What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I'm genuinely curious about whether you believe there is no difference between the parties on the issue of campaign contributions other than the strategic attempt to preserve their sources while eliminating their opponents'. My position is that while obviously big money infects both sides, the GOP is far more of a bigger culprit since its central project is about breaking down barriers for the concentration of wealth by both private individuals and corporations.
Click to expand...

Hmm... yet factual news reports consistently show Democrats raising more money than Republicans. Left-wing "big money" donors contribute more to Democrats than right-wing "big money" donors contribute to Republicans, despite what Harry Reid says. When you look at lists of "big money" donors, the Koch brothers are not even in the top ten, despite the over-heated rhetoric to the contrary (several different public-sector unions are in the top ten, along with Steyer and I forget who else. Soros is not in the top ten either, btw).
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
Just don't bring up "how many angels on the head of a pin." Frederick Copleston and I have some very blunt thoughts concerning that.
Click to expand...
And I was just about to say that there was nary a limit to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But, I'll let that one go, for now.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
And I was just about to say that there was nary a limit to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...

I knew I liked you. :)

This is funny, but incorrect.

The correct answer is angels are entities with substance but no extension. Either such substance exists or, with Hume, we have to jettison causality. I personally have a rather soft spot for causality.

The Problem of Universals still has me flummoxed, though. The 12th century was way, way more philosophically sincere and interesting than anything that's come since.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Hmm... yet factual news reports consistently show Democrats raising more money than Republicans. Left-wing "big money" donors contribute more to Democrats than right-wing "big money" donors contribute to Republicans, despite what Harry Reid says. When you look at lists of "big money" donors, the Koch brothers are not even in the top ten, despite the over-heated rhetoric to the contrary (several different public-sector unions are in the top ten, along with Steyer and I forget who else. Soros is not in the top ten either, btw).
Click to expand...

What's George Soros' super PAC called? I'm genuinely curious so I can be on the lookout for it.

I know the Kochs' (Americans for Prosperity), Karl Rove's (American Crossroads), and Stephen Colbert's (Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow), and that's about it.

I see American Crossroads ads about every 30 seconds here in Iowa. The biggest spending liberal PAC so far has been NextGen Climate, which I know nothing about except that its ads have been God awful.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think, unfortunately, the only solution is to encourage/allow even more money to be spent by unions, corporations, wealthy contributors, special interest groups, et al, on advertisements and campaign literature. At some point (for me we've already passed that point) it just becomes so much "noise", and the public ignores it.
 
unofan said:
What's George Soros' super PAC called? I'm genuinely curious so I can be on the lookout for it.

I know the Kochs' (Americans for Prosperity), Karl Rove's (American Crossroads), and Stephen Colbert's (Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow), and that's about it.

I see American Crossroads ads about every 30 seconds here in Iowa. The biggest spending liberal PAC so far has been NextGen Climate, which I know nothing about except that its ads have been God awful.
Click to expand...
Who is the uber rich dude who wants to stop Keystone?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Try discussing substance and you'll get a different response. Nit-pickers are a dime a dozen around here.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Saying I'm not discussing "substance" or that I'm "nit-picking" is just grasping at straws. I'm suggesting that, singling out liberals when including conservatives, or using a generic term would have been just as accurate, is hypocritical given the context of what you had just been complaining about. Why is that any more "nit-picky" than your initial complaint regarding bias toward big money donors? Why is that any less substantive? And, finally, why am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofan said:
What's George Soros' super PAC called? I'm genuinely curious so I can be on the lookout for it.

I know the Kochs' (Americans for Prosperity), Karl Rove's (American Crossroads), and Stephen Colbert's (Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow), and that's about it.

I see American Crossroads ads about every 30 seconds here in Iowa. The biggest spending liberal PAC so far has been NextGen Climate, which I know nothing about except that its ads have been God awful.
Click to expand...
Per wiki, for American only foundations, he's a large donor to MoveOn.org ($2.5MM), Center for American Progress ($3MM), America Coming Together($20MM), and then there's a whole series of foreign foundations that will put some money into the USA.

I remember he also promised vast sums of money - in excess of billions - if someone could guarantee GWB's defeat in the 2004 election. That money never came because, of course, nothing like that could ever have been guaranteed at the time.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I knew I liked you. :)

This is funny, but incorrect.

The correct answer is angels are entities with substance but no extension. Either such substance exists or, with Hume, we have to jettison causality. I personally have a rather soft spot for causality.

The Problem of Universals still has me flummoxed, though. The 12th century was way, way more philosophically sincere and interesting than anything that's come since.
Click to expand...
I swear I just read somewhere on this board where you were speaking poorly about some of us supposedly being stuck in the 12th century. :)
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

GrinCDXX said:
Give me a break. Saying I'm not discussing "substance" or that I'm "nit-picking" is just grasping at straws. I'm suggesting that, singling out liberals when including conservatives, or using a generic term would have been just as accurate, is hypocritical given the context of what you had just been complaining about. Why is that any more "nit-picky" than your initial complaint regarding bias toward big money donors? Why is that any less substantive? And, finally, why am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Based on your posts today, I am witholding giving you a break. You are on break probation in my book.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

St. Clown said:
Per wiki, for American only foundations, he's a large donor to MoveOn.org ($2.5MM), Center for American Progress ($3MM), America Coming Together($20MM), and then there's a whole series of foreign foundations that will put some money into the USA.

I remember he also promised vast sums of money - in excess of billions - if someone could guarantee GWB's defeat in the 2004 election. That money never came because, of course, nothing like that could ever have been guaranteed at the time.
Click to expand...

America Coming Together is the greatest name for a PAC, ever.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It's my understanding that many of the PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates, and can only engage in "issues advocacy" in which they are barred from mentioning any candidate either in favor of or opposed to.

So, an ad saying "The Keystone pipeline would be a net good thing because it reduces environmental damage caused by shipping crude in other manners, and it also helps combat terrorism by reducing oil prices that shore up tyrannical Middle East dictators" is just fine and dandy, but saying "Vote for Candidate R because s/he promises to vote in favor of the Keystone pipeline" is not allowed.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FreshFish said:
It's my understanding that many of the PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates, and can only engage in "issues advocacy" in which they are barred from mentioning any candidate either in favor of or opposed to.

So, an ad saying "The Keystone pipeline would be a net good thing because it reduces environmental damage caused by shipping crude in other manners, and it also helps combat terrorism by reducing oil prices that shore up tyrannical Middle East dictators" is just fine and dandy, but saying "Vote for Candidate R because s/he promises to vote in favor of the Keystone pipeline" is not allowed.
Click to expand...
Actually, because the Bakken fields have to ship all of their oil out by rail right now, our Midwest coal-fired power plants are at only 60% normal stocks for coal in preparation for the winter right now. Oil and coal are competing for the same rails, and cost of shipping on those rails is soaring right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top