Goodbye, democracy!!!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

All of you millionaires (or RICHER) who post here should be pleased about this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303664.html?hpid=topnews

[Castout]

Need to register to view the article can you quote it? or provide screen capture of the article?

[Skybird]

I'm preaching since years that there is not a single democracy in the West anymore. We have oligarchies, plutoracies and secretive lobbyist tyrannies, and mixture forms of all these. On paper only it still is a democracy. In reality, it all is a Mafia. It all is rotten and corrupt from skin to bone. Lies are the new gospel. Betrayal is the new virtue. Bypassing the electorate is the new sports of the self-declared neofeudal class.

Demoracy is as dead as "dead" can mean. It's just being used as a slogan in order to prevent the masses from open revolt.

[August]

All of you millionaires (or RICHER) who post here should be pleased about this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303664.html?hpid=topnews

Where was your complaint when the liberal interest groups were outspending the conservatives by 7-1?

Face it Torvald. Your party had control of both houses of congress AND the WH and you blew it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Need to register to view the article can you quote it? or provide screen capture of the article?

I can see it without registering.

[Dowly]

Yup, same here. No registration required. :hmmm:

[JU_88]

Oh not the 'yours and my' parties thing, is any one really niave enough to have faith in ANY of these self intrested liars?
I'd be too ashamed to associate myself with ANY of them to be honest.

No matter who is in the driving seat - they will they over promise, under deliver and blame all their shortcomings on the previous govenment.
And I refuse to trust anyone who is incapable of publicly admiting that they might be wrong, nor can I trust a system that does not allow for it.

[mookiemookie]

Where was your complaint when the liberal interest groups were outspending the conservatives by 7-1?


So I guess you have no outrage when it's your party doing the spending, making you as much a partisan as you're accusing him of being, right?

[NeonSamurai]

I'm preaching since years that there is not a single democracy in the West anymore. We have oligarchies, plutoracies and secretive lobbyist tyrannies, and mixture forms of all these. On paper only it still is a democracy. In reality, it all is a Mafia. It all is rotten and corrupt from skin to bone. Lies are the new gospel. Betrayal is the new virtue. Bypassing the electorate is the new sports of the self-declared neofeudal class.

Demoracy is as dead as "dead" can mean. It's just being used as a slogan in order to prevent the masses from open revolt.


That sums up my view as well, with North America being run pretty much by corporate groups and certain lobbyist groups.

[JU_88]

I'm preaching since years that there is not a single democracy in the West anymore. We have oligarchies, plutoracies and secretive lobbyist tyrannies, and mixture forms of all these. On paper only it still is a democracy. In reality, it all is a Mafia. It all is rotten and corrupt from skin to bone. Lies are the new gospel. Betrayal is the new virtue. Bypassing the electorate is the new sports of the self-declared neofeudal class.

Demoracy is as dead as "dead" can mean. It's just being used as a slogan in order to prevent the masses from open revolt.


Yeah one of the rare moments where I actually agree with Skybird also :woot:

[SteamWake]

Face it Torvald. Your party had control of both houses of congress AND the WH and you blew it.

They dident blow it in fact things are going more or less exactly to (their) plan.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah one of the rare moments where I actually agree with Skybird also :woot:

Hah. You're right, he nailed it there. But who knows...I might agree with him more than I realize. I skip most of his 5000 word walls of text though. :ping:

[August]

So I guess you have no outrage when it's your party doing the spending, making you as much a partisan as you're accusing him of being, right?

I don't have a party and yes I had complaints about Republicans acting like tax and spend Democrats but that's not what he or I was talking about.

[mookiemookie]

but that's not what he or I was talking about.

No it's exactly what the subject is. Complaining about corporate spending is in fact what the thread's subject is all about.

You just tried to change the subject by throwing in some other little partisan dig at the end of your original post, as usual.

[The Third Man]

I can't speak to the nature of other countries' systems of government, but the US was never a democracy. It has always been a constitutional republic.

