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 05-08-2014, 09:42 AM   #26
BroncsRule
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwheelz View Post
Uh, actually there is.
Nope. Wrong.

You cite Article 5, which describes the existent process for amending the Constitution. It requires action by both houses of Congress first.

The folks in Vermont are calling for a new Constitutional Convention (i.e. not waiting for Congress to get the ball rolling, which they will never do).

Completely, totally extra-Constitutional.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:53 AM   #27
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Nope. Wrong.

You cite Article 5, which describes the existent process for amending the Constitution. It requires action by both houses of Congress first.

The folks in Vermont are calling for a new Constitutional Convention (i.e. not waiting for Congress to get the ball rolling, which they will never do).

Completely, totally extra-Constitutional.
No, there's a state-based avenue as well. It's just never been used.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Quote:
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:19 PM   #28
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
So you think millionaires and billionaires are more important than working people.

I think they CAN be more important depending on the context

ONE PERSON, Kept Newt Gingrinch in the Republican Primary race in 2012... ONE ****ING PERSON. That isn't democracy, that is an Oligarchy where every rich person can own his very own politician and if he is lucky that guy can be President. Newt was a b;le to spend weeks hammering Romney, forcing Romney to go further right and he quite possibly cost Romney the election; well, him and his billion dollar sugar daddy.

Romney and Newt didn't win anything negating your premise in the next paragraph. Newt and Mit's ideas lost them the election

AND YOU can't get around it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." - James Madison





Take the money out of politics. Lets have a system on ideas, skill, tact. Obama and Romney were the first guys to spend a billion dollars to get elected.... That is shameful and embarrassing. Let's stop the madness.
If they both had money to do what they needed to do and conduct their campaigns. What are you complaining about in a presidential election?
in bold
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:20 PM   #29
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappys View Post
So you are in favor of allowing unlimited personal contributions but not through the game of 501c corporations?
Yes. That's not to say that business should be excluded from the table of Government. So how do we maintain liberty, good business interaction with government, and protect the process?
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 04:07 PM   #30
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwheelz View Post
We have resolutions in 10 other states, including California, where it already passed the house and is headed to the senate. Our group is coordinating this nationwide.
Good luck with that. In Calif the liberals lost their super majority and now need Repubs to pass anything. So right there you have a wrench. They lost supermajority because 1 dem legilsator went down for gun running, 2 others for being thieves and stealing campaign fund lol.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:01 PM   #31
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Nope. Wrong.

You cite Article 5, which describes the existent process for amending the Constitution. It requires action by both houses of Congress first.

The folks in Vermont are calling for a new Constitutional Convention (i.e. not waiting for Congress to get the ball rolling, which they will never do).

Completely, totally extra-Constitutional.
Read it again. 2/3rds of the state call a convention and 3/4ths ratify the amendment, don't need congress.

Cut, this isn't a left vs. right issue. We want neither unions nor corporations buying our representatives. We want anyone, regardless of wealth and status to be able to run and have an equal chance of winning. We believe that only then will we have a true marketplace of ideas where the best ideas win, not the ones with the most money behind them. You're more than welcome to join us.

In fact, our resolution in Texas was introduced by a Republican legislator.
Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 12:36 AM   #32
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

It's un-american to tell someone they can't spend money to try and get someone elected. We just need to make sure we prosecute graft instead of letting politicians off so easy when they **** up.

Also I am fine with a law that says every meeting an elected politician has with a lobbyist has to be recorded and available for public oversight.

Transparency is the answer, not stupid laws trying to make something fair by taking the money out of it.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 03:03 AM   #33
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
It's un-american to tell someone they can't spend money to try and get someone elected. We just need to make sure we prosecute graft instead of letting politicians off so easy when they **** up.

Also I am fine with a law that says every meeting an elected politician has with a lobbyist has to be recorded and available for public oversight.

Transparency is the answer, not stupid laws trying to make something fair by taking the money out of it.
Just like it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, it should be illegal to give massive amounts of money to politicians. I could give you a laundry list of examples where a corporation or union gave money to a politician and then got preferential treatment, whether it be in the form of a lucrative government contract or pushing for a bill that would benefit them. Not to mention the revolving door that exists between the private sector and government.

If you think that those "donations" don't corrupt our representatives, then I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that a distant relative of yours died and asked me to give you $1,000,000. I just need you to wire me $10,000. For reasons.
Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 05:22 AM   #34
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Why do people get Corporation status? There is where the answer is.
Originally it was a temporary status to assist the public. Shielding private investors from liability was one of the ways to raise more money for public projects.
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 05:44 AM   #35
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwheelz View Post
Just like it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, it should be illegal to give massive amounts of money to politicians. I could give you a laundry list of examples where a corporation or union gave money to a politician and then got preferential treatment, whether it be in the form of a lucrative government contract or pushing for a bill that would benefit them. Not to mention the revolving door that exists between the private sector and government.

If you think that those "donations" don't corrupt our representatives, then I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that a distant relative of yours died and asked me to give you $1,000,000. I just need you to wire me $10,000. For reasons.
So short-sighted. Who controls the power of corporate media in this shell game? What happens when all the monied interests you think you can lock out start investing in media to tell their side of the story? You gonna clamp down on the press as well?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 06:21 AM   #36
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,638
Default

Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded. Corporate licenses were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose. The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved. State courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public. Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders. Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located. Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice). Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately. Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose. Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect. Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes. All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 07:25 AM   #37
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded. Corporate licenses were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose. The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved. State courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public. Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders. Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located. Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice). Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately. Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose. Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect. Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes. All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
When exactly was this golden age of the Yoked Corporation?

