Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mushroom
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    I don't know whether that is deeply stupid, or deeply disingenuous. Despite liberal fantasies that businesses (particularly "big business") is an endless deep pocket/piggy bank, NO corporation anywhere, at anytime HAS "unlimited" amounts to spend (therefor are not "able" to) on anything, let alone American elections!

    How about some examples of how much specific corporations are spending, in comparison to total spending? Why don't we ever hear that from the hand-ringers? Because any ACTUAL numbers would show how stupid and silly the laments are in the real world.
    Interestingly enough, most people have no idea that these contributions are a matter of public record. And are easy to look up.

    Top Overall Donors | OpenSecrets

    There you go, top political donations so far in the current 2012 Election Cycle. And looking at it, the #1 donator is Perry Homes, a construction company based in Texas. Most of their money goes to Republicans.

    Next on the list is the Movie company Dreamworks. And most of their money goes to Democrats.

    And as you go down the list, you see a pretty even mix of companies that mostly donate to both by varying amounts, with some mixed in that donate primarily to one party or the other. Some are no surprise at all, like Unions donating almost exclusively Democrat. And looking at the Entertainment companies (Dreamworks, Comcast, Time-Warner), they also donate far more to Democrats then Republicans.

    Even major corporations like Wal-Mart are pretty evenly split though, 47% to Democrats, 53% to Republicans.

    And the top donation amounts? In Total Contributions that is just over $3 million. Hardly "bottomless spending". Even Wal-Mart donated less then $600k.

    And feel free to look at the other charts. This is a fascinatine one to me:

    Top Overall Donors | OpenSecrets

    Going through the "Top 5" of that list, and you see 3 of the top 5 are Unions. And just by looking at it, you can see that some of the numbers seem badly flawed (like the top donating 24% to Democrats, 0% to Republicans, but listed as "on the fence"). I assume this is because a lot of the money goes to local issue PACs and the like, which are not party affiliated. But these are interesting charts. Especially for those that think the Corporations are all in the "pocket of the Republicans". And that they donate "huge amounts of money".

    Leave a comment:


  • dixon76710
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
    I understand that it goes against intuition to have a single-payer system, but really, read the FAQs provided up thread. It would curtail costs dramatically on paperwork alone, and from the administration on both the insurance and provider side.
    Thats paid for privately. Costs that would have to be paid for by the government. Still MORE government expenditure, not less.

    Leave a comment:


  • Damn Yankee
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Irony:
    Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
    Gosh - what insightful and meaningful debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus1124
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Bfgrn
    Nice rant.

    People own and work at corporations. But are all those people American citizens? Do foreigners have the right to vote in our elections, I mean the ARE people?

    So, you have no problem if this guy spends millions to influence our elections?
    Does the First Amendment apply only to American citizens, and specifically only those who have a right to vote? If so, then glad to know that we can prohibit every single non-citizen alien in this country from any communicative activity urging easier citizenship for themselves and others!

    When you say "influence our elections?" Are elections people? Are they sentient entities? No, they are events. They don't think, they don't decide, they have no reasoning.

    What you MEANT to ask is do I have a problem with millions being spent (particularly by non-citizens) trying to influence VOTERS. No, I don't. Because unlike liberals I don't think the average voter is nothing more than an empty-minded sheep doing whatever the most, or most recent advertisement they saw tells them to do.

    Bfrgn
    Do any foreign corporations have U.S. subsidiaries that would be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections? Does CITGO?
    I don't know whether that is deeply stupid, or deeply disingenuous. Despite liberal fantasies that businesses (particularly "big business") is an endless deep pocket/piggy bank, NO corporation anywhere, at anytime HAS "unlimited" amounts to spend (therefor are not "able" to) on anything, let alone American elections!

    How about some examples of how much specific corporations are spending, in comparison to total spending? Why don't we ever hear that from the hand-ringers? Because any ACTUAL numbers would show how stupid and silly the laments are in the real world.