[JU_88]

I can't speak to the nature of other countries' systems of government, but the US was never a democracy. It has always been a constitutional republic.

The democratic system here in the UK is very simliar to what you have in the states, not to mention our major parties reflect each other some what.

US Republican = UK Conservatives (Center Right)
US Democrats = UK Labour (Center Left)
Then we have a third party call the Liberal Democrats, who are more or less a flip flop dead center party supposedly..... not that it matters as they never win an out right majority :D
Mind you, the Conservatives and Labour have over the years have inreasingly strayed from there Left/Right wing roots resepctively.

[The Third Man]

The democratic system here in the UK is very simliar to what you have in the states, not to mention our major parties reflect each other some what.

US Republican = UK Conservatives (Center Right)
US Democrats = UK Labour (Center Left)
Then we have a third party call the Liberal Democrats, who are more or less a flip flop dead center party supposedly..... not that it matters as they never win an out right majority :D
Now we have a Conservative / Lib dem coalition government with conservative primeminster.
Its pretty much a conservative govenment tbh as they got most of the seats.

In many ways a parlimentary system seems more apt to gravitate towards Skybird's 'oligarchies and plutoracies'. Though direct elections are used to place House of Commons members, and their equivelants in other parlimentary systems, it is the members (oligarcs and plutocrats)who select the country's leadership. But I don't know that for sure, it just seems logical to me..

'oligarchies and plutoracies', are the very reason all 435 members of the US House of Representatives are up for re-election every two years.

[mookiemookie]

I can't speak to the nature of other countries' systems of government, but the US was never a democracy. It has always been a constitutional republic.

Don't trot out that old talking point. The U.S. was never a direct democracy, but the underlying foundations and institutions of government function on the principle of representative democracy and always have.

[The Third Man]

Don't trot out that old talking point. The U.S. was never a direct democracy, but it is a representative democracy.

It is a very old talking point.


As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.” - 1787



representative democracy


Also known as a constitutional republic, if you believe in the constitution part. Republican means representative.

[TLAM Strike]

Mind you, the Conservatives and Labour have over the years have inreasingly strayed from there Left/Right wing roots resepctively.

Well the Reps and Dems of today are very different than 100-150 years ago. In fact they have basically swapped ideologies. Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were Republicans. Until 1948 the south was Democratic. :doh:

[Skybird]

Okay, I hearby declare that the United States's historic national design as outlined by the conmstitution and amandements, is not democratic. At least it is not more democratic than for example the German Federal Republic.

Satisfied? :88) Didn't I just say above that there are no democratic states left in the West? :D

Now tell me somebody - what is being gained by this kind of useless hairsplitting?

Of course the US by historic design was meant to be a democracy. A democratic republic. Ooops - sounds like German Democratic Republic. Representative, somebody, representing - by any chance the voting people, maybe? So we talk about a people's republic - like in People's Republic of China? :shucks:

C'mon guys, let's waste your time on something more useful than this shadowboxing.

[mookiemookie]

Also known as a constitutional republic, if you believe in the constitution part. Republican means representative.

So if a republic is a form of representative democracy, then to say that the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy is intentionally misleading. They're not opposites. We democratically and directly elect out Senators under the 17th amendment. The national government is thus a republic and a democracy.

They're not mutually exclusive.

[The Third Man]

So if a republic is a form of representative democracy, then to say that the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy is intentionally misleading. They're not opposites. We democratically and directly elect out Senators under the 17th amendment. The national government is thus a republic and a democracy.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Beyond the issue of the 17th amendment being a travesty, the electoral college is our last vestage of a Constitutional Republic.

[The Third Man]

German Federal Republic

And the parlimentary system was known as the best way to weaken Germany politically after WWII. It is why Germany is so crazy politically to this day. Britain and France feel safer both then and now.

[GoldenRivet]

try as you might...

you will not outspend Obama and his Liberal/Socialist/Welfare state congress.

ok... I'll make it easy for TVM and Mookie...

compare the following numbers

$80,000,000 spent by these special interest groups on campaigning.
$1,000,000,000,000+ spent by this out of control congress.

which can my grandchildren live with?

