(05-19-2015 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Eagle?

"This thread isn't about Republicans"

(05-19-2015 11:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Eagle?

"This thread isn't about Republicans"

You're right...it's about Capitalism. Now which party is in love with that?

(05-19-2015 11:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 11:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Eagle?

"This thread isn't about Republicans"

You're right...it's about Capitalism. Now which party is in love with that?

It appears that both are. Obviously. The Democrats have many many millionaire and billionaire capitalist scumbag donors.

(05-19-2015 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Eagle?

I have no problem with people who make millions of dollars. I have no problem with people who have figured out how to make millions of dollars easily!

I have no problem with big corporations making billions of dollars. I have no problem with big corporations spending that money as they see fit, even if it means making large campaign donations. People are free to use their money as they see fit, and even if I disagree with how someone else spends their money, I support their liberty do control their own wealth.

Okay, with that disclaimer out of the way, I want to talk about something very serious: the Clinton cash machine.

Bank of America doesn’t need Bill Clinton to come and motivate their employees. What they do need, however, is influence and access at the highest levels of government. What the Clintons have set up is an easy way for people to buy that access and influence without running afoul of campaign finance laws.

Again, I don’t even want to give the impression that I support tighter campaign finance laws or even the current ones. What I do favor, however, is transparency for government officials and those seeking the highest office in the land. Without transparency, voters cannot make informed decisions, and with transparency, the Clintons could never successfully operate.

But here’s the real bottom line: what we actually need is not more campaign finance laws or more disclosure laws. What we really need is a government that strictly follows the Constitution. A government bound by the Constitutional cannot unequally favor one corporation over another. Limited, Constitutional government cannot, by its very nature, play along with crony-capitalism.

If we truly had a limited, Constitutionally-bound Federal government, anyone could give money to anyone else, and there wouldn’t be a problem because the Federal government officials wouldn’t have the ability or authority to sell influence and power in the first place.

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe
1. Is this illegal?

Yes. Can guilt be proved to the level required for a criminal conviction? Probably not.

Quote:2. Do Republicans do this also?

On some level? Yes. This blatantly? No, and neither do most democrats.

Quote:3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Preferably, yes. Practically, probably can't be done. Full disclosure is probably doable, and would be a good thing.

(05-19-2015 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Actually we could solve a lot with just full disclosure. They should be like NASCAR with patches. That would solve a ton.

Mach, would you vote to eliminate union political contributions?

Unless your answer is yes, you are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Liberal loonies dont talk out of both sides of their mouth. They are simply blowing it out of their ass......

Unions are dead.

(05-19-2015 01:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Unions are dead.

They won't be dead until literally every single manufacturing job is moved off-shore. Then their mission will be completed.

(05-19-2015 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mach, would you vote to eliminate union political contributions?

(05-19-2015 01:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Unions are dead.

So is that a "yes" or a "no" to my question.

Yes. Especially in a grand bargain deal.

(05-19-2015 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes. Especially in a grand bargain deal.

Fair enough.

My grand bargain would be individuals only, with every contribution required to be posted on the Internet within 10 minutes of receipt.

Reporter To Hillary: ‘How Do You Expect Americans To Relate To You’ If You’re In 1 Percent?

This is going to be so much fun....

At least Romney built a company and employed people. The Clintons just take cash and sell out the U.S.

(05-19-2015 05:01 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  At least Romney built a company and employed people. The Clintons just take cash and sell out the U.S.

Therein lies the tale.

Used to be, we respected those who built companies and employed people to make things that people wanted. Now society honors those who do nothing useful.

Good for them. I have no problem with this.

(05-19-2015 08:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good for them. I have no problem with this.

No problem with the Clintons accepting speaking fees (that were well above the going rate) from groups that had business with the Department of State?

Ok.

Don’t Go In The Water! You May Never Ask Hillary A Question Again…

(05-19-2015 09:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good for them. I have no problem with this.

No problem with the Clintons accepting speaking fees (that were well above the going rate) from groups that had business with the Department of State?

Ok.

Nope. What people contract to do and get paid for the fruits of their labor as long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...is none of my business. I don't have to like it. I just have to allow it. At this point I do not see that principle has been violated. If proven otherwise? My opinion would of course change.

(05-19-2015 05:01 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Clintons just take cash and sell out the U.S.

Explain please. Thanks.

I really don't have a problem with this.

My only problem is how remarkably hypocritical the liberal shills are when trying to single out Republicans as the party who receives tons of money from corporate America. It's a baseless, stupid claim.



Source: CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/o...donations/