Political Crossfire Forums

[callous]

I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they were interviewing a representative of the league of completely sh!tty individuals.... or the national association of lobbyists, or whatever they are called,

and you know what he said?

He said that you can't just cut lobbyists effects on congress and expect to stay at their resteraunts afterwords. He even went as far as to say that Jack Abramoff didn't force any of those congressmen to fly his airplanes or take his vacations.

If that isn't enough to make you want to take a shower, the idea that lobbyists not only have ultimate control on the US governments legislative powers, but also its ethics laws, should.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19ethics.html?hp&ex=1163912400&en=b73d2efcbde39648&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Klondikekat]

Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

[Tennouheika]

Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

Which doesn't make this right. Too bad not many people seem to care about the issue.

[callous]

Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

[JLB]

callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

[Tennouheika]

JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Is that a joke?

The theory behind lobbyists is that they represent the American People, but the Trial Lawyers lobby would have more influence than the Poor People of America lobby, don't you think?

[callous]

JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

But thanks for playing. :wink:

[patrickt]

I read the article, twice, looking for some clue that the lobbyist for the non-corporate entities were not involved. I couldn't find anything about them. How did you decide they weren't involved?

[callous]

patrickt wrote: I read the article, twice, looking for some clue that the lobbyist for the non-corporate entities were not involved. I couldn't find anything about them. How did you decide they weren't involved?

Why would I even worry about lobbyists for non-corporate entities?

[JLB]

Tennouheika wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Is that a joke?

The theory behind lobbyists is that they represent the American People, but the Trial Lawyers lobby would have more influence than the Poor People of America lobby, don't you think?

No, a lobbysist represents a group of people who cannot all travel to Washington to meet with our representatives. The Sierra Club has their lobbyists, as does the NRA., as does business.

All Americans have the right to band together and try and have their voices heard.

It's just like a Union rep.

If the Trial Lawyers are more effective in getting their message across, then that's the breaks. The poor have plenty of lobbyists representing them.

[JLB]

[quote="callous"] JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Quote: lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Good, as Corporations have the same rights to free speech as others, as a Corporation is made up entirely of people.


Quote: Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

So does the ACLU have a lobbyist?

Wasn't Ralph Nader a lobbyist?

Do unions have lobbyists?



Quote: But thanks for playing. :wink:

I love to play when I know I'm a winner even before I click on your thread. 8:)

[Tennouheika]

JLB wrote: Tennouheika wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Is that a joke?

The theory behind lobbyists is that they represent the American People, but the Trial Lawyers lobby would have more influence than the Poor People of America lobby, don't you think?

No, a lobbysist represents a group of people who cannot all travel to Washington to meet with our representatives. The Sierra Club has their lobbyists, as does the NRA., as does business.

All Americans have the right to band together and try and have their voices heard.

It's just like a Union rep.

If the Trial Lawyers are more effective in getting their message across, then that's the breaks. The poor have plenty of lobbyists representing them.

Yes, that is what I was saying when I said that in theory, lobbyists represent the American People.
However, as you know, it is all about money.

And large corporate lobbies have more money and thus influence than the environmental groups or groups for the poor.

Just think of who has more money, and then you see who has more influence.

[callous]

[quote="JLB"] callous wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Quote: lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Good, as Corporations have the same rights to free speech as others, as a Corporation is made up entirely of people.


Quote: Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

So does the ACLU have a lobbyist?

Wasn't Ralph Nader a lobbyist?

Do unions have lobbyists?



Quote: But thanks for playing. :wink:

I love to play when I know I'm a winner even before I click on your thread. 8:)

1. This thread has nothing to do with non profit organizations, and no, you are not allowed to go off topic.

2. I have never voted for Ralph Nader or supported him in any way. He's a fruit loop.

3. Unions are blatant representations of individual citizens needs and desires.

Work on your defenses a bit. :lol:

[Centrist]

JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

And here I thought the people we elected to Congress were supposed to represent the American people.

[JLB]

[quote="Tennouheika"] JLB wrote: Tennouheika wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Is that a joke?

The theory behind lobbyists is that they represent the American People, but the Trial Lawyers lobby would have more influence than the Poor People of America lobby, don't you think?

No, a lobbysist represents a group of people who cannot all travel to Washington to meet with our representatives. The Sierra Club has their lobbyists, as does the NRA., as does business.

All Americans have the right to band together and try and have their voices heard.

It's just like a Union rep.

If the Trial Lawyers are more effective in getting their message across, then that's the breaks. The poor have plenty of lobbyists representing them.

Quote: Yes, that is what I was saying when I said that in theory, lobbyists represent the American People.
However, as you know, it is all about money.

They get paid for their services, yes.

Quote: And large corporate lobbies have more money and thus influence than the environmental groups or groups for the poor.

Just think of who has more money, and then you see who has more influence.

Except you forgot the fact that they ae limited to the exact same donation amounts as others, so there goes that argument.

[JLB]

Centrist wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

And here I thought the people we elected to Congress were supposed to represent the American people.


They do, and lobbyists represent the people's views to the Congress, so that our views can be heard.

[JLB]

[quote="callous"][quote="JLB"] callous wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Quote: lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Good, as Corporations have the same rights to free speech as others, as a Corporation is made up entirely of people.


Quote: Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

So does the ACLU have a lobbyist?

Wasn't Ralph Nader a lobbyist?

Do unions have lobbyists?



Quote: But thanks for playing. :wink:

I love to play when I know I'm a winner even before I click on your thread. 8:)

Quote: 1. This thread has nothing to do with non profit organizations, and no, you are not allowed to go off topic.

So now only non profit organizations have freedom of speech in your new country?



Quote: 2. I have never voted for Ralph Nader or supported him in any way. He's a fruit loop.

He lobbied the country for automobile safety, and his voice was heard. mI guess you don't like seat belts and safety glass in your cars, eh?

Quote: 3. Unions are blatant representations of individual citizens needs and desires.

So is the NRA, and so is the lobbyist for Boeing, who represents thousands of workers and shareholders, all who have the freedom to be heard.

Quote: Work on your defenses a bit. :lol:

My defense hasn't taken the field yet, as you can't seem to keep my offense off the field.

So tell us why you are against free speech for people.... 8:)

[callous]

[quote="JLB"][quote="callous"] JLB wrote: callous wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Quote: lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Good, as Corporations have the same rights to free speech as others, as a Corporation is made up entirely of people.


Quote: Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

So does the ACLU have a lobbyist?

Wasn't Ralph Nader a lobbyist?

Do unions have lobbyists?



Quote: But thanks for playing. :wink:

I love to play when I know I'm a winner even before I click on your thread. 8:)

Quote: 1. This thread has nothing to do with non profit organizations, and no, you are not allowed to go off topic.

So now only non profit organizations have freedom of speech in your new country?



Quote: 2. I have never voted for Ralph Nader or supported him in any way. He's a fruit loop.

He lobbied the country for automobile safety, and his voice was heard. mI guess you don't like seat belts and safety glass in your cars, eh?

Quote: 3. Unions are blatant representations of individual citizens needs and desires.

So is the NRA, and so is the lobbyist for Boeing, who represents thousands of workers and shareholders, all who have the freedom to be heard.

Quote: Work on your defenses a bit. :lol:

My defense hasn't taken the field yet, as you can't seem to keep my offense off the field.

So tell us why you are against free speech for people.... 8:)

Do you still not understand the premise of the thread? You many want to go back and re-read the statement, as your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with it. :wink: I just want to help you become a better debater.

You still seem to be stuck on attempting to debate non profit organizations, and they aren't part of the thread. Please focus a bit harder.

And I completely killed your attempt to pin me as against free speech in my first response to you, as you remember, I showed you the light in how that lobbyists work for corporations, not individuals.

Please let me know how I can help you understand further.

[Centrist]

JLB wrote: Centrist wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

And here I thought the people we elected to Congress were supposed to represent the American people.


They do, and lobbyists represent the people's views to the Congress, so that our views can be heard.

I don't have a problem with lobbyists as a concept, I have a problem with lobbyists as a reality. It's not the lobbying I object to, it's the exchange of money and favors and perks for endorsement. The ONLY currency that lobbyists should be able to deal in is constituent voting. "This is our issue. This is what we'd like you to do about it. This is why. If you don't, then we'll tell the people we represent what your response was and suggest to them that they not vote for you the next time around." End of story.

[JLB]

[quote="callous"][quote="JLB"][quote="callous"] JLB wrote: callous wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Everyone wants to make the most out of what they can for themselves. Our system is just conducive for lobbyists and they're making the most of it.

And the only problem with that is the exact reason it is conducive to profitability in lobbying is also the reason the American public has about 10 percent of the representation in the US government that it should have.

Lobbyists represent the American people, so you are against free speech.

Quote: lobbyists represent corporate interests, corporate interests support the profitability of corporations, and corporations pay for lobbyists with shareholder livelyhoods.

Good, as Corporations have the same rights to free speech as others, as a Corporation is made up entirely of people.


Quote: Lobbyists do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the people.

So does the ACLU have a lobbyist?

Wasn't Ralph Nader a lobbyist?

Do unions have lobbyists?



Quote: But thanks for playing. :wink:

I love to play when I know I'm a winner even before I click on your thread. 8:)

Quote: 1. This thread has nothing to do with non profit organizations, and no, you are not allowed to go off topic.

So now only non profit organizations have freedom of speech in your new country?



Quote: 2. I have never voted for Ralph Nader or supported him in any way. He's a fruit loop.

He lobbied the country for automobile safety, and his voice was heard. mI guess you don't like seat belts and safety glass in your cars, eh?

Quote: 3. Unions are blatant representations of individual citizens needs and desires.

So is the NRA, and so is the lobbyist for Boeing, who represents thousands of workers and shareholders, all who have the freedom to be heard.

Quote: Work on your defenses a bit. :lol:

My defense hasn't taken the field yet, as you can't seem to keep my offense off the field.

So tell us why you are against free speech for people.... 8:)

Quote: Do you still not understand the premise of the thread? You many want to go back and re-read the statement, as your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with it. :wink: I just want to help you become a better debater.

Your premise is you are against free speech.

Next? 8:)


Quote: You still seem to be stuck on attempting to debate non profit organizations, and they aren't part of the thread. Please focus a bit harder.

I never mentioned non profits, sport. That was you, trying to spin away from truth.

Quote: And I completely killed your attempt to pin me as against free speech in my first response to you, as you remember, I showed you the light in how that lobbyists work for corporations, not individuals.


Who owns Corporations?

I'll give you a hint:

I_di_idu_ls

Fill in the blanks. 8:)



Quote: Please let me know how I can help you understand further.

Nothing, as you haven't a clue to give away. 8:)