Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:00 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:57 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... rialPage_h

Self-explanatory.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:49 am  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329642637361406.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Self-explanatory.


I think the authors kind of miss the point. The problem people have with current campaign finance rules in the US is how powerful individuals or corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Complex campaign finance rules might be a problem, but restricting the size of donations isn't a particularly complex regulation, and requiring lawyers to navigate the regulations is hardly a barrier for the type of donor that would be exceeding the old limits. As well, most of Colbert's problem is specific to his position. He had to convert his PAC to a Super-PAC (by adding a cover letter) and seek this media exemption because he's plugging his group on his show. Most private citizens do not have TV shows on which to plugs their PACs.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:51 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:41 am
Posts: 4695
Offline

Are you trying to make fun of Colbert here? Because that's impossible since he's a god.



And who could forget one of the greatest roasts in history:



Azelma

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:10 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

So he wants it easier and simpler to allow poor people to advertise their runs for office?


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:33 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

The system doesn't necessarily favor individual wealthy people. If it did, the last three presidents would have been Forbes, Perot and Trump.

The system's complexity and subjectivity favors insiders. I strongly feel we need the sort of system they have in Europe with fixed airtime for each campaign and a blanket ban on donations. I think perhaps we should even go so far as to ban all advertisements and require all campaigns to advance their platforms only in an election guide.

Go watch the movie, "Power". Educational.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:50 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Laelia wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329642637361406.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Self-explanatory.


I think the authors kind of miss the point. The problem people have with current campaign finance rules in the US is how powerful individuals or corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Complex campaign finance rules might be a problem, but restricting the size of donations isn't a particularly complex regulation, and requiring lawyers to navigate the regulations is hardly a barrier for the type of donor that would be exceeding the old limits. As well, most of Colbert's problem is specific to his position. He had to convert his PAC to a Super-PAC (by adding a cover letter) and seek this media exemption because he's plugging his group on his show. Most private citizens do not have TV shows on which to plugs their PACs.


I think the point is that it is now more amusing because the guy attempting to mock the Supreme Court for their decision to not restrict speech via donation/cooperative effort is now having to get waivers to do so because he'd otherwise be in violation of the types of laws his actions indicate he favors.

I don't believe any of these "reforms" have the effect(s) they're allegedly instituted to achieve, and are, in the majority of cases, only on the books because incumbent politicians enjoy the protections they afford them during their bids for re-election.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:04 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Quote:
The system doesn't necessarily favor individual wealthy people. If it did, the last three presidents would have been Forbes, Perot and Trump.

The system's complexity and subjectivity favors insiders. I strongly feel we need the sort of system they have in Europe with fixed airtime for each campaign and a blanket ban on donations. I think perhaps we should even go so far as to ban all advertisements and require all campaigns to advance their platforms only in an election guide.

Go watch the movie, "Power". Educational.


Yeah. I have no idea what allowing all this money in the system is supposed to accomplish. We have a system closer to what you describe in Canada (no corporate donations, individual donations limited to ~$1000 per year, and public financing to all parties based on the number of candidates they run and how many votes they receive), and we don't seem to be particularly lacking in democracy.

Jubbergun wrote:
I think the point is that it is now more amusing because the guy attempting to mock the Supreme Court for their decision to not restrict speech via donation/cooperative effort is now having to get waivers to do so because he'd otherwise be in violation of the types of laws his actions indicate he favors.

I don't believe any of these "reforms" have the effect(s) they're allegedly instituted to achieve, and are, in the majority of cases, only on the books because incumbent politicians enjoy the protections they afford them during their bids for re-election.


Before the recent court decisions were implemented, what he is doing would be completely illegal, which is his point. The media waiver he's applying for is only needed because in-kind donations (airtime) are difficult to value and Viacom doesn't want to reveal trade secrets by doing so. The Super-PAC, which enables these unlimited donations, was formed by literally adding a cover letter to the PAC application, no waiver required.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:29 pm  
User avatar

MegaFaggot 5000
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:39 pm
Posts: 4804
Location: Cinci, OH
Offline

Usdk wrote:
So he wants it easier and simpler to allow poor people to advertise their runs for office?

I wasn't aware your opinion in this country mattered if you only make more than 5 figures.


RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:30 pm  
Blathering Buffoon
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 1152
Offline

Mns wrote:
I wasn't aware your opinion in this country mattered if you only make more than 5 figures.


Then clearly you haven't been paying attention.


Dvergar /
Quisling
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:50 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Mns wrote:
Usdk wrote:
So he wants it easier and simpler to allow poor people to advertise their runs for office?

I wasn't aware your opinion in this country mattered if you only make more than 5 figures.


I don't think some uneducated deadbeat who works at mcdonalds deserves to be elected to office, no.

I didn't say he couldn't vote. Thats where you voice your opinions.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:00 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Laelia wrote:
Yeah. I have no idea what allowing all this money in the system is supposed to accomplish. We have a system closer to what you describe in Canada (no corporate donations, individual donations limited to ~$1000 per year, and public financing to all parties based on the number of candidates they run and how many votes they receive), and we don't seem to be particularly lacking in democracy.


And yet, with all that democracy, didn't you guys just end up with a fairly conservative (for Canada, anyway) new government? Wasn't one of you Maple-syrup slurping hockey lovers lamenting that here recently?

Laelia wrote:
Before the recent court decisions were implemented, what he is doing would be completely illegal, which is his point. The media waiver he's applying for is only needed because in-kind donations (airtime) are difficult to value and Viacom doesn't want to reveal trade secrets by doing so. The Super-PAC, which enables these unlimited donations, was formed by literally adding a cover letter to the PAC application, no waiver required.


Maybe it's just me, and/or it's one of those weird quirks of America those of you from outside our borders don't get, but I don't think a TV personality, or anyone else for that matter, should have to jump through hoops in order to exercise their First Amendment rights. However, it appears that Colbert's point is that the court should have left campaign "reform" rules in place, and it doesn't lend a lot of credence to his argument when his media stunt involves by-passing or getting waivers for campaign "reform" rules.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:31 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
And yet, with all that democracy, didn't you guys just end up with a fairly conservative (for Canada, anyway) new government? Wasn't one of you Maple-syrup slurping hockey lovers lamenting that here recently?


What? Yes, we have a Conservative government, because they won the most seats (ie. democracy). I'm not sure what that has to do with campaign finance.

Quote:
Maybe it's just me, and/or it's one of those weird quirks of America those of you from outside our borders don't get, but I don't think a TV personality, or anyone else for that matter, should have to jump through hoops in order to exercise their First Amendment rights. However, it appears that Colbert's point is that the court should have left campaign "reform" rules in place, and it doesn't lend a lot of credence to his argument when his media stunt involves by-passing or getting waivers for campaign "reform" rules.


You're still missing the point. The waiver he's applying for is to solve an accounting issue, not a free speech issue. Whether or not he gets it, he still has a legal entity that can spend unlimited amounts of money to try to influence elections. Some people think it's unethical for wealthy people to be able to buy political power in this way. You clearly don't, but that's a different argument.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:41 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Quote:
Yes, we have a Conservative government, because they won the most seats (ie. democracy). I'm not sure what that has to do with campaign finance.


I think he was more referring to how mayo said i thought poor people dont deserve office because i'm conservative, then pointing out you guys have the socalled answer for this problem and ended up conservative anyway.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:46 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Usdk wrote:
Quote:
Yes, we have a Conservative government, because they won the most seats (ie. democracy). I'm not sure what that has to do with campaign finance.


I think he was more referring to how mayo said i thought poor people dont deserve office because i'm conservative, then pointing out you guys have the socalled answer for this problem and ended up conservative anyway.


Still not getting the connection. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum tend to be relatively wealthy, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. In Canada politicians can't donate to their own campaign beyond the normal $1000 limit. In the US, the issue is PACs, which are independently run and can't be directly associated with candidates.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The joke's on...
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:50 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Laelia wrote:
You're still missing the point. The waiver he's applying for is to solve an accounting issue, not a free speech issue. Whether or not he gets it, he still has a legal entity that can spend unlimited amounts of money to try to influence elections. Some people think it's unethical for wealthy people to be able to buy political power in this way. You clearly don't, but that's a different argument.


When your argument is that money distorts the effects of free speech, an "accounting issue," especially as it relates to adhering to rules restricting free speech, is more than an "accounting issue." It's a speech issue. Attaching money to it to gin up the usual 'money is the root of all evil' idiots doesn't make it any less of a speech issue.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group