New Privacy Policy: Valve may share aggregate and individual information with other parties without restriction.

[maks]

"hey I know he worked his ass off to earn those hats but it's not fair that he has 40 and I only have 1 they should mnake a law rthat requires him to give me 75% of his hats after all he'll still have plenty it's about time that greedy cocksucker paid his fair share" -the 99%

"hey I know he worked his ass off to earn those hats but it's not fair that he has 40 and I only have 1 they should mnake a law rthat requires him to give me 75% of his hats after all he'll still have plenty it's about time that greedy cocksucker paid his fair share" -the 99%

THANK YOU!!! so i guess there's two things you know and that's shit-mouthing, and the whole picture with politics and economics.

btw, that whole "99% vs. 1%" pisses me off. bunch of greedy assholes wanting to force the successful to give away what they EARNED!! fuck the occupy wallstreet fags!!

when I say "the way things have always been" I mean "with the exception of the few years that mccain-feingold was in effect"

Citizens United not only overturned mccain-feingold but other laws previously enacted as well, including (later, after SCOTUS upheld it) states' laws, some of which had existed since the turn of the 20th century

here is a bar graph of people who were gallup polled and what their opinion is on Citizens United

"hey I know he worked his ass off to earn those hats but it's not fair that he has 40 and I only have 1 they should mnake a law rthat requires him to give me 75% of his hats after all he'll still have plenty it's about time that greedy cocksucker paid his fair share" -the 99%

THANK YOU!!! so i guess there's two things you know and that's shit-mouthing, and the whole picture with politics and economics.

btw, that whole "99% vs. 1%" pisses me off. bunch of greedy assholes wanting to force the successful to give away what they EARNED!! fuck the occupy wallstreet fags!!

this is bullshit, they arent even paying their fair share. Warren Buffet famously stated once that he pays less % of his income in taxes than his fucking secretary. But let's keep voting against our own interests in the hope that maybe one day we can be billionaires and scoff at the law and find tax loopholes too

and even if RICH PEOPLE HAVWE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEND DEY MONEY ON ELECTION DONATIONS HISTORICALLY it doesn't make it right, especially now when the richest people are richer than they have ever been

since 1990 the middle class average wage has barely kept up with inflation while the top 1% average wage has risen 136%

lol at these people arguing politics

[maks]

this is bullshit, they arent even paying their fair share. Warren Buffet famously stated once that he pays less % of his income in taxes than his fucking secretary. But let's keep voting against our own interests in the hope that maybe one day we can be billionaires and scoff at the law and find tax loopholes too

A half a percent of Warren Buffet's income tax is more than his secretary will gross in 10 years, who are you to say that's not enough? seems to me if the government can't balance the budget with the trillions they're bringing in already then they should do what normal people do in that situation and stop spending so fucking much.

[maks]

and even if RICH PEOPLE HAVWE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEND DEY MONEY ON ELECTION DONATIONS HISTORICALLY it doesn't make it right

whether it's "right" or not is a matter of opinion. what matters is that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

lol at people who have no concept of what the rest of the world has and has never had really made any money talking about it

[maks]

Look man all I know is that if someone has the nerve to have more money than me I'm obviously entitled to some of it ok

quality of life for americans has been going down non-stop since the 50s
everything that could be privatized and their stocks manipulated has been
good luck finding new stuff to fuck up

whether it's "right" or not is a matter of opinion. what matters is that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

it's only unconstitutional if you consider money a form of "speech"

even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.

considering elections are a matter of public discourse that ought to be fair to rich and poor alike, there ought to be certain laws that prevent anonymous unlimited donations from corrupting that process

A half a percent of Warren Buffet's income tax is more than his secretary will gross in 10 years, who are you to say that's not enough? seems to me if the government can't balance the budget with the trillions they're bringing in already then they should do what normal people do in that situation and stop spending so fucking much.

How fucked is your logic? Are you really arguing that rich fuckers shouldn't even have to pay the same rate in taxes at the very LEAST as poor people? In what universe is it at all fair or just for a guy that makes 100 million dollars a year to pay 10 million in taxes and can then go out and buy 100 lamborghinis when someone making 40 grand pays 15 of it in taxes and struggles to maintain payments on a single car?

if you were arguing for the flat rate tax I might understand, but you are arguing rich people should pay less than the rest of us because they are technically paying more regardless of the relative MASSIVE FUCKING DISPARITY in income

[maks]

it's only unconstitutional if you consider money a form of "speech"

Even if you don't, do you want to set a precedent where the federal government can tell you what to spend your money on?

even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

So sick of this example and all of the violations of our rights that it's used to justify. Yelling 'fire' is illegal because it basically causes a riot and can kill people. Donating money to someone, or swearing on TV, are not comparable so stop comparing them please.

Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.

Donating money in return for favors is called bribery and has always been illegal. Instead of creating new laws we should try enforcing the ones we already have.

money is not a form of speech, end of argument

Even if you don't, do you want to set a precedent where the federal government can tell you what to spend your money on?



So sick of this example and all of the violations of our rights that it's used to justify. Yelling 'fire' is illegal because it basically causes a riot and can kill people. Donating money to someone, or swearing on TV, are not comparable so stop comparing them please.



Donating money in return for favors is called bribery and has always been illegal. Instead of creating new laws we should try enforcing the ones we already have.

