No More Campaign Funding Limits for Corporations

2010-01-28 10:07:21

#51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:
foreign interests holding larges shares of domestic corporations.

Doesn't make them the owner or grant them any rights. You're really getting carried away with the conspiracy theories on this one. Gonna start calling you ATG

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 10:09:08

#52

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

That's the last person you want to call him.

2010-01-28 10:09:42

#53

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.

Tu Stultus Es

2010-01-28 10:09:57

#54

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

ATG hates gays llololololol.

I don't see how ATG can be racist, his wife is mexican =/

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-01-28 10:12:48

#55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:
not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.

No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 16:22:23

#56

13rin: Member; +977|6765

JohnG@lt wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.
No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.

I tend to agree. The money will find a way to make it into the canidates account regardless. I'm anxious to see how fast it is used as a political weapon. ie -Look a Dick over there with is 500 million campaign contribution from Haliburton....

Giving business owners their free speech back is a good thing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Constitution, therefore a Marxist like Ober hates it.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-01-28 16:24:31

#57

13rin: Member; +977|6765

However, that does raise a huge conflict of interest to the Oberlord... I wonder how much GM will contribute.....

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-01-28 16:25:08)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-01-28 16:40:27

#58

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.
No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.

True... it could easily be argued that the system has been bought by special interests from the very beginning.

Granted, the same could be said for a lot of governments.

No matter what fancy principles we claim to believe in or so-called safeguards we put into place, the elite will always hold the power.

What makes our system especially resilient is how well we've convinced the people that they're free and actually represented by government. Of course, this facade is quickly fading with this recent ruling.

2010-01-28 17:09:54

#59

Ticia: Member; +73|5621

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.
No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.
True... it could easily be argued that the system has been bought by special interests from the very beginning.

Granted, the same could be said for a lot of governments.

No matter what fancy principles we claim to believe in or so-called safeguards we put into place, the elite will always hold the power.

What makes our system especially resilient is how well we've convinced the people that they're free and actually represented by government. Of course, this facade is quickly fading with this recent ruling.

So just do nothing about it? How is this different from any absolutist system in the past?
Those fancy principles are what made you a free country in the first place. America is rotten and the what is scary is the rest of the world will probably follow.

2010-01-28 17:12:53

#60

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Ticia wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.
True... it could easily be argued that the system has been bought by special interests from the very beginning.

Granted, the same could be said for a lot of governments.

No matter what fancy principles we claim to believe in or so-called safeguards we put into place, the elite will always hold the power.

What makes our system especially resilient is how well we've convinced the people that they're free and actually represented by government. Of course, this facade is quickly fading with this recent ruling.
So just do nothing about it? How is this different from any absolutist system in the past?
Those fancy principles are what made you a free country in the first place. America is rotten and the what is scary is the rest of the world will probably follow.

Rest of the world is way ahead of us baby. The countries that make up the EU have been in decline for about 60 years now.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 17:13:41

#61

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:
So just do nothing about it? How is this different from any absolutist system in the past?
Those fancy principles are what made you a free country in the first place. America is rotten and the what is scary is the rest of the world will probably follow.

There's not much I can do about it. About all you can do as an individual is move to another country. That's what I've been working toward for the last few years.

As America declines, it will affect the rest of the world, but there will always be other countries to take its place. If things get bad enough, another world war will break out and enough death and destruction will occur that maybe humanity will get to start anew.

Until we reach that breaking point, it's just a matter of a frog in a pot of water. Little by little, the temperature of the water is rising.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-28 17:14:30)

2010-01-28 17:15:59

#62

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
Ticia wrote:
So just do nothing about it? How is this different from any absolutist system in the past?
Those fancy principles are what made you a free country in the first place. America is rotten and the what is scary is the rest of the world will probably follow.
There's not much I can do about it. About all you can do as an individual is move to another country. That's what I've been working toward for the last few years.

As America declines, it will affect the rest of the world, but there will always be other countries to take its place. If things get bad enough, another world war will break out and enough death and destruction will occur that maybe humanity will get to start anew.

Until we reach that breaking point, it's just a matter of a frog in a pot of water. Little by little, the temperature of the water is rising.

