It's the Golden Rule tard - he who has the gold makes the rules. I guess on $80,000/y at age 60 not something you'll ever have to worry about though, huh? :-)
"we hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal" and should therefore be equal under the law
how exactly is my 1st amendment right to free speech remotely equal to Rupert Murdoc's 1st amendment right to free speech when his billions upon billions of dollars drown out everyone else's free speech?
And I don't really think it's a 1st amendment issue to begin with. Billionaires like Rupert Murdoc can go out and use their money to turn a TV channel into a propaganda machine and have all the 'free' speech they can afford without 'purchasing' a congressman. Bribing someone (via campaign donations) to slant the laws in favor of the elite has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with disenfranchising the rest of us.
Oh shit... I just agreed with alucard.....
uh... guns area good! guns are good! save the second amendment!
Oh goody, now if I win the super powerball lottery, I can throw the election off by getting everyone to vote for me for president. I could be like Romney spending millions of dollars. hmmm, looked like it didn't matter.
I suppose it could with special interests of rich people. I heard some rich guy bloomberg, in New York was willing to spend millions to try to get rid of the right of ordinary people to defend themselves, starting with guns.
just fucking great. this decision is yet another case of the fucking leftwing supreme court fucking America by aiding their paymasters the leftarded REAL one percenters.
Democrats are the party of the rich in Congress
Mon, 03/31/2014 - 7:33am
WASHINGTON — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits
.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.
The SC has made several rulings that affirm corporations are people, and actual people have no say in election rules. DO we really want corporate America choosing our government? Apparently the SC does.
Revolutions entail a disconnect between those in power and the unwashed masses. I see our country heading down that path.
Another day and Progressive losers are whining about the Constitution being accurately applied. They focus on Corporations that provide jobs and Americans who are self-made like the Koch family and then fawn over and kneel before job killing unions who have the same right to spend as corporations and spend more and George Soros a Socialist pos who is less American than the fraud in the White House. If they spent half the time they spent complaining on working they wouldn't need to have my hard earned money stolen by the Federal thieves in Washington so they can stay home and bitch. Yes, by this I mean I fucking hate Progressives who I consider less than turds in the bowl.
I prefer to discuss politics with the well educated. You know, the people who avoid personal attacks and name calling and instead talk about actual issues.
Left or right....there are rich on each side so I don't see an advantage for either. On top of that, all the money in the world can't really buy you any votes. Each American citizen can go in and cast their ballot the way they feel is right. There's hypocrisy on BOTH sides. What left and right seem to fail to see is the problem isn't which way the government is leaning...it's the fucking government itself that is the problem. Since the founding, the federal government has continued to grab more and more power unto itself.
If you're leftist...you want to tell people how to live their business lives.
If you-re on the right...you want to tell people how to live their private lives.
Me...I don't want anyone telling me how to do any damned thing. Government should only be there to protect those who are unwilling participants of any activities and the under aged. They should help enforce contracts between individuals and protect each persons rights.
The point isn't whether the wealthy are liberal or conservative. In today's world, the issues are too couched in politics, as opposed to good ideas, and the reason for this is money. The large contributors on both sides set the agenda. It's a joke that you can check a box to donate $1 to political campaigns on your tax form. Why even bother?
We should limit the campaign season to 4 months. Primaries in August and elections in November. No political adds until July. Oh...but this is an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Oh well.
So DoctorPhil, perhaps you could explain exactly how the story you quoted has any relevance to this Supreme Court decision. While it does certainly establish that several of the richest districts in the country have elected Democratic representatives, there seems to be a major link missing in your chain of thought.
Hint -- ask yourself what the mean income of a wage earner in Maloney's distrct is. Pretty trivial to estimate, simply assume that approximately 1/2 of the people in that district aren't wage earners (i.e., they are children or retired and living off investments). That would yield a mean of about $150K per wage earner. Let's further assume many families have two incomes. So a mean household income in the ballpark of $300K. That no doubt varies. After all it is a mean and therefore skewed upward by extreme values. But taking the actual distribution of incomes into account actually strengthens my argument by reducing the median income. But let's keep the math simple and directly related to the article you quoted.