Im going to have to go with $80M:salute:

[tater]

I have no problems with spending on elections. It's a choice, and it is freedom of political expression.

Jefferson and Adams had pet newspapers fighting for them, it's been going on forever.

I'd say no limits on political donations at all, frankly. Just document every penny and have to publish it on the web. Who gave what, and to whom. 100% transparent.

[mookiemookie]

try as you might...

you will not outspend Obama and his Liberal/Socialist/Welfare state congress.

ok... I'll make it easy for TVM and Mookie...

compare the following numbers

$80,000,000 spent by these special interest groups on campaigning.
$1,000,000,000,000+ spent by this out of control congress.

which can my grandchildren live with?

Im going to have to go with $80M:salute:

logical fallacy, much?

[The Third Man]

I love when the facts of Dem control is revealed it is called a falacy of logic, poor interpretation, unethical or unreliable polling, or some such thing.

I want to see these folks when mom and dad stop supporting them and they see when stealing from others isn't a good policy.

:nope: so sad. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

I love when the facts of Dem control is revealed it is called a falacy of logic, poor interpretation, unethical or unreliable polling, or some such thing.

I want to see these folks when mom and dad stop supporting them and they see when stealing from others isn't a good policy.

:nope: so sad. :nope:

You love to play the "poor me, everyone picks on me" card. But when you make insulting posts like that, it's no wonder you get the treatment that you get.

I don't care for your politics, and while I can say that about many people on this board, the majority of them argue their point in mature fashion without resorting to pettiness or personal attacks.

You do not, and I therefore have absolutely zero respect for you.

[The Third Man]

You love to play the "poor me, everyone picks on me" card. But when you make inon sequitur nsulting posts like that, it's no wonder you get the treatment that you get.

I don't care for your politics, and while I can say that about many people on this board, the majority of them argue their point in mature fashion without resorting to pettiness or personal attacks.

You do not, and I therefore have absolutely zero respect for you.


You love to play the "poor me, everyone picks on me" card. But when you make inon sequitur nsulting posts like that, it's no wonder you get the treatment that you get.


Show me the examples. You cannot make me disrespect your opinion so long as they are honest and deeply felt. I guess that is a difference between us. You don't like honest, deeply felt opinion and would like it curtailed. :nope::nope:

[mookiemookie]

Show me the examples. You cannot make me disrespect your opinion so long as they are honest and deeply felt. I guess that is a difference between us. You don't like honest, deeply felt opinion and would like it curtailed. :nope::nope:

There are respectful ways of expressing an opinion, none of which you seem to grasp.

I'm done here. Go topic spam another "In case you forgot in the five minutes since my last one, here's another 'I hate Obama' thread"

[Skybird]

Costs of Bush's Iraq adventure, military and follow up costs in American society until today: estimates range between 3 and 6 trillion. The crazy Iraq operation is being made responsible by some analysts to have helped the fincial crisis of 2008/2009 becoming more excessive than it would have been without the war. Seen that way, the costs of the Iraq adventure are even higher.

Costs of Obama's social security initiative: wide range of opinions, trying to calculate additonal costs ("up to 1 trillion") versus savings ("several billions per year"). Whatever, it is neither such a foreign political desaster nor such a tremendous finacial loss like the Gulf War.

Financially, Bush was the far bigger evil-doer, even if counting new debts to boost the economy by Obama are added to Obama'S score. Bush's campaign also set records for collecting financial donations - until Obama, if I recallit correctly.

Crazy to burn so much money for stupid babbling and empty paroles.

[The Third Man]

There are respectful ways of expressing an opinion, none of which you seem to grasp.

I'm done here. Go topic spam another "In case you forgot in the five minutes since my last one, here's another 'I hate Obama' thread"

But agreeing with your position isn't one of them in my mind. I'm no RINO/ liberal progressive.


Spam is the racist of the internet and is often used by those whose argument is lost.

