The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun. -=Mike I'm starting to worry how far into theocracy territory they're going to get before somebody reels them in, personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I really don't care. When someone gets up in my grill about Jesus, I just say something offensive and they leave... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 NAACP radio ads. Oh. Well, they became a LOL2005 kind of organization that I don't take seriously since they decided to cancel their Riordan protest when they found out he insulted a white girl, which is appearantly not as big an injustice. And they actually said that, complete with audio of a burning structure in the background. That sounds like an SNL or Daily Show skit for some reason, it's comedic because it's so dumb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun. -=Mike I'm starting to worry how far into theocracy territory they're going to get before somebody reels them in, personally. You're insane! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun. -=Mike I'm starting to worry how far into theocracy territory they're going to get before somebody reels them in, personally. This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Until they start banning other religions or making you worship God, then this is just idiocy. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Wow, you mean Delay isn't the ONLY one doing this? I'm SHOCKED! Sanders paid wife, stepdaughter for campaign efforts By EVAN LEHMANN, MediaNews Group Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bernard Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews. Approximately $61,000 of that was "pass through" money that was used to pay media outlets for advertising time, Jane O'Meara Sanders said in an interview. The rest, about $30,000, she kept as payment for her services, she said. Carina Driscoll, daughter to Jane O'Meara Sanders and stepdaughter to the lawmaker, earned $65,002 in "wages" between 2000 and 2004, campaign records show. Driscoll, a former state legislator, served as Rep. Sanders' campaign manager in 2000, his fund-raiser and office manager in 2003 and his database manager in 2004, according to Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff. "Both of them are regarded as people who are knowledgable about Vermont politics," Weaver said Tuesday. "They earned every penny they got." It seems Sanders is the only member of Vermont's congressional delegation to employ family members. "Sen. Jeffords has not hired any members of his family on his current or past campaigns," said Erik Smulson, his communications director. A spokesman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said the same thing. No laws prohibit candidates from paying family members for campaign work. But the appearance that lawmakers use their position to benefit people close to them concerns watchdog groups. "Anytime you pay a family member there's going to be questions raised," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group in Washington. The real question, he says, is whether family members conducted work commesurate to their pay. If they did, "then it's more difficult to say (lawmakers) are funneling money back to the family." Mary Bloyer, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, a nonprofit advocacy group, said: "The danger here is that you want members of Congress who are in Washington to serve their constituents and not enrich their families. Something like this makes people look twice and makes them wonder what's going on here." Jane O'Meara Sanders said she worked for her husband for years with no pay, and started charging him only after opening a consulting company, Progressive Media Strategies, which was changed to Leadership Strategies. "It became clear I could not offer professional services to other candidates and charge them if I worked for Bernie for free," she said. Still, Jane O'Meara Sanders said her fees are comparatively low, especially for her husband. "I think the fact that other candidates have chosen to hire me and pay more than what Bernie pays me says that my services are pretty good," she said. The ethics of lawmakers paying their families jumped into the spotlight on Capitol Hill last week, following reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas had paid his wife and daughter more than $500,000 for campaign-related work. Jim Barrett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, used Sanders' family payments to highlight what he said is Democratic "hypocrisy" for fiercely attacking DeLay. "It's the standard hypocrisy from the left," Barrett said. "When a Republican does it, it's inappropriate and front page news. But now it turns out, our own Bernie Sanders has been doing it for a long time." He added: "If it's corruption when Tom DeLay does it, then it's corruption when Bernie Sanders does it." Jon Copans, executive director of the state Democratic Party, declined to comment. But Democratic groups are targeting DeLay for defeat in his 2006 election. Vermont-based Democracy for America, started by former Gov. Howard Dean, disseminated a mass e-mail Tuesday asking supporters for witty slogans it can paste on billboards in DeLay's Texas district. The billboards, the e-mail says, will let voters there know "it's time for him to go." Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff, said it was unfair to compare the Vermont Independent with DeLay, who paid his family much more in a shorter period of time. "For the work they did, they got exactly what anyone else would have been paid," he said of Jane O'Meara Sanders and Driscoll. "Politics is like anything else - you always try to hire the best person." Even Barrett admitted that the $65,000 earned by Driscoll over four years "almost sounds low." But he said, "We don't know what she was doing for work. Was she a full-time operative? Were these just consulting fees? Who knows?" http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,...2813819,0.html# Even Socialists do this. Wow. I bet if you checked the Dems, you'd find a ton of guys who do this. -=Mike ...Well, Daschle didn't, seeing as how he helped his lobbyist wife get major bills through Congress... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I'm just saying, they have to be careful with pandering to the Christian Right or they'll alienate voters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I'm just saying, they have to be careful with pandering to the Christian Right or they'll alienate voters. Which is as dumb as claiming that the Dems need to avoid pandering to blacks to avoid offending voters. They aren't insisting you worship God. They aren't curtailing your freedom to practice or not practice a religion in any way, shape, or form. There is no theocracy involved. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I don't take seriously since they decided to cancel their Riordan protest when they found out he insulted a white girl, which is appearantly not as big an injustice. Didn't this happen not too long ago? I think I remember this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I don't take seriously since they decided to cancel their Riordan protest when they found out he insulted a white girl, which is appearantly not as big an injustice. Didn't this happen not too long ago? I think I remember this... Yes. Last year, if memory serves. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/10/...ain687042.shtml Looks like ole' Newtzi is putting some space tween him and Mr. Hotbutton. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/10/...ain687042.shtml Looks like ole' Newtzi is putting some space tween him and Mr. Hotbutton. Considering that Newt and Delay don't even remotely get along, hardly shocking. -=Mike ...DeLay DID try to remove him as Speaker back in 1997... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 A more complete list of Congressmen who do exactly what DeLay is being pilloried for. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w124553D99.DTL -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 What baffles me, though, is your complete inability to admit that DeLay did something wrong, too. You're vigorously trying to make us realize how bad everyone else is so that you can diffuse the blame and make it less of an outrage that your boy is corrupt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 What baffles me, though, is your complete inability to admit that DeLay did something wrong, too. Who said he didn't? It seems like a whole bunch of noise about nothing. I've not quite seen what I'm supposed to be so, you know, shocked about. You're vigorously trying to make us realize how bad everyone else is so that you can diffuse the blame and make it less of an outrage that your boy is corrupt. I'm simply pointing out that so many of the people bitching about DeLay did the exact same thing. And you've yet to really explain what I'm supposed to be committing hari-kari about. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 What ALL of these politicians are doing is dirty and they should all be put up in front of the ethics committee and stripped of any leadership posts they might have. They should all have to pay fines for skirting campaign finance laws, if not worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 What ALL of these politicians are doing is dirty and they should all be put up in front of the ethics committee and stripped of any leadership posts they might have. They should all have to pay fines for skirting campaign finance laws, if not worse. They should eliminate ALL campaign finance laws entirely and force total disclosure. I view relatives on gov't payroll in the same light I view drug laws: It's not going to change. It's not like the people who WRITE the laws aren't more than capable of creating loopholes. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 If we have full total disclosure, nobody's going to give a fuck about this dirty shit. Nobody's going to bother actually combing through the shit, and total disclosure isn't going to help curb the problem of too much money in politics. It's a wretchedly stupid idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 A more complete list of Congressmen who do exactly what DeLay is being pilloried for. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w124553D99.DTL -=Mike Erm, that's not all he did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 You should also notice that DeLay's case is the most extraordinary in terms of salary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 Maybe they did more work -- I'd imagine Bernie's family, being socialists and all, did about 10 minutes of work during an eight-hour workday. *no, I don't believe this either...* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 If we have full total disclosure, nobody's going to give a fuck about this dirty shit. Nobody's going to bother actually combing through the shit, and total disclosure isn't going to help curb the problem of too much money in politics. It's a wretchedly stupid idea. It's significantly better than restricting First Amendment freedoms. Let the opposition make a candidate answer for who he/she accepts money from. I'd rather keep the First Amendment, personally. -=Mike ...Who cares that political speech was always protected more than anything else, right? What did the Founding Fathers know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 Money isn't political speech. I've never heard money make a 10 minute empassioned argument for the war in Iraq. Courts arguing that money is a form of speech is a bigger stretch than Roe v. Wade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 Money isn't political speech. It absolutely is. If you want a certain candidate to not represent you, you can either run a campaign to oppose him/her (not practical for most people) or initiate a media campaign to criticize him/her. Why not limit how much you give to a religion or any charitable group? Why is politics held out as the one thing you CAN'T spend your money on all you desire? All campaign finance reform does is give WAY too much power to the media. And after the left-wing web of 2004 --- CFR is a joke to begin with. I've never heard money make a 10 minute empassioned argument for the war in Iraq. Without money, you don't a view the press doesn't completely agree with. Courts arguing that money is a form of speech is a bigger stretch than Roe v. Wade. Courts arguing that CFR is Constitutional is a crime against the Constitution. And courts not ruling that editorials are less than a campaign contribution is a joke. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 If you want a certain candidate to not represent you, you can either run a campaign to oppose him/her (not practical for most people) or initiate a media campaign to criticize him/her. You seemingly ignore the fact that politics isn't about the media, it's about voting. If you don't want someone to represent you, you vote against him. You don't contribute $789 million to his opponent's campaign. Courts arguing that CFR is Constitutional is a crime against the Constitution And you still haven't made a legal argument as to why it is. And courts not ruling that editorials are less than a campaign contribution is a joke Straw man that has nothing to do with the argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 If you want a certain candidate to not represent you, you can either run a campaign to oppose him/her (not practical for most people) or initiate a media campaign to criticize him/her. You seemingly ignore the fact that politics isn't about the media, it's about voting. If you don't want someone to represent you, you vote against him. You don't contribute $789 million to his opponent's campaign. Why shouldn't you be able to? Your vote alone won't mean a hell of a lot. You need to switch A LOT of votes. If I want to, say, attack pollution --- there are no limits to how much money I can give legally. If I want to, say, attack Arlen Specter --- there are very strict limits. Why the difference? Courts arguing that CFR is Constitutional is a crime against the Constitution And you still haven't made a legal argument as to why it is. Hmm, a BLATANT and obvious restriction of everybody's First Amendment rights seems like a pretty obvious one. Can you tell me why I should not be able to purchase ads to criticize anybody in Congress if I choose to? Can you give me a legal justification for restricting my rights? And courts not ruling that editorials are less than a campaign contribution is a joke Straw man that has nothing to do with the argument. No, it has everything to do with the argument --- seeing as how the only form of independent views on politics that ISN'T restricted is the MSM --- even AFTER the utter humiliation of 2004 that was the press' performance. Why is the partisan "mainstream" press allowed to, say, invent bullshit about Pres. Bush --- but I WASN'T able to launch ads criticizing Kerry without risking jail time? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 You were. However, you had to do it legally, i.e. through a 527 organization with legally raised fundraising dollars. The reason your idea is horrible is because it just opens the door for large corporate interests to pour a ridiculous amount of money in to BOTH sides and essentially purchase influence in both parties. That's horrifically stupid, not to mention the fact that your idea leaves no room for enforcement of the "full disclosure" and loopholes (i.e. subsidiary companies, joint ownership, etc.) would make it nearly impossible to tell where the money is actually coming from. In addition, if someone dirty is donating to both parties, neither party would call the other on it because they'd risk losing that extra income. If they did, the election would almost certainly swing to the person who accepts dirty money. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 You were. However, you had to do it legally, i.e. through a 527 organization with legally raised fundraising dollars. Why should I have to do it only through specific groups? Why should I not be allowed to engage in core First Amendment-protected speech at any time I want, however I want, with whomever I want? The reason your idea is horrible is because it just opens the door for large corporate interests to pour a ridiculous amount of money in to BOTH sides and essentially purchase influence in both parties. Too damned bad. Let them. I'm not going to sacrifice MY freedoms to stick it to corporations. And CFR has already shown how incredibly weak this is, considering how much impact Soros had on the election last year. That's horrifically stupid, not to mention the fact that your idea leaves no room for enforcement of the "full disclosure" and loopholes (i.e. subsidiary companies, joint ownership, etc.) would make it nearly impossible to tell where the money is actually coming from. 1) It would eventually come out during the campaign. The parties do a damned good job of opposition research. 2) This is STILL not a defense for restricting First Amendment speech. In addition, if someone dirty is donating to both parties, neither party would call the other on it because they'd risk losing that extra income. So, only people you agree with should be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? It's MIND-BOGGLING to me that I could spend millions and produce porn with no legal problems (hell, if I called it "art", I could likely pull down a gov't grant) --- but if I produced political ads, I'd then be in some trouble. If they did, the election would almost certainly swing to the person who accepts dirty money. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. That's the curse of freedom. As it stands now, the person who sucks up to the press gets benefits that, you know, actual conservatives don't. That's not any better. The Constitutution is too important for such idiotic measures. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2005 I'm not even gonna bother going point by point on this one, because you're still ignoring the fact that YOU haven't made a first amendment argument here either. The burden of proof isn't on me here to prove money ISN'T convered under the first amendment. It's on you to prove that it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 14, 2005 I'm not even gonna bother going point by point on this one, because you're still ignoring the fact that YOU haven't made a first amendment argument here either. I don't have to. You're arguing for restricting First Amendment protections and I'm arguing to remove restrictions. MY argument is expressly stated in the Constitution. Yours, on the other hand... The burden of proof isn't on me here to prove money ISN'T convered under the first amendment. It's on you to prove that it is. I only the curse of common sense. To have political speech, you need to have others hear it. ESPECIALLY since incumbents have a built-in advantage in every political race. The only way to get coverage is with money. Like it or not, that is simple reality. It's as illogical as being all for voting rights, but only if those blacks can handle passing literacy tests, etc. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
