The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2013, 01:24 PM   #26
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So in essence what you're saying is its never the pimps fault. They was just corrupted by their clients' money.
You got it backwards. The corp. Are the pimps & the pols are the hos
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 01:30 PM   #27
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Greenwald talks about your kind in there.
Funny how up until this point I'd bet good money you hated Greenwald the same way you hate Sullivan and Barro and Klein and anyone else who sometimes has a different viewpoint than yours. He can be far more of a drama queen than Sullivan. Were you even familiar with Greenwald before this issue?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 01:33 PM   #28
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Curious, cut and Beavis. I know you're desperate both to change the subject and to not agree with the likes of Elizabeth Warren on something, but do you really think corporate influence and power isn't an issue? Fine, you can think Prism is a bigger issue. But does that mean corporate influence somehow isn't one at all?

Last edited by TonyR; 06-16-2013 at 02:50 PM..
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 01:52 PM   #29
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,326

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So in essence what you're saying is its never the pimps fault. They was just corrupted by their clients' money.
Really? That's what you got from my post?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 02:01 PM   #30
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Curious, cut and Beavis. I know you're desperate both to change the subject and to not agree with the likes of Elizabeth Warren on something, but do you really not think corporate influence and power isn't an issue? Fine, you can think Prism is a bigger issue. But does that mean corporate influence somehow isn't one at all?
Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 02:01 PM   #31
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,504
Default

and yes i know she isn't running vs Gomez its just an example.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 02:31 PM   #32
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.
You're deflecting, answer the question. Is corporate influence an issue to you?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 02:32 PM   #33
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.
Is the position one that has a huge impact on fiscal policy, and that person who "lied" is an expert in finance?

Applicant 2. A Navy Seal doesn't necessarily know jack **** about fiscal policy.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 02:52 PM   #34
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.
Even if Elizabeth Warren is a serial killer that doesn't change the discussion of the issue she commented on and the subject of the thread. Stop focusing on who said it and focus on what was said.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 04:55 PM   #35
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,504
Default

Big deal she mentioned corp influence. The problem is she is untrustworthy and dems have showed once in office its business as usual. So we no longer want to sit and hear about how they are different. Instead lets focus on other issues where they are different. Like tax policy and how much money they want to spend.

Corp influence to me is no more a problem then union influence but you don't see her talking about that. What that tells me is she wants to attack her opponents funding and leave hers in place. Whats funny though is the corp give and influence whoever wins so its all moot. She is lying when she says she wants to do anything about it. Just like she lied about being a native American.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 09:05 PM   #36
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Funny how up until this point I'd bet good money you hated Greenwald the same way you hate Sullivan and Barro and Klein and anyone else who sometimes has a different viewpoint than yours. He can be far more of a drama queen than Sullivan. Were you even familiar with Greenwald before this issue?
Greenwald's been all over the President from pretty much the beginning for failing to live up to his promises.

Sully would call that being a Drama Queen. But fan club members would usually tend to see most rational people that way.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 09:09 PM   #37
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Really? That's what you got from my post?
A corruptible government will be corrupted.

Contrary to popular belief, giving the government more power will not make them less corruptable. Big money influence is a symptom, not the disease.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 04:16 AM   #38
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,504
Default

I do believe corp influence is an issue. But I don't think Elizabeth Warren cares about it. She is a liar and just happens to think womens issues, guns, and talking about corp influence is the way to get elected. She is like the characters on Team America.

Errr corp influence, wall street bankers, Repub attack on women and I AM AN INDIAN PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 08:06 AM   #39
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,326

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
A corruptible government will be corrupted.

Contrary to popular belief, giving the government more power will not make them less corruptable. Big money influence is a symptom, not the disease.
What exactly has this to do with public funded elections?

They would take the lobbyists out of the system of campaign financing (assuming campaign finance reform is part of the change) and put politicians back in the cross-hairs of voters.
Add election time limits....90-120 days is enough, add 'question time' to make the POTUS, and their policies, accountable and we have the semblance of a government that works.

While we're at it, get rid of the silliness of the archaic 'electoral colleges' and the mid terms should be changed to match the general elections, that would avoid the constant campaigning.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 08:10 AM   #40
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
What exactly has this to do with public funded elections?

They would take the lobbyists out of the system of campaign financing (assuming campaign finance reform is part of the change) and put politicians back in the cross-hairs of voters.
Add election time limits....90-120 days is enough, add 'question time' to make the POTUS, and their policies, accountable and we have the semblance of a government that works.

While we're at it, get rid of the silliness of the archaic 'electoral colleges' and the mid terms should be changed to match the general elections, that would avoid the constant campaigning.
OK so if you 'publicly' fund elections who decides who gets funded and who is essentially silenced?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 08:16 AM   #41
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,326

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
OK so if you 'publicly' fund elections who decides who gets funded and who is essentially silenced?
You need to research the meaning, you're way off the mark.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:12 AM   #42
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Greenwald's been all over the President from pretty much the beginning for failing to live up to his promises.
If you actually read Sullivan you'd know that while generally being a supporter he's slammed Obama multiple times. Just recently he criticized Obama on Syria. See below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...aves-on-syria/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:20 AM   #43
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
You need to research the meaning, you're way off the mark.
Educate me. There's generally a lot of window dressing, but the core point remains.