The Federal government already tells you what to spend your money on, and more importantly (and more relevantly), what NOT to spend your money on. Putting a cap on campaign donations does not prevent free speech, it merely limits the corrupting influence money can have such as when two fucking oil tycoons make up half of your goddamn campaign contributions.

Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.

Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?

but certain things should be considered rights
and americans for whatever reason don't think health care is a right that a rich country that can very very easily create a national healthcare system should run
there is absolutely no reason why medicine costs even 1 cent in the US
and there is no reason why health care should cost more in the US than it does in fucking third world countries

instead some dumbfuck created the HMO system in the early 60s and then manipulated employee hours so they're not full time so they're not entitled to those benefits
how the fuck does that make sense?

serious political discussion ITT...

usually i would get involved, but (hell has frozen over) i agree with everything maks has been saying...

[maks]

The Federal government already tells you what to spend your money on, and more importantly (and more relevantly), what NOT to spend your money on.

And your solution to that is to give them more control over your money?

Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.

The KKK, the neonazis, and the westboro baptist church are irresponsible and destructive. they're also constitutionally protected. They have to be, because we're not just giving lip service to free speech like the european and canadian hypocrites, we actually have it.

Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?

we'd need honest politicians, which is why it's never going to happen. campaign contributions buy exposure, not votes. The people are still ion control of the electoral process, if they are too dense to look any further than the attack ads on TV then they're getting the government they deserve, and I'm fine with that.

people can win out over corporate lobbying if the level of public disgust is high enough

historically it's only ever been against "evil companies" like meat packing, alcohol, tobacco, guns, etc.

but the amount of economic damage caused by some of these companies is going to bring a shitstorm similar to what we're seeing now against banks

I only hope it happens before the voice of money speaks louder than the voice of the people (which, again, are pretty uniformly opposed to SCOTUS' ruling on Citizens United)

[maks]

but certain things should be considered rights

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PAY RETARDEDLY HIGH TAXES FOR SOMETHING WE WILL SELDOM USE! -Canada

you really think the taxes are that high here?
you think that it's not offset by the fact that you can't even go to the dentist, doctor or get medication when you like?

one thing that's hilarious is that the aging population in the US does get free healthcare with medicare and they're paying zero taxes to support it
but people like marks have no access to it and are supporting these people
no tax hike is needed, just take even 5% of the military budget and move it to health care to provide some basic coverage for everyone else.

And your solution to that is to give them more control over your money?

It's not about controlling your money, it's about preventing you from FUCKING UP the federal election system with it. Separation of Church and State used to mean something (and should again) but what about Separation of Corporation and State? Why is it such a controversial stance to say that we shouldn't allow enormous amounts of money given with a very obvious agenda to corrupt our political system?

The KKK, the neonazis, and the westboro baptist church are irresponsible and destructive. they're also constitutionally protected. They have to be, because we're not just giving lip service to free speech like the european and canadian hypocrites, we actually have it.

They are only destructive to people's feelings. Congressman Tim Holden recently brought forward a bill to allow animal waste dumping in Chesapeake Bay. Soon after he received 16,000 dollars in campaign contributions from various agricultural PACs. This is real destruction.

we'd need honest politicians, which is why it's never going to happen. campaign contributions buy exposure, not votes. The people are still ion control of the electoral process, if they are too dense to look any further than the attack ads on TV then they're getting the government they deserve, and I'm fine with that.

All it is is lying to the public by obfuscation and omission. You're right, people should look into things more deeply, but that doesn't excuse what is happening. You say people are okay with it, but they aren't, clearly here I am ion the intenret bitching about it and plenty of others are too, so dont get angry as fuck at them when they try to change things.

[maks]

you really think the taxes are that high here?
you think that it's not offset by the fact that you can't even go to the dentist, doctor or get medication when you like?

I can go to the dentist, doctor, or get medication when I like, I don't even have to wait weeks on end for a slot to open up. In fact, if I have a toothache, I can probably see a dentist tomorrow. It'll cost me a couple hundred dollars, but that's about what you're paying every month for your 13% sales tax on food whether you see a dentist or not.

13% sales tax is close to what some states pay in the US. for instance, arizona and illinois pay 11.something %
and health care here doesn't involve standing in line at all. the national health care works like any insurance plan
there are private hospitals and there is private insurance here too.

[maks]

one thing that's hilarious is that the aging population in the US does get free healthcare with medicare and they're paying zero taxes to support it
but people like marks have no access to it and are supporting these people

You're right, medicaid is a problem. I don't understand why you believe that expanding it would make it less of a problem.

no tax hike is needed, just take even 5% of the military budget and move it to health care to provide some basic coverage for everyone else.

We should cut the military by way more than 5%, and rather than blowing it on some other needless bullshit we should lower taxes or fund some of the programs that are already in place. You mentioned the 50's as when our quality of life started going downhill, interesting that the 50's right around the time when it suddenly became our job to defend the entire western hemisphere. I wonder how much higher your taxes would be if you had to fund your own military?

[maks]

13% sales tax is close to what some states pay in the US. for instance, arizona and illinois pay 11.something %

As far as I know not a single state pays sales tax on food. Connecticut doesn't.

absolutely false
go look it up

tbh I would be all for repealing "obamacare" if I thought it would be replaced with something better

most of the people dont like it, but most of the people also want SOME form of healthcare

of course if the republicans repealed it they'd just leave it alone and we'd go back to having nothing which is definitely worse than something

the funny thing is that obamacare is basically what the republicans suggested back in the 90s when Hilary was trying to get a national healthcare movement going