    Leave a comment:


  • dblack
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
    And I'm being obtuse? It isn't clear - if it was there wouldn't be ongoing debate ...
    Not necessarily. It's very possible that it is clear, and people who simply want to circumvent the limitations embodied in the Constitution are trying to bend the meaning to fit their aims. In my view, Hamilton is the preeminent example of this approach. When he was trying to sell the Constitution, he defended the Anti-Federalists' concerns that the general welfare clause might someday be interpreted as a broad general power. He claimed their concerns were spurious, insisting that the Constitution is very clear and only authorizes government power via explicitly enumerated powers. But a few years later, after the document had been ratified, he used exactly the same ploy the Anti-Federalists feared, arguing that the general welfare clause justified his plans to create a national bank.

    My point is that simply because some people argue that the Constitution means something new, doesn't make their claims legitimate. There are people who argue that the Earth is flat, or that 9/11 was in 'inside job', but that doesn't obligate us to take their claims seriously.

    Leave a comment:


  • pappypappynut
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    As soon as you bring up the logic and simplicity of the Constitution, lefties disappear like roaches when the light is turned on.
    Gosh - what insightful and meaningful debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • pappypappynut
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
    If one does ont understand what the words meant - at the time they were written -one really has no business imposing "modern" or "personal" meaning.



    There is the example of deliberate obtuseness - for the 2nd Amendment could NOT be written more clearly by the Founding Fathers.
    And I'm being obtuse? It isn't clear - if it was there wouldn't be ongoing debate (some of it with people who actually know what they are talking about, rather than ranters on a forum) about the intent. I'm will to bet that most of the people very clear on what it means only want to take notice of the second phrase, but just because you want something to be true, and state so snarkily on the internet, doesn't make the decades and decades of legal scholarly back and forth go away.

    "If one does ont understand what the words meant - at the time they were written -one really has no business imposing "modern" or "personal" meaning." - so you're making my point for me? Even with the best scholarly intent, nobody alive today actually understands precisely how language was used back then. Which is why we need to both be careful about basing our lives around the peculiarities of the wording, and also need to keep re-evaluating it against the best thinking of today. To fail to do so makes us, and it, no better than those holding up the Koran as the reason for beating their wives.

    Leave a comment:


  • HonorsDaddy
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
    The problem is, there are laws that undermine Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity. Example; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce takes in money from foreign corporations. It spent around $75 million of the mid-term elections. But the chamber won’t say specifically where that money is coming from, which gives corporations a conduit for funding attack ads anonymously. And they don't HAVE TO; The Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) organization under tax law, which means it doesn’t have to disclose its donors.
    What you describe could happen regardless of Citizens United.

    Like i said, there are always ways around a law and no law will ever actually stop a damned thing. However, your fear of a foreign corporation being able to directly influence an election through donations has been proven unfounded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
    There are ways around everything - up to and including simply ignoring the law.

    If the corporation could not make the donation, it would simply come from an individual - see how that works?

    If you want to pretend that a law could somehow be written which would make it impossible for something to be done, you go right on and pretend that. As it stands now, it cannot be done LEGALLY, which was what you were asking about in the first place.

    I'm sorry you don't like the fact that your uninformed fear has been shown to be unfounded, but there it is.

    No, there is no legal way either a foreign national, foreign corporation, or US subsidiary of a foreign corporation can make donations to US political candidates or parties.
    The problem is, there are laws that undermine Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity. Example; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce takes in money from foreign corporations. It spent around $75 million of the mid-term elections. But the chamber won’t say specifically where that money is coming from, which gives corporations a conduit for funding attack ads anonymously. And they don't HAVE TO; The Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) organization under tax law, which means it doesn’t have to disclose its donors.

    Leave a comment:


  • HonorsDaddy
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
    I'm sure there is no way around that. I have a bridge...
    There are ways around everything - up to and including simply ignoring the law.

    If the corporation could not make the donation, it would simply come from an individual - see how that works?

    If you want to pretend that a law could somehow be written which would make it impossible for something to be done, you go right on and pretend that. As it stands now, it cannot be done LEGALLY, which was what you were asking about in the first place.

    I'm sorry you don't like the fact that your uninformed fear has been shown to be unfounded, but there it is.

    No, there is no legal way either a foreign national, foreign corporation, or US subsidiary of a foreign corporation can make donations to US political candidates or parties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
    Did you actually read the information?

