The Nehor Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 On December 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: 200k is big money because most people cannot donate that amount to a political campaign. That makes it big for an individual. It is not big in a political campaign. The pro and anti campaigns combined spent over $100m. The church spending comes to less than 0.2% of the total or 2/1000. A contribution but NOT big money.
rodheadlee Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 On 12/24/2015 at 4:09 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: This is the account of someone who had a Near death experience and talked to Jesus. This is what was said when the topic of a shrine came up: “When he [Jesus] told me that I had to come back to the world and I was trying to convince him not to send me back…, I asked him what would I do if I came back… Before he had a chance to answer, I said you know I am an artist and I would like to build a shrine for you… I would make this shrine so big and beautiful and bizarre that people would come from all over the world out of curiosity to see what it was about. And what they would find was it would be about you. And that would make them think about you. That’s what I would like to do if I came back. “He said, I would rather you didn’t do that. “And I said, WHAT?!! People have been building shrines to you forever. There are lots of shrines. Why can’t I build a shrine? I would like to build a shrine. “He said you spent so much of your life hiding out in the studio, avoiding people, I would prefer it if you didn’t avoid people by building this big shrine… I don’t really care about shrines. People like to build shrines. I understand that. It makes them feel good. It does absolutely nothing for me or for God. We don’t have any use for them whatsoever. If that’s what amuses you, it's ok to do. But don’t do it for me. Don’t deceive yourself into thinking it’s something I want or need, because I don’t." — Excerpted from Part 3 (03:00 – 10:25) of near-death experiencer Howard Storm’s interview Matt Cline: “The Redemption of Howard Storm”. To listen to all four parts, go here. The temples are not shrines, to state the obvious. They are essentially star gates. Not that I have ever been inside one to confirm it but I hear the veil is really thin in the Celestial Room. In my many travels I have found at least two spots that are a natural temple. The veil is really thin there. One spot has a way of violently tossing those out that have no respect, those who are not pure in their intentions.. The other is guarded by Native Americans. We were blessed to be brought there. It was near sunset when we went, we stayed for what seemed hours, after an hour drive to get there. It was still near sunset after the hour drive back. It seemed time stood still while we were there. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: That makes it big for an individual. It is not big in a political campaign. The pro and anti campaigns combined spent over $100m. The church spending comes to less than 0.2% of the total or 2/1000. A contribution but NOT big money. Political campaigns should be funded by individuals, not by Big Money donors. We need a Democracy.
The Nehor Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Political campaigns should be funded by individuals, not by Big Money donors. We need a Democracy. I would agree to an extent but the Chirch is not where you start with such a campaign. I personally am in favor of the House being limited only to individual campaign contributions of a limited value from each person while senators can campaign as they wish. Originally the Senate was intended to represent the elite interests and the House to represent the common people. Then again I think it may be time to call up the Queen and tell her that our experiment with democracy was cute but fruitless and ask for admittance back into the Empire. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I personally am in favor of the House being limited only to individual campaign contributions of a limited value from each person while senators can campaign as they wish. Good
Stargazer Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I would agree to an extent but the Chirch is not where you start with such a campaign. I personally am in favor of the House being limited only to individual campaign contributions of a limited value from each person while senators can campaign as they wish. Originally the Senate was intended to represent the elite interests and the House to represent the common people. Then again I think it may be time to call up the Queen and tell her that our experiment with democracy was cute but fruitless and ask for admittance back into the Empire. Sadly, the Empire is now a bunch of squabbling commoners and the Queen but a figurehead. She doesn't have the power to admit us back in. Nor does the Constitution permit us to ask, were we so foolish as to want to ask. You're wrong about the Senate. It was intended to represent the quasi-national entities that were the States. Look it up, the word "state" did not originally mean subordinate political bodies, although it has acquired that additional meaning over time. A "state" is a word that used to mean "nation" in this context. Making the United States into a compact of nations. This is why Senators were elected by the state legislatures, because the Senate represented the states of the union. Now they are merely a more prestigious version of the House of Representatives. 1
Stargazer Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: I personally am in favor of the House being limited only to individual campaign contributions of a limited value from each person while senators can campaign as they wish. You do realize that this is already partly the case, right? That individuals are limited to a max of $2,600 donated towards a federal candidate (Representative and Senatorial campaigns), and corporations and unions are not permitted to contribute directly to these campaigns? Check it out: Federal Election Campaign Limits. Now, as to issue campaigns at the state level it is state law that governs, and these kinds of campaigns are fundamentally different from those for public office.
strappinglad Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Imagine a true democracy in which every citizen gets a say and a vote on every action .If you think gridlock is bad now !!!. There are few true democracies in this world , and for that matter, I doubt there is one in the next life.
Avatar4321 Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Political campaigns should be funded by individuals, not by Big Money donors. We need a Democracy. I prefer a republic. And I have a problem limiting anyone from donating to causes and candidates they believe in. Seems unamerican to tell anyone they don't have s right to support who or what they want politically with their hard earned labor 1
The Nehor Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 18 hours ago, Stargazer said: Sadly, the Empire is now a bunch of squabbling commoners and the Queen but a figurehead. She doesn't have the power to admit us back in. Nor does the Constitution permit us to ask, were we so foolish as to want to ask. You're wrong about the Senate. It was intended to represent the quasi-national entities that were the States. Look it up, the word "state" did not originally mean subordinate political bodies, although it has acquired that additional meaning over time. A "state" is a word that used to mean "nation" in this context. Making the United States into a compact of nations. This is why Senators were elected by the state legislatures, because the Senate represented the states of the union. Now they are merely a more prestigious version of the House of Representatives. Yes and state governments were the elite. That is why the Constitution did not originally require popular elections for senators and states could select them as they wished. They represent the entrenched powerful in each state.
