rushmc 18 #26 June 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Please contact Forbs and let them know they lied. Don't argue with me, I'm just reading the info. The fact that Forbes mentions 7:1 (but no citation or actual figures) doesn't mean that you can quote it as gospel. And the point of the article seemed to be that the money wasn't the factor, a part you completely ignored. Hey if i spend 700 times what you spend and i only get an extra 7% of the vote I would say that's interesting reading right there. But freel free to write them up and tell them to put the right numbers in the article. Refer to my other post"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #27 June 7, 2012 And how about this from the huffinton puffington? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/wisconsin-recall-elections-money_n_971599.html Facts really suck dont they "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 June 7, 2012 QuoteNo, that's not at all what I said. I simply commented on your comment about regurgitating talking points. I haven't commented on the Scott Walker story. However, to prevent you making more incorrect assumptions and breaking some sort of personal record I'll share my current thoughts on the issue: IMO he won, fair and square. Ian It is still talking points if you have facts to back them up?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 June 7, 2012 Quote It is still talking points if you have facts to back them up? yes. talking points are frequently repeated campaign messages. however, if the facts show them to be false, they're not talking points, but merely lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 June 7, 2012 QuoteQuote It is still talking points if you have facts to back them up? yes. talking points are frequently repeated campaign messages. however, if the facts show them to be false, they're not talking points, but merely lies. So in this case I find a few reporters who look into the real spending that went on (and the unions still lost)and , I have not seen or heard this being said by any canidate or campain and I have reports the indicate that the forbes link provided is a lie by omission. Guess I am not using talking points then On the other hand, CBS, NBC, the DNC, CNN, NPR, SEIU and others are lieing about the real spending that went on Imagine that BTW, if I seem indignant about this, well, I am. I am just tired of the same excuse laden bs spewed out everyday The SEIU and other unions lost this BIG TIME Time for them to get over it and look in the mirror for the real reasons In any case, I am sorry"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #31 June 7, 2012 WELL! Why are you telling me! Go off and tell Forbs!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #32 June 7, 2012 QuoteWELL! Why are you telling me! Go off and tell Forbs! YOU are the one whinning about it here I cant help it if you just used forbes without checking"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 June 7, 2012 QuoteWELL! Why are you telling me! Go off and tell Forbs! it's not anyone's responsibility to correct all of your bad sources. We told you, so you can either come up with good ones, or retract your argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #34 June 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteWELL! Why are you telling me! Go off and tell Forbs! it's not anyone's responsibility to correct all of your bad sources. We told you, so you can either come up with good ones, or retract your argument. So now Forbs is a bad source of info? So let me get this right, Faux right 100% of the time and all other sources are shit? Just call them up and tell them to correct their information.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,444 #35 June 8, 2012 >Faux right 100% of the time and all other sources are shit? They may not be right, but they are 100% truthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 June 8, 2012 Quote So now Forbs is a bad source of info? So let me get this right, Faux right 100% of the time and all other sources are shit? Forbes and Faux aren't that far apart from each other, politically. Do I really have to tell a man with an MBA this? Fortune has shown to have a much better sense of balance, but even it must be scrutinized. No source gets a free pass. The ex engineer in you knew that. Quote Just call them up and tell them to correct their information. You can do so - you have more invested in them. Meanwhile, you've been shown rather damning evidence that they were either ignorant or deliberately fostering a falsehood - you can either accept the new data like a good engineer, or spin it away like a crappy MBA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #37 June 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWELL! Why are you telling me! Go off and tell Forbs! it's not anyone's responsibility to correct all of your bad sources. We told you, so you can either come up with good ones, or retract your argument. So now Forbs is a bad source of info? So let me get this right, Faux right 100% of the time and all other sources are shit?nope, I chech them out too Just call them up and tell them to correct their information. I would not have to if you would not jump all over it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #38 June 11, 2012 From today's WSJ: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452500665661454.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop Michael McConnell: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett got millions in support from unions, whose contributions were legitimized by the Supreme Court. By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL In the wake of Wisconsin's recall election, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker's reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker's 7-1 spending advantage. Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office. In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply. Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation's largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million. Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000. Two other unions, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and Afscme (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million. Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United. By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these included Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's wealthiest businesswoman, who spent over half a million dollars on his behalf; Bob J. Perry, a Texas home builder, who spent almost half a million; and well-known political contributors such as casino operator Sheldon Adelson and former Amway CEO Dick DeVos, who kicked in a quarter-million dollars each. Businessman David Koch gave $1 million to the Republic Governors Association, which spent $4 million on the Wisconsin race. These donations have nothing to do with Citizens United. Individuals have been free to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of candidates since the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976). I have seen no published reports of any corporate expenditures on behalf of Mr. Walker, though presumably the $500,000 Chamber of Commerce contribution to the Republican Governors Association fund came largely from corporate sources. Several groups also ran issue ads that presumably benefited Mr. Walker; these groups are not required to disclose their donors and may have received corporate contributions. Corporations and unions could run issue ads before Citizens United, as long as they did not clearly refer to a candidate. For the most part, though, Mr. Walker's direct, big-ticket support came from sources that have been lawful for decades. His opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United. Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage. Speaking generally, Citizens United is likely to benefit Democrats more than Republicans. Corporations rarely make independent expenditures during candidate elections in their own name, because the ads offend customers, workers and shareholders. And direct corporate contributions to candidates tend to be split more or less evenly between the two parties, largely neutralizing their effect. But unions have no compunctions against running campaign ads, and almost all of their money goes to Democrats. The Republicans' advantage, when they have one, comes from rich individual donors—and the right of individuals to make expenditures in support of candidates long predates Citizens United. This is not to say that our complex and counterproductive campaign-finance laws do not need reform. It is just to point out that the Supreme Court's much-maligned and misunderstood decision in Citizens United was not the cause of Scott Walker's financial advantage. It helped his Democratic opponent. Mr. McConnell, a former federal judge, is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. A version of this article appeared June 11, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 June 11, 2012 more evidence, to me, that Citizens United restored American rights, not threatened them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #40 June 11, 2012 Quotemore evidence, to me, that Citizens United restored American rights, not threatened them. OK so there was a 7-1 lead in funds! Wow ok! That's cool. And...are you sure about that Kelp? What if Chevron threw huge money for Obama. Then what?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #41 June 11, 2012 Quote Quote more evidence, to me, that Citizens United restored American rights, not threatened them. OK so there was a 7-1 lead in funds! Wow ok! That's cool. And...are you sure about that Kelp? What if Chevron threw huge money for Obama. Then what? So, now that the premise of this thread has been totaly de-bunked from more than one direction, you have to now go to "what if's" "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 June 11, 2012 he's like a reincarnation of Dreamdancer - you can lead him to the trough of facts, but you can't make him drink. Shah - the solution for "bad speech" is more speech, not a ban on speech. That's more the Iranian way. You're worried about Chevron, but McCain-Feingold prevent unions and membership groups like AARP or the NRA from speaking. Have no doubt - Chevron will always be able to get its message out, but the law directly impacted groups with millions of members from collective speech. Given how you refuse to accept the falsehood behind the 7:1 line, I doubt this will process either, but one can always hope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #43 June 11, 2012 Quote So, now that the premise of this thread has been totaly de-bunked from more than one direction, you have to now go to "what if's" Look take a deep breath and buy looser undies. The premis of this thread was that spending 700 times more only gets you 7% more votes! Which if you ask me is kind of funny! But thenk kelp stated all was well but I rebutted by asking what would he have said if a large forign oil company were to have dumped billions into the next election cycle?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #44 June 11, 2012 Quote Quote So, now that the premise of this thread has been totaly de-bunked from more than one direction, you have to now go to "what if's" Look take a deep breath and buy looser undies. The premis of this thread was that spending 700 times more only gets you 7% more votes! Which if you ask me is kind of funny! But thenk kelp stated all was well but I rebutted by asking what would he have said if a large forign oil company were to have dumped billions into the next election cycle? 30 million to 25 million, it does not equal 700 times more. 7% gain for an additional 5 million is chump change between the Democrats and Republicans. If big Oil dumps Billions in to one side and the other side doesn't match it, of course Big Oil's guy wins, it becomes a popularity contest at that point. More money makes you more popular in the eyes of the voters, usually, when kept in context. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #45 June 11, 2012 Quote Quote So, now that the premise of this thread has been totaly de-bunked from more than one direction, you have to now go to "what if's" Look take a deep breath and buy looser undies. The premis of this thread was that spending 700 times more only gets you 7% more votes! Which if you ask me is kind of funny! But thenk kelp stated all was well but I rebutted by asking what would he have said if a large forign oil company were to have dumped billions into the next election cycle? But you see what you post here assumed a false premise to begin with Which was very clearly shown to be the case There was NOT a 7 to 1 spending disparity It has been shown that is was 1 to 1 So, now tell us what you really find funny?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #46 June 11, 2012 so it wasn't 7-1? ok cool. see that was easy?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 June 11, 2012 Quoteso it wasn't 7-1? ok cool. see that was easy? If might have been if we didn't have to repeat that fact to you repeatedly before you accepted it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #48 June 11, 2012 Quote Quote so it wasn't 7-1? ok cool. see that was easy? If might have been if we didn't have to repeat that fact to you repeatedly before you accepted it. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #49 June 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteso it wasn't 7-1? ok cool. see that was easy? If might have been if we didn't have to repeat that fact to you repeatedly before you accepted it. Dude it was in the article. And when you guys bitched I told you to contact Forbs and talk with them not me!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
