out and get it. The government doesnt pay for the paper you printed your resume on, or the gas you burned getting to the interview. why should tax dollars fund some hump getting elected?not true actually...if you're actively job hunting, you CAN deduct those things from your taxes*...(yes the government will pay for your gas and resume paper, etc...)*Please see a tax professional to see if you qualify for deductions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 not true actually...if you're actively job hunting, you CAN deduct those things from your taxes*...(yes the government will pay for your gas and resume paper, etc...)*Please see a tax professional to see if you qualify for deductions.To deduct job search expenses is difficult. There are rules as to why you're looking, distance from your residence, etc.Even at that, its a deduction from AGI, not from your total tax liability. So, the gov't doesn't foot the bill for your job search, but it is possible to get a break.Keep in mind too that these politicians are in most cases ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THE GOV'T. We are paying them to do a job that they're NOT DOING WHILE THEY ARE OUT CAMPAIGNING.Its bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can agree with your comment "generally speaking" but specifically with concern to the joker illustration, I could not find one right wing outcry about it (prior to today), or left wing commentaries saying it went too far.I was 'generally speaking' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 fair enough joker, when you changing your avatar to the new obama one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Obama's not radical enough for me. I need an anarchist ..like myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.