• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guy fricking loses it on MSNBC, but it's awesome.

KlokWyze

KlokWyze

Diamond Member
We can't embed youtube videos here can we?

Basically just a dude ripping the corruption in our political system (both sides), horribly designed banking system, dealing with massive debt being delayed, etc.

Guy Just Fucking Lost it on Air

Intelligent people from both sides of the isle can enjoy this.
 
He's got valid points, I agree with him. The one part I think is silly is the whole concept of "getting money out of politics". That's just plain bullshit. It cannot and will not happen, no matter what. Period. Saying you're going to take money out of politics is like saying you're going to take the wet out of water.
 
Double Trouble said:
He's got valid points, I agree with him. The one part I think is silly is the whole concept of "getting money out of politics". That's just plain bullshit. It cannot and will not happen, no matter what. Period. Saying you're going to take money out of politics is like saying you're going to take the wet out of water.
Click to expand...

We can't eliminate all money out of politics but how about breaking the link between big money contributions and politicians/parties.

One of the biggest mistakes by the Supreme Court was equating money to speech. Whenever attempts are made to restrict amounts of money given cries of unconstitutional are abound.

Lets change the rules to allow unlimited donations but with one caveat, break the link between donors and recipients. All donated money will go into a clearing house and then distributed. Donors keep their "free speech" by continuing to donate because they believe in a candidate/party but it is illegal for recipients to know source of the donation. This way small groups of very rich people can't expect one on one face time or favors.

Money accrosss the board will go down but that will be a good thing. Smaller contributions will continue because they aren't high enough to grease the politicans anyway.
 
Ausm said:
You think Dylan Ratigan is a lefty? LMAO shows how woefully uninformed you are...
Click to expand...

I never listened to the guy, and I don't know if his solutions would work, but they might.

He is definitely right about the whole of congress, and senate being bought.

I guess he is referring to Ron Paul about burning it to the ground...
 
Your thread title is mis leading. I was expecting somebody to be losing their ****... This video is rather old at this point, and the guy is simply spewing facts.

He's dead on.


And then you have ignorant people like PokerGuy who somehow can't grasp that what the guy is saying is correct. I also love how the right wing crowd always reverts to the " OK What do we do? What is your plan? " But then at the same time, they don't want to admit that there's even a problem. I know the old saying says if it's broke don't fix it but let me assure you it's broke and just because you are still getting a paycheck and not hurting doesn't mean it's not broken.
 
Last edited:
now this needs to be played in Congress and an all TV channels for a day...maybe this will make many political zealots think.
 
Last edited:
HomerJS said:
We can't eliminate all money out of politics but how about breaking the link between big money contributions and politicians/parties.

One of the biggest mistakes by the Supreme Court was equating money to speech. Whenever attempts are made to restrict amounts of money given cries of unconstitutional are abound.

Lets change the rules to allow unlimited donations but with one caveat, break the link between donors and recipients. All donated money will go into a clearing house and then distributed. Donors keep their "free speech" by continuing to donate because they believe in a candidate/party but it is illegal for recipients to know source of the donation. This way small groups of very rich people can't expect one on one face time or favors.

Money accrosss the board will go down but that will be a good thing. Smaller contributions will continue because they aren't high enough to grease the politicans anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea. Anonymization of donors. That process in itself would be ripe for corruption, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
 
airdata said:
Your thread title is mis leading. I was expecting somebody to be losing their ****... This video is rather old at this point, and the guy is simply spewing facts.

He's dead on.


And then you have ignorant people like PokerGuy who somehow can't grasp that what the guy is saying is correct. I also love how the right wing crowd always reverts to the " OK What do we do? What is your plan? " But then at the same time, they don't want to admit that there's even a problem. I know the old saying says if it's broke don't fix it but let me assure you it's broke and just because you are still getting a paycheck and not hurting doesn't mean it's not broken.
Click to expand...

Wait, back up.... Right Wing crowd won't admit to their being a problem...by crowd, do you mean politicians, or us people here in ATP&N?

I am pretty sure both left and right wing nuts, and our in between people all admit to their being a problem.

We are all arm chair economists throwing ideas out there on how to fix it too...

BUT WE ALL ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM!
 
wayliff said:
now this needs to be played in Congress and an all TV channels for a day...maybe this will make many political zealots think.
Click to expand...

People have been living with the actions of Congress and that doesn't seem to make them think, not sure this video will have any better impact.
 
HomerJS said:
We can't eliminate all money out of politics but how about breaking the link between big money contributions and politicians/parties.

One of the biggest mistakes by the Supreme Court was equating money to speech. Whenever attempts are made to restrict amounts of money given cries of unconstitutional are abound.

Lets change the rules to allow unlimited donations but with one caveat, break the link between donors and recipients. All donated money will go into a clearing house and then distributed. Donors keep their "free speech" by continuing to donate because they believe in a candidate/party but it is illegal for recipients to know source of the donation. This way small groups of very rich people can't expect one on one face time or favors.

Money accrosss the board will go down but that will be a good thing. Smaller contributions will continue because they aren't high enough to grease the politicans anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the money is speech argument. Direct campaign donations are limited by law, it's donations to third party organizations that run ads and do lobbying that is unlimited.
 
SilthDraeth said:
Wait, back up.... Right Wing crowd won't admit to their being a problem...by crowd, do you mean politicians, or us people here in ATP&N?
I am pretty sure both left and right wing nuts, and our in between people all admit to their being a problem.
We are all arm chair economists throwing ideas out there on how to fix it too...

BUT WE ALL ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM!
Click to expand...

I'm talking about people like this :

PokerGuy How surprising, another lefty coming emotionally unhinged
Click to expand...

Lots of people just see left vs right. You can also goto the OWS thread to see endless other examples of this. right winger sees left winger stating facts, refuses to acknowledge facts but rather changes the subject, tries to insult the left winger, or any number of other immature tactics..
 
airdata said:
I'm talking about people like this :



Lots of people just see left vs right. You can also goto the OWS thread to see endless other examples of this. right winger sees left winger stating facts, refuses to acknowledge facts but rather changes the subject, tries to insult the left winger, or any number of other immature tactics..
Click to expand...

Ahh ok. Maybe I took your comment as all inclusive. I usually try to avoid wholesale grouping of people, but I still do it now and then.

I think I need to stop reading P&N and play some Skyrim...
 
the DRIZZLE said:
I don't think you understand the money is speech argument. Direct campaign donations are limited by law, it's donations to third party organizations that run ads and do lobbying that is unlimited.
Click to expand...

The limits combined to candidates, parties national and local add up so I think it would be effective.

As far as the PACs have them register and again have their money go through the same clearing house. However since the PACs are not running for elective office they would be limited in advertising on issues only. No mention of candidates or parties (either by name of visually) allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top