Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (146553)	11/8/2008 7:23:44 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Where is the explicit guarantee? Many people thought that Lehman, just because it was so large and enmeshed in the country's financial system, was too big to fail and had an implicit guarantee as well. It doesn't mean people weren't arguing against letting them all fail. There are laws against corruption including limiting the amount of money individuals can give to candidates during an election season. Lobbyists are about corruption, not free speech. There are lots of speech that isn't free as well. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and say that you are going to harm someone. You can't pretend you have a bomb at the airport either. Heck, Bush even made 'free speech' zones a couple of miles away from wherever he was appearing. Given that the schmuck was a public servant, this was ridiculous but he got away with it without even being impeached for misdemeanors. Money is not free speech. Free speech is free speech. No, you can fund smaller parties as well but at a lower amount than larger parties. I doubt you would fund parties that advocate violence and harm against the country or its people. It isn't a perfect system but it is darn better than the corruption we have today. As an alternative, we could limit campaign contributions from individuals and organizations much more severely and get rid of the collectors in favor of direct, individual donations. We could limit donations to only individuals (no organizations) to, say, $100 per candidate per season. At that point, campaign contributions start looking a little more like votes. I don't want my tax money going to the war in Iraq or to house the Bushes or the Cheneys or pay their salaries and pensions and secret service protection. Your chicken statement is loopy and irrelevant.