Seems like since pretty early on in our nation's history, Corporations and/or big monied interests were happily buying votes/legislators/bureaucrats.

And it takes a truly boundless faith to believe that our sitting government and bureaucracy would simply straighten itself out with tightly-restricted outside influence. In reality it would only amplify their power, and by logical extension, corruption.

Imagine a world where the only approved channels of information become the government itself or a tightly-monitored and government-approved clique of first amendment-privileged "Press"

Our government was founded under the principle of separation of powers. Not because they believed benevolent powers would overcome sinister ones. But because they believed even sinister powers struggling against each other for power was better than a unified bureaucratic power wrestling with its subjects (the people) over it.

Freedom of speech and press are foundational to this very construction.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 08:43 AM   #38
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Instead of futzing with campaign finance, which is a symptom of a bigger problem....


why not just drastically reduce the power and scope of Federal Power? first and foremost, eliminate the primary reason for money and influence, tax treatment. Go Flat or Fair Tax, that would castrate almost all politicians, making the job and the money to influnce those in the job wayyyy less attractive.


Seems pretty simple. There are numerous other places to start pulling power, we just need to get started.
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 08:52 AM   #39
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Instead of futzing with campaign finance, which is a symptom of a bigger problem....


why not just drastically reduce the power and scope of Federal Power? first and foremost, eliminate the primary reason for money and influence, tax treatment. Go Flat or Fair Tax, that would castrate almost all politicians, making the job and the money to influnce those in the job wayyyy less attractive.


Seems pretty simple. There are numerous other places to start pulling power, we just need to get started.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 09:41 AM   #40
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Instead of futzing with campaign finance, which is a symptom of a bigger problem....


why not just drastically reduce the power and scope of Federal Power? first and foremost, eliminate the primary reason for money and influence, tax treatment. Go Flat or Fair Tax, that would castrate almost all politicians, making the job and the money to influnce those in the job wayyyy less attractive.


Seems pretty simple. There are numerous other places to start pulling power, we just need to get started.
Amen
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 11:35 AM   #41
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,643

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Ross Perot kept himself in a race. As could Bloomberg if he so chose (when he's not busy dropping tens of millions on liberal causes)

You can't take money out of politics so long as politics=power. The only thing you'll accomplish is hiding the money. And underground money always requires an additional ransom as well. Only making things even worse.
Ok if a rich person wants to back himself in his own election that is fine. We all know where his money is coming from. These super pacs take in billions from all sorts of places. There was concerns Romney had gotten a significant amount of money from outside the U.S. (not Romney's fault mind you) That is just horrible.

Supreme Court has put this country on the road to ruin. Nice to see Vermont and other states not going down without a fight.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 12:14 PM   #42
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,438

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Actually, we never figured out how much money Romney had hidden offshore in his wife's name.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 12:25 PM   #43
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Romney got smeared for being rich. He should have just said he was gay then he would have been off limits and countered the say anything about Obama and your a racist card.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 12:32 PM   #44
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
Ok if a rich person wants to back himself in his own election that is fine. We all know where his money is coming from. These super pacs take in billions from all sorts of places. There was concerns Romney had gotten a significant amount of money from outside the U.S. (not Romney's fault mind you) That is just horrible.

Supreme Court has put this country on the road to ruin. Nice to see Vermont and other states not going down without a fight.
Sorry, but allow Billionaires to run for office on their own dime, and your artificial corporate wall becomes meaningless. No, Berkshire Hathaway can't run for President. But they have a guy who can, and with little functional difference.

Same with Bloomberg or Gates or any others on the laundry list. No, they're not corporations. But they may as well be.

Under your new system. you'll have the rich (already corporate elites) buying speech directly. And competing with or enlisting media corps like NBC/Universal, Viacom, Fox, Disney, etc etc to fill in the gaps.

Now the little guy really has no voice. Even if he wants to chip in his $50 to the NRA or AFSCME, we're going to lock those guys out completely. And his $50 by itself is essentially worthless.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 01:12 PM   #45
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,438

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Romney got smeared for being rich. He should have just said he was gay then he would have been off limits and countered the say anything about Obama and your a racist card.
He got smeared for cannibalizing perfectly sound companies, liquefying their assets, firing all their employees, and then walking off with pockets full of cash. He made his living as a parasite.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 01:23 PM   #46
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

What do you think of Jeb Bush Rho?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 01:59 PM   #47
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Imagine a world where the only approved channels of information become the government itself or a tightly-monitored and government-approved clique of first amendment-privileged "Press"
That should not be applied to individuals. Corporations should not be treated as our equals, let alone our superiors. We don't have to choose to be ruled by either big government or big business. We had laws in place that prevented either from growing too big. The laws gradually changed over time unnoticed like a frog in a pot of cool water that gradually heats up until it boils to death.
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 03:16 PM   #48
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,438

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
What do you think of Jeb Bush Rho?
Is our country so bereft of talent that all we can come up with are Bushes or Clintons? It's like the American Idol of hell. I'll be backing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, depending who runs.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 03:27 PM   #49
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
That should not be applied to individuals. Corporations should not be treated as our equals,
Believe me, they won't be. Disney, Viacom, and Fox's voices will only be amplified. GE will probably get back into the media game. Hell Exxon might as well start a cable channel.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 03:31 PM   #50
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Is our country so bereft of talent that all we can come up with are Bushes or Clintons? It's like the American Idol of hell. I'll be backing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, depending who runs.
Sweet. Breaking new ground. Either we get our first Socialist President or our first Fake Native American President.

Much better than someone's Wife or Brother.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Denver Broncos