The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Skul on August 19, 2012, 11:18:17 AM
-
Silly stinkDUde tries to cover his droppings. Unintentionally disses the yewn-yawns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160219
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:20 AM
Stinky The Clown (46,945 posts)
"Citizens United" opened the flood gates for unlimited money from corporations, unions, special . .
. . . . interest groups, and other anonymous sources of millions of dollars."
What is wrong with that statement? One word in it creates an untrue implication.0
One word stands out as a prime example of abuse.
Progressive dog (190 posts)
1. Unions are different nt
Absolutely, they should be totally exempt.
Response to Progressive dog (Reply #1)
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:30 AM
Jackpine Radical (33,890 posts)
2. Unions don't have "unlimited" funds.
Neither do the others, DUmbass.
There's what, 7-8 million yewn-yawn members.
Let's take a guess that the average dues amount to $50 a month.
That's 350-400 million in dues PER month.
Twenty percant is a guess as to what they contribute, so political donations available by yen-yawns, runs 70-80 million per month.
Even at 10 percent, it's a nice chunk of change.
If anyone has a better grasp of the actual figures, have at it.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:37 AM
ewagner (16,925 posts)
3. Remember the demand for a "Union Checkoff"?
Where union members had to "check off" on the Union's contributions to a particular candidate or party?
What about a "stock holder's checkoff"...if your IRA mutual fund owns stock in a corporation and that corporation wants to contribute to a campaign, the ALL the stockholders, majority and minority, need to agree to it...
If corporations are "people" because the individual stockholders are people, then they should check it off...
ya think?
Go ahead, check that box. You then become a "member not in good standing", and they still take 80% of what your dues are.
-
Okay.
How are unions any different from any other special interest group?
Any time two people band together, either formally or informally, for a common cause, they're a special interest.
I think the sparkling old dude is letting his sentiments affect his thinking rationally.
-
Inkfreak (51 posts)
6. Saw on the news the other day that
over $500 million dollars has been spent on the presidential election so far this year. Boggles the mind...
Mind boggling. Just think, they could've used that money to keep Solyndra up and running for another year.
-
Mind boggling. Just think, they could've used that money to keep Solyndra up and running for another year.
Compare, please, with primitive comments from about this same time four years ago.
The primitives were gloating that Barack Milhous was raising nearly a billion dollars.
They were happy about it; they were constantly bragging about it.
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats (circa Richard Nixon) used to whine, and rightfully so, about all the money spent on presidential campaigns.
But sometime between 1972 and 2008, the primitives did a big flip-flop on this money thing.
And now it appears they're going to do yet another flip-flop.
I guess it all depends upon which candidate garners the most money, how the primitives feel about the issue.
-
NONE of this was a problem for the primitives in 2008, when Obumbles was outspending McCain by vast sums of money. So, primitives, don't expect anyone to listen to you now.
Besides, with the small audiences showing up to see Uncle Choo-Choo and Obumbles anymore, why do they need the extra money?
-
Primitives are quite stupid in almost all areas, except they are exceedingly good dare I say smart, at keeping the money spigots turned on.