They said what?

[Mr Mike]

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
--John Adams--

Consider it altered.
Let's just hope it's not 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
New winds are blowing, let's just hope they can blow away the stench buildup from the last 8 years.
I was tired of chewing on that glass, it's like I can breathe again.
Every so often this country just needs to clean house. Between 1837 and 1901, only one President, US Grant, was elected to and served 2 full consecutive terms. The others were either turned out, assassinated, or died in office (Grover Cleveland served two full non-consecutive terms).
Now that is some PEOPLE POWER, that other countries only wish they could have.

 

[PLC1]

It is not altered yet, not until we are willing to make some fundamental changes to the way our leaders are elected, not until we change Congress as well, not until the voters begin to talk louder than the money, and not until the average American begins to pay attention to issues, rather than sound bytes.

But, it is a start at least.

 

[Andy]

What money specifically?

 

[PLC1]

What money specifically?

How about the money that gets paid to a candidate's campaign by entities that stand to benefit from legislation that said candidate might pass? Money that gets spent on thirty second sound bytes that serve no purpose other than to elicit an emotional response, sell half truths and outright lies, or smear an opposing politician?

Let' start with that money.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
--John Adams--

That same guy signed a document that said something quite different.

To paraphrase: "Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights. And when government becomes destructive to that purpose, it's the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it."

Not to achieve and "common good" or "prosperity". Government was to have no active part in creating those things. It was only supposed to protect your (and my) right to try to achieve them yourself.

But you were right about one thing: Boy, has government ever been altered from the one John signed that document for.

 

[samsara15]

Second terms have not been kind of any sitting President since Ike. Second terms have provided a chance to ruin one's reputation, but no politician can resist the temptation.

 

[PLC1]

Second terms have not been kind of any sitting President since Ike. Second terms have provided a chance to ruin one's reputation, but no politician can resist the temptation.

Didn't Reagan serve two terms?

It seems to me that he left with a pretty good reputation, didn't he?

 

[Andy]

How about the money that gets paid to a candidate's campaign by entities that stand to benefit from legislation that said candidate might pass? Money that gets spent on thirty second sound bytes that serve no purpose other than to elicit an emotional response, sell half truths and outright lies, or smear an opposing politician?

Let' start with that money.

But the problem is you and I differ on which of those 30 second sound bytes are half truths and outright lies.

Further, some of those campaign entities that stand to benefit are things I benefit or support. For example I have donated to the NRA because they lobby congress in favor of second amendment rights. I support NTU (national taxpayers union), which lobbies congress in favor of reducing taxes whenever possible.

See here's the problem. While you think you are going to limit money, which will allow the public to speak, in fact you are limiting the public to speak in favor of money.

Why? Because politicians and money will always go together. If they can't do it legally, then they'll do it illegally. If Clinton taught us anything, it's that money will find it's way to politicians, and politicians will find their way to money.

So who will be hindered and stopped by preventing money? Us. The public will. We don't have enough pull and enough cash to do it the illegal way. So our voice will be ignored, and the money speaking in back rooms will do the talking.

At least under an open system, we'll be able to support groups that speak to government for us.

 

[Sihouette]

2/3 of our nation's problems could be eased if lobbying was made illegal.

What money specifically?

BigOil, BigInsurance, BigPharmaceuticals...the three bastard children of capitalism coupling with amorality. The three that are killing our nation, literally..

And they have like a hundred other little cousins aspiring to be like them some day..

 

[samsara15]

Corporations and goverments make poor bedmates, but they have been bedmates for a long time, and they will not easily be pulled apart. There have been many efforts to pull the fangs of lobbying and campaign financing, all foiled.

Reagan barely escaped being impeached due to the Iran-Contra affair, and if were not for the skillfull lying done by Poindexter and Ollie North, Reagan would have been impeached. His popularity ratings were not very good when he left office, either.

 

[Sihouette]

Oh I don't know about that. Something tells me that a person with morality might pull the two apart. Easily done. Ban lobbying... Actual bribery is already illegal.

One swift stroke, problem solved.

 

[PLC1]

But the problem is you and I differ on which of those 30 second sound bytes are half truths and outright lies.

All of them are either half truths or outright lies.

Further, some of those campaign entities that stand to benefit are things I benefit or support. For example I have donated to the NRA because they lobby congress in favor of second amendment rights. I support NTU (national taxpayers union), which lobbies congress in favor of reducing taxes whenever possible.

See here's the problem. While you think you are going to limit money, which will allow the public to speak, in fact you are limiting the public to speak in favor of money.

Why? Because politicians and money will always go together. If they can't do it legally, then they'll do it illegally. If Clinton taught us anything, it's that money will find it's way to politicians, and politicians will find their way to money.

So who will be hindered and stopped by preventing money? Us. The public will. We don't have enough pull and enough cash to do it the illegal way. So our voice will be ignored, and the money speaking in back rooms will do the talking.

At least under an open system, we'll be able to support groups that speak to government for us.

So, the only way we can make our voices heard is through legalized bribery? No, there must be a better way.

 

[Andy]

All of them are either half truths or outright lies.

All of them? Really... Wow, you are more pessimistic than I am!

Alright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IcnYWGSSE

In this video, they document a half dozen gang related murders in the Chicago area that happened during 2001. Then the ad claims that Obama voted against allowing the death penalty for gang member who murdered for their gang.

The question is asked, if he's weak on gang violence, how can we trust him to be tough on terrorism?

The question is of course opinion based, so I'll skip that. Everyone will answer that according to their own opinion.

So let's look at the evidence. The murder details can be looked up from the Sun-times, so clearly they are true.

As to Obama being in the Ill. State Senate, wiki verifies he was in the Ill Senate from 1997 to 2004.

CBS verifies that he did in fact vote against capital punishment for gang related murders. And that he voted against it the very year they had so many gang related violence.

So, if you can please tell me which of these was half-truths and outright lies?

So, the only way we can make our voices heard is through legalized bribery? No, there must be a better way.

This is the fundamental difference between right and left thinking. Left-ist generally hold out for a solution. Like there's is this big fix-it somewhere, and we just have to find it. If we pass enough laws, enough regulations and restrictions, if we just find that magical mystical universal band-aid, then we can eliminate all problems.

The right side of politics, accepts that there will be problems, and seeks the best possible compromise.

We understand that money will flow to politics. It's inevitable.

Well obviously there are negative forces that wish to push politics one way. Also there are positive forces that want to push another way.

If we install limits and restraints on the industry, clearly those who are good will follow the law and be restrained. The opposite may not.

It's the same thing with gun control laws. Who's going to obey a gun control law? Law abiding citizens. Who isn't? Those who are not law-abiding to begin with. Result? The citizens are disarmed in the face of an armed criminal element.

Similarly, restraints on monetary political speech, will simply allow the unscrupulous to control politics.

The better compromise is to have open monetary political speech. This allows us to see who is taking money from who, because it will be open for all to see. It also allows us to support groups that will lobby congress on our behalf, instead of having no voice at all.

 

[Andy]

Oh I don't know about that. Something tells me that a person with morality might pull the two apart. Easily done. Ban lobbying... Actual bribery is already illegal.

One swift stroke, problem solved.

Yet there were dozens of illegal lobbying and bribery done during the Clinton years. Remember the illegal phone calls from Al Gore's office? Or the Buddist monks that gave millions, even though they supposedly were vowed to be poor?

Point is, this will simply prevent all of the public to lobby congress on their behalf, but the illegal lobbying will continue as it always has.

It's like cutting off your own voice. Why do you think that will help?

 

[PLC1]

All of them? Really... Wow, you are more pessimistic than I am!

Alright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IcnYWGSSE

In this video, they document a half dozen gang related murders in the Chicago area that happened during 2001. Then the ad claims that Obama voted against allowing the death penalty for gang member who murdered for their gang.

The question is asked, if he's weak on gang violence, how can we trust him to be tough on terrorism?

The question is of course opinion based, so I'll skip that. Everyone will answer that according to their own opinion.

So let's look at the evidence. The murder details can be looked up from the Sun-times, so clearly they are true.

As to Obama being in the Ill. State Senate, wiki verifies he was in the Ill Senate from 1997 to 2004.

CBS verifies that he did in fact vote against capital punishment for gang related murders. And that he voted against it the very year they had so many gang related violence.

So, if you can please tell me which of these was half-truths and outright lies?



This is the fundamental difference between right and left thinking. Left-ist generally hold out for a solution. Like there's is this big fix-it somewhere, and we just have to find it. If we pass enough laws, enough regulations and restrictions, if we just find that magical mystical universal band-aid, then we can eliminate all problems.

The right side of politics, accepts that there will be problems, and seeks the best possible compromise.

We understand that money will flow to politics. It's inevitable.

Well obviously there are negative forces that wish to push politics one way. Also there are positive forces that want to push another way.

If we install limits and restraints on the industry, clearly those who are good will follow the law and be restrained. The opposite may not.

It's the same thing with gun control laws. Who's going to obey a gun control law? Law abiding citizens. Who isn't? Those who are not law-abiding to begin with. Result? The citizens are disarmed in the face of an armed criminal element.

Similarly, restraints on monetary political speech, will simply allow the unscrupulous to control politics.

The better compromise is to have open monetary political speech. This allows us to see who is taking money from who, because it will be open for all to see. It also allows us to support groups that will lobby congress on our behalf, instead of having no voice at all.

Your ad is exactly the kind of thing that is paid for by legalized bribes, otherwise known as campaign contributions, to mislead the voters. It is, as most ads are, a great example of using half truths and emotional advertising to sway voters who don't think for themselves. Voting against the death penalty makes him weak on terrorism? There is no connect there, as the maker of the ad well knows. The best question to be asked is not, did Obama vote against the death penalty, or even why did he do so, but who paid for the ad, and what do they expect in return?

You and I don't have a voice based on contributions, as we, well I at least, don't have enough money for even one advertising campaign.

Wouldn't it be much more informative to the voters for the politicians in question to have a debate on the subject of the death penalty? Such a debate wouldn't sway people who are adamantly for or against, but those in the middle would at least have a reason for their stance, and everyone would know the reasons why one pol or the other voted for or against.

And, of course, the sheeple who depend on worthless sound bytes to form their political opinions wouldn't listen to a debate, anyway. Their reaction, no doubt would be this.

How anyone could inform such people is an open question, but misinforming them via sound bytes is not helping the democratic process.