U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Grizzly Willy]

Oblivion, is there any reason in particular that you are for Citizen's United? Is it an extension of the freedom of speech that you're in favor of? I ask because I have a hard time seeing why it would be necessary to keep, and I can see strong reasons to remove it. While corporate personhood makes legal actions between companies smoother, it threatens the political process by giving power to people that shouldn't have it.

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 02:30 PM ----------

http://i.imgur.com/1qGPs.jpg

Thought you guys might appreciate this. Hopefully it's alright with the mods.

Warning: Amusing pic, but meme-style images shouldn't be embedded directly on the forums. Just link it.

[Maleficus]

96,000 isn't great, but considering a few years ago the country was losing as much as 800,000 jobs/month, I wouldn't exactly call it a "train wreck".

The U3 rate dropped a bit which is a bit deceiving, but even by the more complete U6 standard the unemployment rate has been improving year-over-year under Obama once he stopped the jobs slide.

Admittedly things were definitely bad at that time, given the obstructionist Democrat congress that was in since 2006, but i think the -368,000 people that just gave up is a more telling number than the +96,000 jobs added. Regarding the jobs slide, that would have stopped regardless.

Obama: "Well...it looks like those shovel ready jobs weren't as...uh...*chuckle chuckle*...shovel ready as we thought."
Zombies: "hahahHAHAHa" "Oh, he'ssss ssssooooooo funny!"

[Wells]

obstructionist Democrat congress that was in since 2006

Go on.....

[oblivionx]

Oblivion, is there any reason in particular that you are for Citizen's United? Is it an extension of the freedom of speech that you're in favor of? I ask because I have a hard time seeing why it would be necessary to keep, and I can see strong reasons to remove it. While corporate personhood makes legal actions between companies smoother, it threatens the political process by giving power to people that shouldn't have it.

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 02:30 PM ----------

http://i.imgur.com/1qGPs.jpg

Thought you guys might appreciate this. Hopefully it's alright with the mods.

Warning: Amusing pic, but meme-style images shouldn't be embedded directly on the forums. Just link it.

You're taking the hook to bone with the democrats mischaracterization of it.

It's a wickerman sized strawman they have created.

[Grizzly Willy]

You're taking the hook to bone with the democrats mischaracterization of it.

It's a wickerman sized strawman they have created.

What are you referring to? I'm not sure where I fell into a logical fallacy there.

[psdew1813]

I don't bother replying to certain people. Mostly because with some I can't see their posts because I went to profile and chose ignore, which is something quite a few could do to me to solve your "issues" if you choose.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. so I'm on the ignore list? wow, just goes to show that when challenged it's easier to pretend the guy doesn't exist rather than engage in actual discussion for some people. sad sad world to live in.

[ptwonline]

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. so I'm on the ignore list? wow, just goes to show that when challenged it's easier to pretend the guy doesn't exist rather than engage in actual discussion for some people. sad sad world to live in.

I have a few people on ignore, though not many. Not because we disagree (for example I don't ignore Dacien and we have disgreed for hundred of pages) or because I did not have responses for them, but because some people made it clear they weren't actually interest in a rational or even remotely honest discussion at all. I'm not allowed to call them what I think they are, but let's just say they live under a particular type of engineered transportation structure.

There are even a couple of posters on the last couple of pages that I have on ignore, and I am much happier for it. Sometimes I see their posts because others quote them, and I see that I am not really missing anything important anyway. I don't know why some people keep to keep replying to them.

[oblivionx]

What are you referring to? I'm not sure where I fell into a logical fallacy there.

Citizens United isn't nearly the boogieman it's being made out to be. Furthermore it allows unions to "advertise" which I've seen lots and lots of.

So it's ok for unions, but not corporations?

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 09:34 PM ----------

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. so I'm on the ignore list? wow, just goes to show that when challenged it's easier to pretend the guy doesn't exist rather than engage in actual discussion for some people. sad sad world to live in.

I think your sense of self is a little delusional.

[Wells]

You still haven't answered the question why you support Citizen's United. You also don't seem to understand what it meant. Unions could already run advertisements. What the ruling did was remove most of the restrictions on donations and spending and deregulated Super PACs.

[Grizzly Willy]

Citizens United isn't nearly the boogieman it's being made out to be. Furthermore it allows unions to "advertise" which I've seen lots and lots of.

So it's ok for unions, but not corporations?

I have never supported unions being able to advertise. At every point I've said that I want corporations and unions out.

[oblivionx]

I have never supported unions being able to advertise. At every point I've said that I want corporations and unions out.

Also you have the whole "unlimited donations" line of manure.

It doesn't allow for it at all...

[Wells]

Also you have the whole "unlimited donations" line of manure.

It doesn't allow for it at all...

It allows for unlimited anonymous donations to Super PACs. For someone who supports it you don't seem to understand it, which I suppose makes sense.

[ptwonline]

It allows for unlimited anonymous donations to Super PACs. For someone who supports it you don't seem to understand it, which I suppose makes sense.

Technically it is limited donations: limited by the amount of money that is in existence.

[oblivionx]

Technically it is limited donations: limited by the amount of money that is in existence.

It allows them to spend as much as they want on advertising as long as it doesn't go to the actual campaign.

It's what made PAC's possible.

It doesn't go into the party coffers at all.

[Wells]

It's what made PAC's possible.

PACs have been around forever.

It allows them to spend as much as they want on advertising as long as it doesn't go to the actual campaign.

yeah and that's a huge problem.

I honestly don't think you know much about Citizen's United or PACs

[psdew1813]

I think your sense of self is a little delusional.

i simply reached that conclusion when i asked you directly to a question and you didn't answer it, until someone else posted the same question, coupled with that part where you put people on ignore, pardon me for using deductive reasoning.

[Grizzly Willy]

It allows them to spend as much as they want on advertising as long as it doesn't go to the actual campaign.

It's what made PAC's possible.

It doesn't go into the party coffers at all.

That's not really what I'm concerned about. The candidates should be doing the advertising, and they should be bound by law to tell the truth and verified by a disinterested party. The political process needs honesty more than anything, and I really don't see that happening with the system we have now.

[belfpala]

My head hurts just reading the last page of this thread.

[oblivionx]

i simply reached that conclusion when i asked you directly to a question and you didn't answer it, until someone else posted the same question, coupled with that part where you put people on ignore, pardon me for using deductive reasoning.

Take this as you may, but if you are trolling it's pretty unlikely I even read what you said... let alone reply.

---------- Post added 2012-09-08 at 12:38 AM ----------

That's not really what I'm concerned about. The candidates should be doing the advertising, and they should be bound by law to tell the truth and verified by a disinterested party. The political process needs honesty more than anything, and I really don't see that happening with the system we have now.

Blame Michael Moore.

He started the whole mess.

[Wells]

Still hoping you can explain why you support Citizen's United.

Take this as you may, but if you are trolling it's pretty unlikely I even read what you said

How would you know he's trolling then?