Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Hobbes in all fairness to backbeat, he did post a hyperlink on his first post to an AP article referencing this very issue...perhaps you may have missed thinking it was a simple underline.

    EDIT: Correction, the link was to the Washington Post...my mistake sorry.
    No you are right Backbeat did provide a link. I missed that. That article did talk about the Rep concerns. When I said no source and so I couldn't comment on it, I didn't realize it was the post before that. I was thinking post 7 was his first comment on this vote since I missed the link in post 3. Instead of simply saying that he sourced it in post 3 which would have avoided this whole thing, I was continually characterized wrongfully with degrading and uncivil comments over several posts, so we had to go through all that until you graciously pointed out the missed link. Again...a lot of avoidable back and forth over a simple misunderstanding that could have been easily addressed with civility in the very beginning.

    backbeat sorry I said you did not source, as I simply missed the link. Now that I understand (thanks to TreoNewt) what you were referring to (which is all I wanted to do in the first place was to understand the situation you stated) I agree the Reps should not stopped those bills. In the future, it is a lot easier to point out what someone might have missed in a thread than attack with characterizations and accusations.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/12/2007 at 09:05 PM.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    In my opinion, there is no reason transcendental enough in this world to oppose such legislation in a partisan maner. They argued about the new incarnation of the "line-item veto" but I feel attaching this was a way for the party to justify it's opposition.
    From what I have read so far, I think you are right. Those who voted against will/should have to answer to why. I can see this as a major campaign topic next time around.

    I am still reading about it, but I see two points:

    • As far as I can see the Rep may not have been against the bill as much as giving the Dems a "victory". In other words playing politics with a product and helpful bill. (BTW, this is nothing new, I have seen the Dems do the same thing for that matter as well as the Rep in the past)
    • The point you made earlier....The Dems should still keep to their promises in practice, even if not enacted in law. This would go a long way in the next election. But they are still much of the same thing they were point fingers at the Reps doing when they were in power. A Two year abstinence to many of these practices I would think would be more valuable in remaining in power in 2 years time than the money. But then again, money can buy a lot of loyalty
    !
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Instead of simply saying that he sourced it in post 3 which would have avoided this whole thing, I was continually characterized wrongfully over several posts
    Excuse me? You were characterized wrongfully and I should've posted that I had previously posted a reference which you may or may not have missed?

    Is there anyone with a level head who can possibly speak to this?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I am still reading about it, but I see two points:

    • As far as I can see the Rep may not have been against the bill as much as giving the Dems a "victory". In other words playing politics with a product and helpful bill. (BTW, this is nothing new, I have seen the Dems do the same thing for that matter as well as the Rep in the past)
      .
      .
      .
    !
    If this is indeed true, and may well be, the Republicans need to be held accountable during the next elections for that.

    However, I think the motives for the opposition are more sinister that party politics and speak to the rampant corruption in Washington.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  5.    #25  
    I agree...Here is what I posted in Would Christ be a Rep thread of what I think needs to happen in Washington:


    • No lobby money allowed to fund candidates, political parties, or campaigns of any kind. There might even have to be limits enforced of spending for specific causes, party, or candidate in place as well. I.E.....instead of giving money directly to a candidate, a drug company agrees to sponsor their own "independent" advertising campaign relieving that candidate from any and all advertising financial burdens his whole campaign.
    • All benefit packages and salary increases put to a public vote for all public positions.....especially congress and senate.
    • Monetary limits that can be spent on campaign events and advertising
    • This might even be followed by radio and TV stations being compensated by a non-party advertising campaign fund that pays for equal TV and Radio slots for each candidate. This might also give incentives for increased air time for open forum opportunities and debates.
    • Stricter campaign finance laws & regulations (which have been promised and unfulfilled for years...or decades...now)
    • Along with point above, a separate oversight governing body (that is publicly elected...or that an oxymoron...or appointed or a percentage of both) who's sole responsibility and job is within this body and does not include any sitting public office holders.
    • Redefine term limit restrictions for both houses.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ...I was continually characterized wrongfully with degrading and uncivil comments over several posts, so we had to go through all that until you graciously pointed out the missed link...
    Again, in all fairness, you were also wrongly characterizing backbeat as not providing a source.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #27  
    ^ Among other things.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Again, in all fairness, you were also wrongly characterizing backbeat as not providing a source.
    Which I fully admitted that and apologized for.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    No you are right Backbeat did provide a link. I missed that. That article did talk about the Rep concerns. When I said no source and so I couldn't comment on it, I didn't realize it was the post before that. I was thinking post 7 was his first comment on this vote since I missed the link in post 3. ...........