But please post more. I want to hear what you have to say.

[GoldenRivet]

logical fallacy, much?

how so? :06:

[GoldenRivet]

Costs of Bush's Iraq adventure, military and follow up costs in American society until today: estimates range between 3 and 6 trillion. The crazy Iraq operation is being made responsible by some analysts to have helped the fincial crisis of 2008/2009 becoming more excessive than it would have been without the war. Seen that way, the costs of the Iraq adventure are even higher.

Costs of Obama's social security initiative: wide range of opinions, trying to calculate additonal costs ("up to 1 trillion") versus savings ("several billions per year"). Whatever, it is neither such a foreign political desaster nor such a tremendous finacial loss like the Gulf War.

Financially, Bush was the far bigger evil-doer, even if counting new debts to boost the economy by Obama are added to Obama'S score. Bush's campaign also set records for collecting financial donations - until Obama, if I recallit correctly.

Crazy to burn so much money for stupid babbling and empty paroles.

i see your point and raise you this contribution

Bush had a war in two countries initially backed by the majority of the people and the majority of the congress spanning him 8 years in office to aide him in spending 5 to 6 trillion dollars.

Obama is trying to wind these things down and still has managed to spend 1/5th or 1/6th of the previous administration's money in less than 2 years.

at this rate - god forbid America endures 2 terms of Obama... he will have outspent the previous administration by about 3 or 4 trillion dollars by the conclusion of his second term

[Skybird]

i see your point and raise you this contribution

Bush had a war in two countries initially backed by the majority of the people and the majority of the congress spanning him 8 years in office to aide him in spending 5 to 6 trillion dollars.

No, the costs for Afghanistan were not that high in the first years, nor was the money I mentioned "spend" on the war in Iraq. To prominet parts it was, but the sum I mention also covers follow-up costs for the sopcial community in America: delcine of public fundings in the education sector, the follow-up costs from that for the economy of the forseeable future, additional interests for additional debts and more state bonds, etc.

Obama is trying to wind these things down and still has managed to spend 1/5th or 1/6th of the previous administration's money in less than 2 years.

at this rate - god forbid America endures 2 terms of Obama... he will have outspent the previous administration by about 3 or 4 trillion dollars by the conclusion of his second term

That would imply there is a linear relation between office time and spendings, but it is not that simple. There is no second 1 trillion social insurrance program coming, nor will over the next (1 or 3) 2-year-periods exactly as much money being spend on bailing out banks as was spend in the first 2-year period. On the other hand, the Fed is helpless, the politicians clueless, they try to artificially devalue the dollar and raising inflation, and I have no doubt that if majpor buddies (=companies fail in the future), they will be bailed out again indeed. I just complain about the linear relation you imply here.

That they now try to laucnh a trade war especially with China, is hardly good advise. It is campaign rumble for November, I assume. China has already started before that announcement to reorientate it's trading focus from foreign exports towards supplying the internal market demand. They are reducing their interest to export to the Us that way, and that also means they have less and lesser interest to artifically support the dollar by buying bonds.

As I see it, they are man euvering themsleves into finacial striking range - considering their tremendous dollar reserves of unofficially almost 3 trillion, officially 1.5 trillion. In August, officials of the Chinese bank for the first time ever voiced open threats that China could use these reserves as a weapon to politically and economicall crush the US by liquidising them in huge quantities and thus finishing off the dollar currency, with the most likely consequnces of the US economy totally collapsing. In that context, Clinton warned of America's vulnerability due to the fact that 44% of it's debts is controlled by foreign powers (China threatens nuclear option of dollar sales (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2813630/China-threatens-nuclear-option-of-dollar-sales.html)).

In such a weak position, you do not try to launch a trade war, no matter the Yuan's value. Pithy words don't win conflicts, especially not against the Chinese. They will not feel intimidated, but will calmly weigh their strengths versus their weaknesses, and then decide, no matter the US' desires. If Obama lets this thing really escalate, it could dramatically backfire on the US.