And don't forget, you can no longer rest on the old 'percent support in prior elections' or any kind of petition to qualify. It takes significant money just to get either one done. Meaning it would be next to impossible for an outsider to break in.

Unless it was with media backing, but that brings in a whole other set of favoritism and corporate/big money influence problems.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:27 AM   #44
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
If you actually read Sullivan you'd know that while generally being a supporter he's slammed Obama multiple times. Just recently he criticized Obama on Syria. See below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...aves-on-syria/
Yeah, Andrew picks something here and there that's mostly grey area that literally nobody cares about (see Syria).

He is a 'conservative' () after all. Street Cred must be fed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:30 AM   #45
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,326

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Educate me. There's generally a lot of window dressing, but the core point remains.

And don't forget, you can no longer rest on the old 'percent support in prior elections' or any kind of petition to qualify. It takes significant money just to get either one done. Meaning it would be next to impossible for an outsider to break in.

Unless it was with media backing, but that brings in a whole other set of favoritism and corporate/big money influence problems.
The opposite should be true.

To get you started, a decent summary of some of the benefits.

Some highlights from The Brennan Center for Justice.
Quote:
More than Combating Corruption: The Other Benefits of Public Financing

Public Financing Promotes More Contested and Competitive Elections

Few doubt that extraordinary Americans of ordinary means must have a meaningful ability to compete for elected office. Robust public funding programs open the door for qualified Americans who might not have personal wealth or high-powered connections by giving them the means to launch competitive campaigns. Several empirical studies confirm this conclusion.

A 2010 study by a University of Illinois professor found that, in each election since their public funding programs were implemented, both Maine and Arizona have enjoyed a general decline in races with unopposed incumbents. In other words, with public financing, elected officials in those states are increasingly more likely to face a challenger when they run for re-election. [7]

A 2008 study conducted by a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor similarly found that elections in Maine and Arizona between incumbents and publicly financed challengers are much more competitive than was true before public financing was adopted.[8] This finding confirms that public financing can provide newcomers with the ability to mount effective campaigns against incumbents.
Further underlining that public funding increases the likelihood an incumbent will have a competitive race, a team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found in a 2006 study looking at public financing in several states that public financing increases the pool of candidates willing and able to run for state legislative office. [9]

A 2008 study by the director of the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies and a Fordham University professor found that radio advertisements which mentioned both major party candidates and encouraged listeners to vote resulted in incumbents’ vote shares falling six to eight percentage points.[10] By allowing challengers to get their names out in front of voters, public financing causes elections to become more competitive than they otherwise would be.

A 2010 study conducted by graduate students at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service compared electoral data in Maine and Arizona with states that have no public financing. The study found that public financing meaningfully increased the likelihood that incumbents would face real competition.[11] Overall, Maine’s and Arizona’s legislative races were more contested and more competitive than those in comparable states.[12]

A study by a postdoctoral associate at Yale University concluded that public financing encourages experienced challengers within the incumbent party to run for open seats more often than they would without public financing.[13] Hence, public financing not only encourages more individuals to run, it also attracts high quality candidates.[14]

Consistent with these research findings, public financing is perceived as enhancing competition—both by candidates and the public. A Government Accountability Office study found that healthy percentages of candidates in states with public funding see it as a vehicle for spurring competition.[15] And a 2009 poll in North Carolina found that 85% of people surveyed agreed that “the high cost of campaigns means candidates must be good fundraisers to win—and the need to raise a lot of money keeps a lot of good people from serving in public office.”[16] As a recent New York Times story on Connecticut’s financing system put it, “For challengers, the appeal is obvious. Suddenly, they can have resources equal to an incumbent’s without hitting up major donors.”[17]


Worth reading.....
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysi...blic-financing
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:43 AM   #46
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, Andrew picks something here and there that's mostly grey area that literally nobody cares about (see Syria).

He is a 'conservative' () after all. Street Cred must be fed.
That's how you look at it from your biased perspective. I see it as him "siding with" Obama more than he "sides against" him, which of course automatically puts him on your non-approved list.

As for his "conservatism" if you truly understood what conservatism was instead of assuming it is what it has become you wouldn't be laughing about it.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:50 AM   #47
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
The opposite should be true.

To get you started, a decent summary of some of the benefits.

Some highlights from The Brennan Center for Justice.
With these you're comparing Apples and Horses. These programs don't lock out outside spending. Essentially, they're like the public funding we already have for Presidential candidates already today. There's just less big money competition for the public funding because there's little functional power to be bought in local elections (which is kinda my point)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:56 AM   #48
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
As for his "conservatism" if you truly understood what conservatism was instead of assuming it is what it has become you wouldn't be laughing about it.
Yes, I'm clearly missing the boat on John Kerry Conservatism.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 10:04 AM   #49
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,326

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
With these you're comparing Apples and Horses. These programs don't lock out outside spending. Essentially, they're like the public funding we already have for Presidential candidates already today. There's just less big money competition for the public funding because there's little functional power to be bought in local elections (which is kinda my point)
Explain how I'm comparing 'apples to horses'? Whatever you think that means.

I had already mentioned the need for campaign finance reform.

How about finding ways to make something work instead of just finding ways to say no while have nothing to contribute??

What have you got as an alternative to the blatant corruption??
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 10:09 AM   #50
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
What have you got as an alternative to the blatant corruption??
Making sure black people don't vote.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 AM.


Denver Broncos