Now riddle me this -- do you actually think individuals with a household income have a major influence on US elections?
What we have here is simply a correlation between the urban population being more liberal, on average, than the rural population AND the fact that living in a city is expensive and therefore correlated with higher incomes. Hmmm... perhaps that could explain the phenomenon. Or we could go with the DoctorPhil hypothesis of $300-thousandaires throwing elections.
As to calling the majority in this decision "liberal" -- that is just comedy gold!
Perhaps you can offer a cogent defense of your position. Or you can heap some pointless derision on me. Your choice.
It the elite ruling class (many get there by being wealthy, but many other get there just by knowing the right people) vs. everyone else. They are plenty of players on both sides moving Geo-political chess pieces without any concert for small business owners, middle and lower class families, etc.
Here you find another of San Jose Guy's former alias, Alucard before he reinvented himself as whom we know today. Coincidence that Alicard was last seen before San Jose Guy started posting? I think not. The math adds up.
41 comments
Latest
how exactly is my 1st amendment right to free speech remotely equal to Rupert Murdoc's 1st amendment right to free speech when his billions upon billions of dollars drown out everyone else's free speech?
And I don't really think it's a 1st amendment issue to begin with. Billionaires like Rupert Murdoc can go out and use their money to turn a TV channel into a propaganda machine and have all the 'free' speech they can afford without 'purchasing' a congressman. Bribing someone (via campaign donations) to slant the laws in favor of the elite has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with disenfranchising the rest of us.
Oh shit... I just agreed with alucard.....
uh... guns area good! guns are good! save the second amendment!
:)
I suppose it could with special interests of rich people. I heard some rich guy bloomberg, in New York was willing to spend millions to try to get rid of the right of ordinary people to defend themselves, starting with guns.
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/was…
Democrats are the party of the rich in Congress
Mon, 03/31/2014 - 7:33am
WASHINGTON — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits
.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.
Revolutions entail a disconnect between those in power and the unwashed masses. I see our country heading down that path.
progressives frightened by the well-educated knowledgeable? let’s review; book burnings, cultural revolution, killing fields. hmmmmm
If you're leftist...you want to tell people how to live their business lives.
If you-re on the right...you want to tell people how to live their private lives.
Me...I don't want anyone telling me how to do any damned thing. Government should only be there to protect those who are unwilling participants of any activities and the under aged. They should help enforce contracts between individuals and protect each persons rights.
I agree. The OP feels it benefits conservatives. But there are plenty of wealthy individuals on the opposite side also.
We should limit the campaign season to 4 months. Primaries in August and elections in November. No political adds until July. Oh...but this is an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Oh well.
I agree with a limited "official" campaign season.
Hint -- ask yourself what the mean income of a wage earner in Maloney's distrct is. Pretty trivial to estimate, simply assume that approximately 1/2 of the people in that district aren't wage earners (i.e., they are children or retired and living off investments). That would yield a mean of about $150K per wage earner. Let's further assume many families have two incomes. So a mean household income in the ballpark of $300K. That no doubt varies. After all it is a mean and therefore skewed upward by extreme values. But taking the actual distribution of incomes into account actually strengthens my argument by reducing the median income. But let's keep the math simple and directly related to the article you quoted.
Now riddle me this -- do you actually think individuals with a household income have a major influence on US elections?
What we have here is simply a correlation between the urban population being more liberal, on average, than the rural population AND the fact that living in a city is expensive and therefore correlated with higher incomes. Hmmm... perhaps that could explain the phenomenon. Or we could go with the DoctorPhil hypothesis of $300-thousandaires throwing elections.
As to calling the majority in this decision "liberal" -- that is just comedy gold!
Perhaps you can offer a cogent defense of your position. Or you can heap some pointless derision on me. Your choice.
It the elite ruling class (many get there by being wealthy, but many other get there just by knowing the right people) vs. everyone else. They are plenty of players on both sides moving Geo-political chess pieces without any concert for small business owners, middle and lower class families, etc.
RIP good man. You have returned to the STARDUST!!!