[GoldenRivet]

i dont disagree with you.

when it comes to Obama, the end of the world, and America.

here is my official stance:

First thing tomorrow morning, go outside and face East.

if you watch long enough, the sun shall rise.:up:

[August]

No it's exactly what the subject is. Complaining about corporate spending is in fact what the thread's subject is all about.

You just tried to change the subject by throwing in some other little partisan dig at the end of your original post, as usual.


Except it isn't "corporate" it's "group", which can mean anyone from a few private individuals to a Union. And it's not "spending" but rather "political donations".

So who is trying to change the subject now Mr. Corporate spending watchdog?

November is coming! :yep:

[The Third Man]

Skybird

Costs of Bush's Iraq adventure


Is this man part of the Obama Administration? Does he realize how that pont is working to the disadvantage of Obama?

[Bubblehead1980]

I'm preaching since years that there is not a single democracy in the West anymore. We have oligarchies, plutoracies and secretive lobbyist tyrannies, and mixture forms of all these. On paper only it still is a democracy. In reality, it all is a Mafia. It all is rotten and corrupt from skin to bone. Lies are the new gospel. Betrayal is the new virtue. Bypassing the electorate is the new sports of the self-declared neofeudal class.

Demoracy is as dead as "dead" can mean. It's just being used as a slogan in order to prevent the masses from open revolt.

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic and as the SCOTUS goes by the Constitution, these groups are allowed to get involved and should be.MOST people are not dumb enough in todays world with all the info out there to let some commercials influence them, they can look things up and decide for themselves.

[antikristuseke]

Bubblehead, I am going to have to disagree with you there, but is is not because people are dumb, rather too lazy to look things up for themselves.

[The Third Man]

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic .

I pointed that out early in the thread and was told it was a old talking point.

I repsonded it was so old that it went back to 1787. One has to understand that this point flies in the face of liberal / progessive policy and by their pont of view, must be killed.

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubblehead, I am going to have to disagree with you there, but is is not because people are dumb, rather too lazy to look things up for themselves.


Well some may be too lazy, but not most.Esp this cycle!

[antikristuseke]

Sadly I think you will be proven wrong. It wont be any different than any other election, politicians just shuffle places a bit but nothing will really change.

[Tribesman]

It wont be any different than any other election, politicians just shuffle places a bit but nothing will really change.
Yes, but allow him some indulgencies, after all its all new to him.
Once he finishes his schooling, gets out in the real world and lives through a few "changes" of government he may understand better.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Where was your complaint when the liberal interest groups were outspending the conservatives by 7-1?

Face it Torvald. Your party had control of both houses of congress AND the WH and you blew it.

But NOT the Supreme Court. Did you actually read the article?

[Castout]

In reality, it all is a Mafia.
That rings a bell here :nope:

I can see it without registering.



Yup, same here. No registration required. :hmmm:

Not for me I'll have to register

[Torvald Von Mansee]

One thing I don't think I've seen some of the conservatives address in this thread: WHY DO THE BACKERS OF THESE SHADOWY GROUPS WISH TO REMAIN SECRET?

Could it be their probable greedy ulterior motives would short circuit their messages?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Here's the article:

Interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from.

THIS STORY
Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections
Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010?
View All Items in This Story
The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.

The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows.

The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business.

"The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate," said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College who studies campaign finance. "Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there's great interest to spend money to influence the election. You've got the possibility of a change in the control of Congress."

The increase in conservative spending has come both from established groups and from groups only a few months old. On the left, major labor groups such as the Service Employees International Union have also ratcheted up their expenditures compared with 2006 but are unable to keep up with groups on the right.

One of the biggest spenders nationwide is a little-known Iowa group called the American Future Fund, which has spent $7 million on behalf of Republicans in more than two dozen House and Senate races. Donors for the group's ad campaign have not been disclosed in records the group has filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The group recently entered a previously sleepy race in its home state of Iowa, announcing that it would devote up to $800,000 to campaign against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo. The campaign kicked off with a commercial alleging that Braley "supports building a mosque at Ground Zero." Braley denies supporting construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site, saying it's a zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide.



