Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[Neally]

Translation; If enough people want it, they will kick the GOP to the street and we'll never hear from those troglodytes again. Because 100% of the GOP leadership is 100% against any sort of limitation on financing whatsoever.

You missed or are ignoring the part where I mentioned "regardless of party affiliation". If there's one thing that's true of any politician, it's that they want to get elected and stay elected, more so than party politics. Again if the people want it, the politicians will provide it.

 

[WildCat]

But the point is that the GOP would never allow this to happen as long as they have one more Senator than is required to filibuster.

And you cannot deny that.

What evidence do you have that the GOP would filibuster it?

 

[WildCat]

Translation; If enough people want it, they will kick the GOP to the street and we'll never hear from those troglodytes again. Because 100% of the GOP leadership is 100% against any sort of limitation on financing whatsoever.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. There is no evidence presented either way.

Have the Dems introduced a bill?

 

[Ziggurat]

No it's obviously true. The GOP will never allow ANYTHING that democrats want. Henceforth there is going to be no compromise. This will result in the destruction of the country or the destruction of the GOP, whichever happens first.

You know that this makes you sound crazy, right?

I mean, not only did your position depend upon "evidence" that you refuse to present, but now you've ventured into territory that is explicitly falsified by events. There have in fact been bills passed by Congress with majority support from both parties. Hell, they're not even hard to find.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/

Take a step back and chill, because you're losing perspective. Badly.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Tell me you don't think that would happen?

We could find out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/congressional-democrats-corporate-disclosure_n_897404.html

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/24/nation/la-na-disclose-act-20100924

Disclose act fails because of Republican opposition.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/senate-republicans-again-block.html

Repeatedly.

 

[BenBurch]

Thanks, Ken.

 

[WildCat]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/24/nation/la-na-disclose-act-20100924

Disclose act fails because of Republican opposition.

Perhaps if it was limited to just requiriung disclosure it would have passed. Instead, it was loaded with obviously unconstitutional provisions like:
Sec. 101. Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.

And many more.

To recap: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps if the Dems proposed a fix that didn't violate the 1st Amendment we could get something passed?

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, it is just SO ethical for government contractors who directly benefit from contract awards to spend money earned from doing public contracts to elect men who will give them more contracts.

That is the road to a transparent government.

Transparently corrupt.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, it is just SO ethical for government contractors who directly benefit from contract awards to spend money earned from doing public contracts to elect men who will give them more contracts.

That is the road to a transparent government.

Transparently corrupt.

The Dems could easily have written a bill aimed at increasing transparency, instead they wrote an obviously unconstitutional bill that abridged freedom of speech, and not just any speech but political speech.

They passed an unconstitutional speech ban bill, and named it the "Disclose Act". This may fool the rubes like you and ken but I actually looked up the bill and read it.

 

[BenBurch]

So, you have no problem with bribery and kickbacks? You think the Shakman Decree was a bad thing?

 

[000063]

I'm not sure what Ben is talking about, but I'm pretty sure he's setting up a straw man and/or false dilemma again.

 

[WildCat]

So, you have no problem with bribery and kickbacks? You think the Shakman Decree was a bad thing?

Non sequitur.

 

[000063]

I owe myself 5 bucks.

 

[stokes234]

Perhaps if it was limited to just requiriung disclosure it would have passed. Instead, it was loaded with obviously unconstitutional provisions like:
Sec. 101. Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.

And many more.

For the laypeople here, could you explain the implications of the section of the proposal you quote, and perhaps elaborate on the idea that this Disclosure bill would have limited free speech?

 

[WildCat]

For the laypeople here, could you explain the implications of the section of the proposal you quote, and perhaps elaborate on the idea that this Disclosure bill would have limited free speech?

It's really quite simple.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Disclose Act: a bill which abridges the freedom of speech and abridges freedom of the press.

 

[stokes234]

It's really quite simple.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Disclose Act: a bill which abridges the freedom of speech and abridges freedom of the press.

Well, that's a restatement of the claim, but not an elaboration. In what way does the "Disclose Act" abridge freedom of speech? Does it abridge it by, say, telling people from x background or job that they can't speak freely on x subject?

 

[WildCat]

Well, that's a restatement of the claim, but not an elaboration. In what way does the "Disclose Act" abridge freedom of speech? Does it abridge it by, say, telling people from x background or job that they can't speak freely on x subject?

You're asking me how a law that abridges freedom of speech violates the 1st Amendment?

I have no idea why you're so confused. This is like asking me why 2+2=4.

 

[AlBell]

Well, that's a restatement of the claim, but not an elaboration. In what way does the "Disclose Act" abridge freedom of speech? Does it abridge it by, say, telling people from x background or job that they can't speak freely on x subject?

Prohibiting government contractors from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

You do understand it, then.

 

[BenBurch]

You're not making any sense.