Someone seems to have had his idealism crushed recently

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 17:18:04

#63

Ticia: Member; +73|5621

JohnG@lt wrote:
Ticia wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

True... it could easily be argued that the system has been bought by special interests from the very beginning.

Granted, the same could be said for a lot of governments.

No matter what fancy principles we claim to believe in or so-called safeguards we put into place, the elite will always hold the power.

What makes our system especially resilient is how well we've convinced the people that they're free and actually represented by government. Of course, this facade is quickly fading with this recent ruling.
So just do nothing about it? How is this different from any absolutist system in the past?
Those fancy principles are what made you a free country in the first place. America is rotten and the what is scary is the rest of the world will probably follow.
Rest of the world is way ahead of us baby. The countries that make up the EU have been in decline for about 60 years now.

True. But overhere we're still fools enough to believe we have a voice.

2010-01-28 17:23:56

#64

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Someone seems to have had his idealism crushed recently

Perhaps... but it can be liberating to an extent... If you have no major goals for society, you can focus on your own life and the things that actually affect you on a daily basis.

2010-01-28 17:43:30

#65

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Someone seems to have had his idealism crushed recently
Perhaps... but it can be liberating to an extent... If you have no major goals for society, you can focus on your own life and the things that actually affect you on a daily basis.

Why do you think I want to buy a house up in New Hampshire so bad? It's one of the last places in the country where you're left alone. No religious zealots, no major taxes, few poor people so entitlements are low and a bunch of freedom loving libertarians to hang out with. It's idyllic To me anyway.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 17:44:28

#66

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Someone seems to have had his idealism crushed recently
Perhaps... but it can be liberating to an extent... If you have no major goals for society, you can focus on your own life and the things that actually affect you on a daily basis.
Why do you think I want to buy a house up in New Hampshire so bad? It's one of the last places in the country where you're left alone. No religious zealots, no major taxes, few poor people so entitlements are low and a bunch of freedom loving libertarians to hang out with. It's idyllic To me anyway.

I can dig that. I figure the job market might be slim though.

2010-01-28 17:47:24

#67

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps... but it can be liberating to an extent... If you have no major goals for society, you can focus on your own life and the things that actually affect you on a daily basis.
Why do you think I want to buy a house up in New Hampshire so bad? It's one of the last places in the country where you're left alone. No religious zealots, no major taxes, few poor people so entitlements are low and a bunch of freedom loving libertarians to hang out with. It's idyllic To me anyway.
I can dig that. I figure the job market might be slim though.

EE degree and a brand new nuke plant up there right on the Mass border and on the ocean? I'm down

Worst case scenario I end up with an hour commute down to Boston which is cake.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-28 19:09:56

#68

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6937|USA

eleven bravo wrote:
foreign governments have a free hand in sponsoring political campaigns now through corporations owned in the US.

any examples? foreign governments do not own majorit shares in US companies do they?

2010-01-28 19:13:00

#69

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

lowing wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
foreign governments have a free hand in sponsoring political campaigns now through corporations owned in the US.
any examples? foreign governments do not own majorit shares in US companies do they?

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder. [20][21] [22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_corp

Tu Stultus Es

2010-01-28 19:13:49

#70

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6937|USA

eleven bravo wrote:
foreign interests holding larges shares of domestic corporations.

NOT the majority of the company though,

2010-01-28 19:16:15

#71

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

Murdoch doesnt own the MAJORITY of the company. 7% is a huge slice of such a significant corporation. dont be naive.

Tu Stultus Es

2010-01-28 19:27:41

#72

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6937|USA

eleven bravo wrote:
Murdoch doesnt own the MAJORITY of the company. 7% is a huge slice of such a significant corporation. dont be naive.

No foreign company or govt. is allowed to own a controlling share of a US company is this correct or no?

2010-01-28 19:30:15

#73

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

49% is enough to dictate the flow of business. 7% is enough

Tu Stultus Es

2010-01-28 19:42:52

#74

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6937|USA

eleven bravo wrote:
49% is enough to dictate the flow of business. 7% is enough

7% is not enough when someone else owns 29%

2010-01-28 19:43:19

#75

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5545|foggy bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

Tu Stultus Es

BF2S Forums No More Campaign Funding Limits for Corporations

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Board footer