The ad, part of a nationwide campaign of similar mosque-themed spots, is the brainchild of Larry McCarthy, a media strategist who gained renown for creating the racially tinged "Willie Horton" commercials against Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

"Folks across America should be worried about these anonymous groups that go into an election and try to buy a favorable result," said Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki. "People have no idea where the money came from. It's difficult to take recourse."

Interest groups spending large amounts on the election are prohibited by law from talking to candidates about their strategy.

Ben Lange, Braley's GOP challenger, denies any connection to the American Future Fund's attacks. "We have no interaction with this group," said Cody Brown, spokesman for Lange. "We're not so much concerned with what these outside groups are doing. We want to have an honest, focused debate on the issues."

Fund officials could not be reached to comment.

THIS STORY
Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections
Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010?
View All Items in This Story
Flexibility for the GOP

Heightened spending by outside groups has given the Republican Party flexibility in choosing which races to focus on. In West Virginia, the GOP recently spent $1.2 million backing businessman John Raese for the Senate seat long held by Robert C. Byrd, who died in June. The contest had been considered safe for the Democrats, whose candidate, Joe Manchin III, is the state's governor. But Manchin's poll numbers have recently slipped.

While the interest-group money has primarily helped Republicans, Democrats have proved better at raising money for the party itself and for individual candidates. Those donations must, by law, come from individuals and are limited in size. Much of the interest-group spending, by contrast, has been based on large contributions from well-heeled donors and corporations.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other interest groups on election ads in its 5 to 4 decision this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Many interest groups are organized as nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their financial backing, helping fuel the increase in secret donors.

The Post analyzed spending numbers that groups are required to report to the FEC, including spending on broadcast ads mentioning a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of the general election. Some expenditures - and donors - are not revealed. Many groups, for example, avoid reporting what they spend on attacks by making a subtle distinction, saying their message is focused on candidates' positions on issues instead of the election itself.

One reason Democrats have benefited less from interest-group spending may be the party's - and President Obama's - message against the role of moneyed interests in Washington. And in his 2008 campaign, Obama discouraged such independent interest groups on the left from forming.

Some Democratic groups have lowered their spending on election ads. The Internet-based advocacy group MoveOn.org will spend roughly the same amount it did in the 2006 midterms, said Executive Director Justin Ruben, but will concentrate on organizing supporters instead of trying to compete on the airwaves.

"We can't possibly match this spending dollar for dollar," Ruben said. "Turnout is big in a midterm, and the best way to affect turnout is person-to-person contact. These groups have a few millionaires, but they can't talk to that many people."



Organized as nonprofits

Conservative groups such as Americans for Job Security and Crossroads GPS, an arm of the American Crossroads group, co-founded by former George W. Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, are organized as nonprofits and don't have to disclose who is giving them money. Some liberal groups, such as the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, are also nonprofits but raise money on a much smaller scale.

One major player this year is the 60 Plus Association, an Alexandria-based group that bills itself as the conservative alternative to the AARP seniors group. In 2008, the group reported less than $2 million in revenue, most of it from direct-mail contributions.

This year the group has spent $7 million on election-related ads, according to its FEC reports. It also funded a $9 million campaign against Obama's health-care overhaul in 2009.

The group is somewhat renowned for its take-no-prisoners approach to advertising, alleging in recent spots that multiple Democrats have "betrayed seniors." The journalistic research Web site PolitiFact.com called the ads "highly misleading" in describing the funding outlook for Medicare.

But 60 Plus spokesman Tom Kise defended the ads and said the group's rapidly expanded budget was due to widespread opposition to Democratic policies on issues affecting senior citizens.

"We've never had this kind of threat to seniors before," Kise said. "We are in unprecedented times, which calls for unprecedented measures."

In earlier years, 60 Plus received significant grants from foundations connected to Pfizer and other major drugmakers, according to AARP. Kise declined to provide details about the group's donors but said it is not taking money from the pharmaceutical industry.

