Hi Steven,
I wrote: >> The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that... >> at least, I hope you do. To which you replied: >It's been my experience that when someone feigns praise upon another person's alleged intelligence but then immediately turns around >and questions whether the praise they had just endorsed was truly warranted - that is nothing more than a covert way of implying that >the person they have a disagreement with is not only ignorant, they also want that person to feel stupid about their own alleged ignorance. What person-A writes about person-B is very much dependent on person-A's observations about person-B, and vice versa. It is also colored by each others' past. I can only explain what was going thru my mind as I wrote that; how you interpret it is obviously different. Here is what was going thru my mind. 1- you are an intelligent being, as is obvious to anyone who follows this forum. and we both have for many, many years. 2- the ease with which one can now quickly search for and read different views on any topic is certainly known to you, especially since you have IT/computer expertise. I think most adults our age know by now that print and television media are heavily biased to the left, while talk radio is biased heavily to the right. Thus, the first half of my statement. 3- but then, what comes to mind whenever I see anything (OT) from you, is that it's going to be yet another rant on how evil the Christians and Republicans are. you must admit, of all the members of this forum, I believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about political/religious issues; I don't think I've ever seen criticism from you directed at the Dems. That was the impetus for the second part of my statement. RE: the remainder of your response which expresses great concern over not so much the amount of $, but not knowing who/where that money is coming from. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!! with one minor correction. It is my understanding that that only applies to what are now called 'superPACs'. contributions directly to the candidate's 'official' campaign are public record. And what do we see since CU v FEC? A lot more $ going into campaigns indirectly (via SuperPACs) vs directly. Here are two pages from a website which shows the top 100 INDIVIDUALS and top 100 organizations who contributed to campaigns: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php Red or blue vertical bars on left side of the lists indicates what party was favored, Repubs (red) or Dems (blue). It is pretty clear that there are more Repubs (red) in the 'Individual' list and many more Dems (blue) in the 'organization' list. no surprise there! Can't remember who it was that suggested that for major federal elections, there could be no campaign contributions and that each candidate would be given so much $ by the govt and they had to get by with that. would certainly weed out the astute candidates from the bunch! Too bad that politician who proposed this reform didn't win. I think it might have eliminated most of the problem. RE: your question, "How did corporations become people?" That one's easy. Instead of typing in the text from my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, here are the legal definitions for person, artificial person and natural person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGCjfOsB1E The reason why business entities were referred to as 'persons' was to obfuscate just who the laws pertained to. to make those not originally liable (most natural persons) believe they were liable for paying certain taxes. This was done in the early 1900s when the whole idea of an income tax came into existence and was challenged in the courts. RE: "In the years to come as we now go about the process of vetting the next leader of the free world, doesn't the lack of accountability of where all that unleashed money will come from and what it is going to be spent on concern you just a teensy weeny little bit?" Yes, it most certainly does concern me. and yes, I do follow the money, REGARDLESS of which party is flows to. Best Always, -mark From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 6:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race Hi Mark, > The NYT article is so blatantly one-sided, but of course, you know that... > at least, I hope you do. It's been my experience that when someone feigns praise upon another person's alleged intelligence but then immediately turns around and questions whether the praise they had just endorsed was truly warranted - that is nothing more than a covert way of implying that the person they have a disagreement with is not only ignorant, they also want that person to feel stupid about their own alleged ignorance. Setting my alleged ignorance aside, who are these "outside groups"? What control and regulation do we have over them? Any??? It's not the amount of money spent on the 2012 election that concerns me. Due to the aftermath of Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission ruling we are now witnessing an unregulated frenzy of money being spent in the political campaign arena in ways never seen before witnessed. Making matters worse, we are not allowed to know who or where that money comes from. The ruling flabbergasted me. How the hell did corporations become people, as Romney famously once said? It seems to me that if corporate entities can now be considered a person, shouldn't that also mean that that "person" should only be allowed to donate the same amount of cash to a political cause as a living breathing person, like you or me is allowed? But is that happening??? The blatant unaccountability of who and where that money comes from scares the bajesus out of me. IMHO, it ought to scare bajesus out of anyone who believes in a democracy where each citizen's vote (along their personal financial resources) should count and be accounted for as no more or no less than anyone else's vote. In the years to come as we now go about the process of vetting the next leader of the free world, doesn't the lack of accountability of where all that unleashed money will come from and what it is going to be spent on concern you just a teensy weeny little bit? "Follow the money." Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