The Nehor Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 18 hours ago, Stargazer said: You do realize that this is already partly the case, right? That individuals are limited to a max of $2,600 donated towards a federal candidate (Representative and Senatorial campaigns), and corporations and unions are not permitted to contribute directly to these campaigns? Check it out: Federal Election Campaign Limits. Now, as to issue campaigns at the state level it is state law that governs, and these kinds of campaigns are fundamentally different from those for public office. Partially but you just need to form a PAC or other organization dedicated to getting someone elected and then you do not have to adhere to the limits as long as it is "independent". There are loopholes big enough to drive a galaxy through.
The Nehor Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I prefer a republic. And I have a problem limiting anyone from donating to causes and candidates they believe in. Seems unamerican to tell anyone they don't have s right to support who or what they want politically with their hard earned labor The idea that money is representative of "hard earned labor" is a right wing talk radio conceit designed to convince people that their wealth is proof of their industry and virtue. There are people with two jobs working 12 hours every day making less then half of what I am in a 40 hour workweek. Is my doubled salary proof that I "earned it"? Most of the hard earned money in question is coming from corporations buying favors and unions buying jobs and the inherited wealthy buying influence. Joe Bob on the street does not on average have enough "hard earned money" to touch the campaign limits already in place.
Sleeper Cell Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 40 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Partially but you just need to form a PAC or other organization dedicated to getting someone elected and then you do not have to adhere to the limits as long as it is "independent". There are loopholes big enough to drive a galaxy through. Yes, that pesky first amendment “free speech” loophole. Why is it OK for an individual or corporation that controls a large circulation newspaper to publish multiple editorials supporting one side in a political campaign but not OK for another individual or corporation or church to buy one (1) comparable sized ad supporting the other side? (Presumably such an ad would cost substantially more than the current individual donor limit). Perhaps we should also close that “freedom of the press” loophole.
Stargazer Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 On 12/26/2015 at 10:59 AM, The Nehor said: Yes and state governments were the elite. That is why the Constitution did not originally require popular elections for senators and states could select them as they wished. They represent the entrenched powerful in each state. Why do you think your reimagining of history is better than history itself? That is NOT the reason the Constitution didn't require popular election of Senators. The legislatures themselves were elected by the people, so how do you come off about them being the elite? It is the peoples' choice who sits in the states' legislatures. Why did the Constitution specifically say that Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures? Answer: so each state had an equal representation, so that the most populous states could not ride roughshod over the smaller states, which is what would happen if there were only a House of Representatives.. And the Senate was intended to represent each state's government. The only way to do that is to have the legislature elect them. Not because they were the elites. What do you think the states are, anyway? Little dictatorships? I don't know about your state, but mine has elections every two years for the Legislature. Perhaps your state has been taken over by plutocrats?
Stargazer Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 On 12/26/2015 at 11:02 AM, The Nehor said: Partially but you just need to form a PAC or other organization dedicated to getting someone elected and then you do not have to adhere to the limits as long as it is "independent". There are loopholes big enough to drive a galaxy through. You seem to think that elections are won by who spent the most on election campaigns. And I will admit that, by and large, this seems to be the case. While the Open Secrets blog indicates: Quote Even during the most competitive cycles, when control of Congress is up for grabs, at the end of the day the candidates who spend the most usually win eight of 10 Senate contests and nine of 10 House races. The plain fact of the matter is this: money permits a candidate to get out his or her message. The public is still independent, and if it prefers the incumbent then it will vote for that incumbent. The other thing is this: candidates who are unpopular have a harder time raising funds. The Open Secrets blog also has this to say: Quote The takeaway? Winning the money race by itself isn’t a ticket to Congress. Success also depends on other factors being in play that give a challenger a fighting chance of prevailing. The other point to be made here is this: incumbents tend to win because they are incumbents, and voters as a group tend to be careful about the status quo. You may or may not have noticed that control of Congress has gradually shifted over a 10 year period from both houses being controlled by Democrats to Republicans controlling the House, and almost controlling the Senate now (in the majority but according to Senate rules not quite in total control), and you think this is happening because the Republicans are getting more money, and that alone? Why would control shift my cynical friend, if the people weren't gradually coming over to a different persuasion? And it will eventually switch over the other way as the people are persuaded one way or another. Not because the Koch brothers or George Soros and son are spending more money, but because the people generally see the results of the current governing style, and are moving to change it.
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 8 hours ago, Stargazer said: Why do you think your reimagining of history is better than history itself? That is NOT the reason the Constitution didn't require popular election of Senators. The legislatures themselves were elected by the people, so how do you come off about them being the elite? It is the peoples' choice who sits in the states' legislatures. Why did the Constitution specifically say that Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures? Answer: so each state had an equal representation, so that the most populous states could not ride roughshod over the smaller states, which is what would happen if there were only a House of Representatives.. And the Senate was intended to represent each state's government. The only way to do that is to have the legislature elect them. Not because they were the elites. What do you think the states are, anyway? Little dictatorships? I don't know about your state, but mine has elections every two years for the Legislature. Perhaps your state has been taken over by plutocrats? If that is the case would you be okay with Congress selecting the President or the House electing the Senators? Probably not because the more distance you put between the voters and the decision the more likely they are to represent other interests. The Founding Fathers knew this. They were modeling the new government loosely on the British system: President = King House of Representatives = Parliament Senate = House of Lords The responsibilities fell out much the same. That is why the Senate has to ratify the President's appointments and foreign policy while the house gets no input. I live in Texas where a governor can get a standing ovation for the number of people he has had executed in the last year. Yeah, I am not impressed with the state government (or the idiots who applaud death).
Recommended Posts