[August]

But NOT the Supreme Court. Did you actually read the article?

Yeah I read the article.

Dude, are you really trying to claim that although your party owns super majorities in both houses of Congress AND controls the Executive you're still loosing because you also don't control the Judicial branch? :o

Really, I can't think of a more damning judgment of your sides ability to govern the nation.

Put aside the party blinders for a minute if you can. What you don't realize is that those SC rulings help both sides equally. If a disparity in contributions exists it's because presently Liberals are not as motivated as the Conservatives. Don't even try to claim that they aren't just as rich.

The bottom line here is the American people want the present gang of scoundrels and thieves out of Washington and the political donations reflect that. It of course shouldn't be construed as a validation of the other gangs agenda but such are the perils of two party politics (not that more parties would be any better).

Seriously, you should see the coming congressional purge as a good thing Torvald. It's always dangerous for the nation when one party owns both houses of Congress, especially when they also control the White House too. That goes for any party, and just to be absolutely clear here the Republicans are most definitely included in that.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

"Gridlock, the best form of government for the common man".

It is a truth that transcends party politics.

[Bubblehead1980]

Yes, but allow him some indulgencies, after all its all new to him.
Once he finishes his schooling, gets out in the real world and lives through a few "changes" of government he may understand better.

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

[Legionary74]

deleted

[mookiemookie]

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

HOPE AND CHANGE! LOL!

You'll see...once you stop looking at things in terms of R vs D, and more in terms of Corporations vs you, you will see what's really happening and you won't be suckered into their charade.

[antikristuseke]

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

I'm only 23, I wonder how cynical i'll be in my 40's...If this keeps up I am going to make an awesome cranky old man.

[tater]

Yeah I read the article.

Dude, are you really trying to claim that although your party owns super majorities in both houses of Congress AND controls the Executive you're still loosing because you also don't control the Judicial branch? :o

Really, I can't think of a more damning judgment of your sides ability to govern the nation.

Put aside the party blinders for a minute if you can. What you don't realize is that those SC rulings help both sides equally. If a disparity in contributions exists it's because presently Liberals are not as motivated as the Conservatives. Don't even try to claim that they aren't just as rich.

The bottom line here is the American people want the present gang of scoundrels and thieves out of Washington and the political donations reflect that. It of course shouldn't be construed as a validation of the other gangs agenda but such are the perils of two party politics (not that more parties would be any better).

Seriously, you should see the coming congressional purge as a good thing Torvald. It's always dangerous for the nation when one party owns both houses of Congress, especially when they also control the White House too. That goes for any party, and just to be absolutely clear here the Republicans are most definitely included in that.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

"Gridlock, the best form of government for the common man".

It is a truth that transcends party politics.

Hear, hear. Well said.

[Bubblehead1980]

HOPE AND CHANGE! LOL!

You'll see...once you stop looking at things in terms of R vs D, and more in terms of Corporations vs you, you will see what's really happening and you won't be suckered into their charade.


I do not look at things in terms of R and D.I disagree with Republicans on many things but Dems on many, many more things.Oh god the corporation crap.Really? grow up. Not corporations vs me or you or anyone.

[Skybird]

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic and as the SCOTUS goes by the Constitution, these groups are allowed to get involved and should be.MOST people are not dumb enough in todays world with all the info out there to let some commercials influence them, they can look things up and decide for themselves.

I already said that I take you guy's word for America not being democratic. :88)




Okay, I hearby declare that the United States's historic national design as outlined by the conmstitution and amandements, is not democratic. At least it is not more democratic than for example the German Federal Republic.

Satisfied? :88) Didn't I just say above that there are no democratic states left in the West? :D

Now tell me somebody - what is being gained by this kind of useless hairsplitting?

Of course the US by historic design was meant to be a democracy. A democratic republic. Ooops - sounds like German Democratic Republic. Representative, somebody, representing - by any chance the voting people, maybe? So we talk about a people's republic - like in People's Republic of China? :shucks:

C'mon guys, let's waste your time on something more useful than this shadowboxing.

[mookiemookie]

Really? grow up.

Says the person with the most immature political opinions in all of GT.

[Sailor Steve]

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic...
So it has been said. But is it an explanation or just another quote? Can you tell anyone what the difference is, or why it matters?

How about what James Madison said about it?

You keep saying you dislike the Right as well as the Left, yet every time you descibe the Left you use terms right out of the Right-Wing playbook. Your claims don't match the image you project.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well some may be too lazy, but not most.Esp this cycle!

That motivation seems to be eroding, according to today's ABC News/Washington Post poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/abc-news-washington-post-poll-gop-advantage-eases/story?id=11798478

There's no way that I'm going to claim that Team R has packed up and gone home. However, I think that the evidence is going to begin to mount that the R's will pick up seats, but it won't be the slam dunk that talk radio and Fox News are heralding.

[Aramike]

Sadly I think you will be proven wrong. It wont be any different than any other election, politicians just shuffle places a bit but nothing will really change.Brilliant (no sarcasm intended).

Honestly, in every other election in my lifetime I would agree with you. But to be honest, I think change is a-comin'.

This political year is just downright bizarre. In my lifetime I have never seen moderate-right conservative activism on quite this scale - or really, any scale for that matter. Social policy has taken a backburner to fiscal policy in a very real sense. Establishment candidates are the only ones attempting to talk about guns, abortion, gay rights, etc. as a clear distraction from what the public percieves as the key issues - government pervasiveness and economic policy.

Just think: Medicare has been an albatross for Republicans for as long as I can remember - this year, they are seeing success actually running on its preservation due to Obamacare. The war is practically a non-issue, special social interest groups' ads are getting laughed at, a neocon/libertarian/religious talk radio host attracts more people to a rally in DC than 400 Big Labor organizations COMBINED....

In my analysis, this can pretty much be laid squarely at the feet of Barack Obama. He miscalculated greatly by overpromising and underdelivering - excessively. His stimulus package is an abject failure - by his OWN STANDARDS (remember his unemployment promise?). Obamacare was a time bomb just starting to explode as people are beginning to see their new annual insurance policies coming in - higher premiums, lower coverage, AND a trillion dollar overhead cost to taxpayers. People are beginning to wonder why public sector employees and unions aren't facing the same drop offs, except they resent paying for public sector jobs and are watching the typical union become impotent in the face of high unemployment.

Personally, I can't help but be excited by this as this seems to be ushering a new era of government accountability for the way our tax dollars are spent. People are paying attention - perhaps that is one benefit of a slow economy.

[mookiemookie]

Personally, I can't help but be excited by this as this seems to be ushering a new era of government accountability for the way our tax dollars are spent. People are paying attention - perhaps that is one benefit of a slow economy.

Doubtful. Voters are fickle and have very short memories. This is lip service being paid by candidates to a passing fad, nothing more.

[Tribesman]

Honestly, in every other election in my lifetime I would agree with you. But to be honest, I think change is a-comin'.

Feeling hopey changey.....just like some mugs in the last round.

[Castout]

A pic is worth a thousand words though I'd prefer a thousand post count..anyway...so here

http://filmtracks.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/the-long-goodbye.jpg?w=500

http://aworldofprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/goodbye-295x300.gif

[mookiemookie]

Feeling hopey changey.....just like some mugs in the last round.

It just goes to show politicians are politicians, and if you go into it thinking "yeah. but it's gonna be different this time!" you will be disappointed.

[Aramike]

Doubtful. Voters are fickle and have very short memories. This is lip service being paid by candidates to a passing fad, nothing more.I disagree. Short memories in good times, yes. In bad times, any misstep the party in power has ever taken comes back to haunt them.

Besides, I should've been more clear - I'm not suggesting a major change in the way politicians approach the nation's issues but rather a major change in which the voters approach the politicians. We are already seeing this.