    backbeat sorry I said you did not source, as I simply missed the link. Now that I understand (thanks to TreoNewt) what you were referring to (which is all I wanted to do in the first place was to understand the situation you stated) I agree the Reps should not stopped those bills.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #29  
    ^ Which is accepted.

    However, the lack of civility was present on both sides, which I accept responsibility for my role.
  10.    #30  
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #31  
    ^ Glad you can toast that statement.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    However, for those of you "hyperpartisans" out there, the lack of passage of these bills will not absolve Democrats from responsibility in matters of corruption. If they really believed on the cause, they would still practice abstinence in the abscence of them.
    Money, obtained legally and within procedural rules, is the fuel that keeps our elected representatives operating. [Not a statement of approval, but simply fact] To expect the Dems to offer unilateral disarmament as a solution equates to complete suicide, regardless of Majority or Minority status. This is as unrealistic an expectation as one can possibly imagine as it would create a turkey-shoot scenario favoring Republicans. This is what you want?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Money, obtained legally and within procedural rules, is the fuel that keeps our elected representatives operating. [Not a statement of approval, but simply fact] To expect the Dems to offer unilateral disarmament as a solution equates to complete suicide, regardless of Majority or Minority status. This is as unrealistic an expectation as one can possibly imagine as it would create a turkey-shoot scenario favoring Republicans. This is what you want?
    To request from the Republicans a cleanning of the house while ignoring yours, is this what you want?

    Morally and ethically correct behavior can not become conditional to others lack of ethics or morality.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    To request from the Republicans a cleanning of the house while ignoring yours, is this what you want?
    This makes no sense, with due respect. Legislation would effect all Parties equally to the extent they rely upon lobbying/fundraising efforts. Democrats have never called for a unilateral cleaning of the Republican 'house', outside of following disciplinary rules or civil law for the prosecution of those who have involved themselves in criminal activities. There is no double-standard here.

    For one Party to forego the funds derived legally and within the current rules of procedure over an undetermined period of time until legislation may be passed [and you see the willingness of the Repubs on this so far] will eliminate the effectiveness of the Democrats efforts on any level.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Legislation would effect all Parties equally to the extent they rely upon lobbying/fundraising efforts. Democrats have never called for a unilateral cleaning of the Republican 'house', outside of following disciplinary rules or civil law for the prosecution of those who have involved themselves in criminal activities. There is no double-standard here.
    On this we agree; the question I posted was purely rhetorical, just reversing your original logic to a different viewpoint.

    For one Party to forego the funds derived legally and within the current rules of procedure over an undetermined period of time until legislation may be passed [and you see the willingness of the Repubs on this so far] will eliminate the effectiveness of the Democrats efforts on any level.
    If the funds you are referring to are "legally" obtainied, then we are not talking about corruption, are we?

    When Democrats call Republicans on their corrupt ways - and rightfully so - and craft a piece of legislation to make such practices illegal I am under the assumption that they have a strong conviction about stopping corruption (and this is what I was referring to on my original comment - corruption).

    If your argument is (I doubt it is) that since the bill was defeated, the Democrats should resort to what they dub as corruption for now just to keep the playing field even, then this will seriously weaken their moral position on this argument.