    From the FEC itself:

    Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity

    Additionally, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may not donate funds or anything of value in connection with state or local elections if:
    1. These activities are financed by the foreign parent or owner; or
    2. Individual foreign nationals are involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.[1]

    Please note that many states place additional restrictions on donations made to nonfederal candidates and committees. 11 CFR 110.20(i). (See also AOs 1992-16, 1985-3, 1982-10, and Matter Under Review (MUR) 2892.)


    If people are going to go through the trouble of giving you a sourced, authoritative answer to your question, the least you could do is take the time to click the fucking link and read.
    I'm sure there is no way around that. I have a bridge...

    Leave a comment:


  • HonorsDaddy
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
    Thank you! Now I have a question you can 'google', OK?

    Do any foreign corporations have U.S. subsidiaries that would be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections? Does CITGO?
    Did you actually read the information?

    From the FEC itself:

    Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity

    Additionally, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may not donate funds or anything of value in connection with state or local elections if:
    1. These activities are financed by the foreign parent or owner; or
    2. Individual foreign nationals are involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.[1]

    Please note that many states place additional restrictions on donations made to nonfederal candidates and committees. 11 CFR 110.20(i). (See also AOs 1992-16, 1985-3, 1982-10, and Matter Under Review (MUR) 2892.)


    If people are going to go through the trouble of giving you a sourced, authoritative answer to your question, the least you could do is take the time to click the fucking link and read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
    Foreign owned corporations are treated just like foreign nationals when it comes to election contributions. In other words, they are legally forbidden from making any and the candidate is legally forbidden to accept any.

    You could have discovered this with 30 seconds and an internet connection.

    Let me google that for you

    First link on the page. Damn dude - at least TRY to make an effort....
    Thank you! Now I have a question you can 'google', OK?

    Do any foreign corporations have U.S. subsidiaries that would be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections? Does CITGO?

    Leave a comment:


  • HonorsDaddy
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
    Nice rant.

    People own and work at corporations. But are all those people American citizens? Do foreigners have the right to vote in our elections, I mean the ARE people?

    So, you have no problem if this guy spends millions to influence our elections?


    GOOD to know!

    Foreign owned corporations are treated just like foreign nationals when it comes to election contributions. In other words, they are legally forbidden from making any and the candidate is legally forbidden to accept any.

    You could have discovered this with 30 seconds and an internet connection.

    Let me google that for you

    First link on the page. Damn dude - at least TRY to make an effort....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    You have the purpose of the Article V amendment process and its implications for the document as a whole completely and utterly ass-backwards.

    It's the reason none of the lefties who berate the Citizen's United ruling saying the the First Amendment applies to corporations (which simply one of many forms of cooperative exercise of the rights of the individuals comprising them) can't explain why, if as they like to smuggly assert "corporations aren't people", why the Federal Government cannot, through it's commerce clause powers (insofar as liberals believe that to be a virtually limitless grant of power to regulate any and all aspects of commerce in the entire nation) to restrict how much money the New York Times and other news CORPORATIONS spend (and how) to put out their product.

    The REASON there is an amendment process is because, as a WRITTEN Constitution which they considered to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, they DID expect that it was the equivalent of set in stone and immutable by anything OTHER than the amendment process. This means that when liberals speak of a "living" constitution (meaning left wing Judges should feel free to ignore the plain understanding and meaning of the text and substitute their own views as they deem changing times--which they put in such intellectually vacuous rhetorical flourish as "the evolving standards of decency which mark the progress of a maturing society" are in fact violating the constitution because the only way its meaning may be changed is through the Article V amendment process.

    And the reason liberals have such a hard time understanding the document is because they have imposed so many utterly stupid and intellectually unsupportable meanings to it, that they have painted themselves into a corner to the extent that they actually hold intellectually inconsistent (and incompatible) interpretations of various aspects of the document.

    For example, they berate the Citizens United decision smugly asserting that insofar as the First Amendment in concerned "corporations are people"--particularly the profit making ones becuase liberals have a deranged and dangerous hatred of the profit motive (ignoring the reality that it is people who OWN corporations), and yet can't explain why congress cannot, therefore, restrict how much money, how, and when, for-profit news CORPORATIONS may spend in producing and disemminating their product.
    Nice rant.

    People own and work at corporations. But are all those people American citizens? Do foreigners have the right to vote in our elections, I mean the ARE people?

    So, you have no problem if this guy spends millions to influence our elections?



    GOOD to know!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X