    I am a simple man, I judge people by their deeds, not their words; good leaders lead by example not by decree.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    If your argument is (I doubt it is) that since the bill was defeated, the Democrats should resort to what they dub as corruption for now just to keep the playing field even, then this will seriously weaken their moral position on this argument.
    Agreed. That is not my viewpoint. However, do you understand the political reality for unilateral disarmament [as you and Hobbes have suggested the Dems do] as I've expressed it?
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Agreed. That is not my viewpoint. However, do you understand the political reality for unilateral disarmament [as you and Hobbes have suggested the Dems do] as I've expressed it?
    We are viewing this issue from two different perspectives:

    Your argument seems more of a strategic nature; if we forgo the funds while the others don't, our message's public access will be handicapped and the other side will have the upper hand. I understand and fully agree from the pragmatic view point this may well be accurate. I do understand the ugly political reality in our country.

    My argument is more of a principled nature; If you (the Party) truly believe the current money system to be wrong (ableit legal) and you denounce it as such, dipping on it to maintian competitive advantange weakens your moral position on the argument.

    Although I know you are correct, deep inside me I have strong convictions and refuse to accept this to be the only way. I have hopes that if one side cleans up it's act as a matter of principle, the American public will notice and reward it for it's integrity and honesty.

    I almost know what you may say, I understand this believe IS divorced from the current political reality.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Your argument seems more of a strategic nature; if we forgo the funds while the others don't, our message's public access will be handicapped and the other side will have the upper hand. I understand and fully agree from the pragmatic view point this may well be accurate. I do understand the ugly political reality in our country.
    I would prefer the term pragmatic vs strategic, but we fundamentally agree on this.

    My argument is more of a principled nature; If you (the Party) truly believe the current money system to be wrong (ableit legal) and you denounce it as such, dipping on it to maintian competitive advantange weakens your moral position on the argument.
    Again, agreed, in principle. What should be pointed out, for clarity, is that the Dems have been all over the Republican scandals, not because Republicans have been playing the money game in general, but because of the corruption charges/convictions/resignations due to illegal activities. That is the distinction. The Dems have gone beyond the pure [current] legalities of Lobbying/Fundraising by making this bold legislative attempt to place razor-sharp teeth to inforce lobby access/contribution laws as well as shutting down the loopholes the Republicans raped. We've already covered the ground on the Republicans response, so no need to rehash that history.

    Although I know you are correct, deep inside me I have strong convictions and refuse to accept this to be the only way. I have hopes that if one side cleans up it's act as a matter of principle, the American public will notice and reward it for it's integrity and honesty.
    I'm right there with you! However, sacrificing one's arm for a noble cause is only noble if the body survives in politics.

    I almost know what you may say, I understand this believe IS divorced from the current political reality.
    In practical, pragmatic terms you're right. It is divorced from political reality, IMO. The idea is akin to taking the position that although Iraq was a war of highly questionable choice, we should immediately withdraw all troops because it is the principled thing to do, due to the unchecked errors which led to invading another sovereign nation. There are other considerations, primarily those being the resulting bloodbath [both political and literal, in both scenarios] which would ensue. (Let's not let this drift off into a windy discussion on Iraq, however )
  19. #39  
    Guys.. guys .. guys.. Look at the big picture. Corruption will ALWAYS be an integral part of American politics, maybe even an increasing part, given the pervasive role of money in politics.

    No organization or person will "give $ away" to any politician without expecting something in return.

    As always, in a democracy, I'll blame the public. As long as we behave like zombies that can be manipulated by the incessant TV attack ads and the spin doctors, we'll get the govt we deserve.

    The only way out is a completely public financed elections.. which the lobbyists (and the brain-washed public) won't allow.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    I would prefer the term pragmatic vs strategic, but we fundamentally agree on this.
    Actually that was the word I had in mind originally

    What should be pointed out, for clarity, is that the Dems have been all over the Republican scandals, not because Republicans have been playing the money game in general, but because of the corruption charges/convictions/resignations due to illegal activities.
    As I previously pointed, they (Reps) have elevated corruption to a new art form in Washington.

    Guys.. guys .. guys.. Look at the big picture. Corruption will ALWAYS be an integral part of American politics, maybe even an increasing part, given the pervasive role of money in politics.
    Perhaps, but I hate to settle for the lowest common denominator.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions