Lobbying Power.

Do you guys think that lobbying power should be restricted in certain ways for large groups and corporations?  This is naive in one respect-such an attempt might be unconstitutional, since a group has a first amendment right to express its agenda.  But there are other ways to approach it, and how that relates to congressional persuasion, or even 'gifts' is up for discussion.  I don't really know anything about it so I'm throwing it out there.  Also relevant to the discussion may be the ways in which a company is afforded the same legal rights as an individual.

Yes

Lobbyists should be put under very tight scrutiny

But since america worships the free market and considers it the very definition of freedom, it will always be controlled by whoever controls the market - the Rich.

At least you can identify Dictators in order to overthrow them, the US' are practically invisible. Becasue they also control public discourse, surprise

Ban foreign lobbyists.
Ban all "gifts" from lobbyists.
Make all meetings with lobbyists public record.
Chance of this happening: 0%

Sadly, lobbyists ARE the American government now.

Want to know the truth about lobbyists? Here it is...

Originally, corporations were not considered sentient people. They did not bear the right of free speech, and were un heavy restriction from the government to keep them in check. This all changed under the 14th amendment. For those of you keeping track, that would be the one that freed the slaves. “No man shall be denied life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.”

After that amendment was passed, 300+ cases were filed with the courts in violation there of. 19 from former slaves, the rest from corporations seeking the rights of man. No, I’m not pulling this out of thin air, so you can clean that fresh load out of your boxers. Your beloved corporations abused a bill meant to free the downtrodden to give them the same rights you were endowed with by your creator.

Doesn’t that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling?

Lobbying Power wins!

capitalism fails!

Lobbyists/Lawyers basically the same to me.

What irritates me most about lobbyists is the revolving door between Congress and K Street. Congressmen are always thinking about how they're going to get rich after they leave office.  
 
I read an article that said that more often than not, it's a lobbyist's job to threaten legislators.  I was surprised to learn that the most vicious attack ads are made by groups associated with lobbyists.  Once the ads are made, the lobbyists actually take tapes of them to opposing Congress members! 

They should absolutely illegalize lobbying.  Lobbying should only exist through dedicated grassroots movements and testimony given at Congressional hearings. 

How do you illegalize something so powerful?

The lobbyists could just lobby to legalize lobbying.

lobby. lo. bby. what a weird word

The US government is fucked, and it's going to take a miracle to get itself out of it. The only way these entrenched set-ups come undone is through a lot of bloodshed, and considering a revolution is basically impossible because more than 3/4s of the country are castrated mentally, the only way out is through a foreign-born assault, hopefully China's through nuclear arms. We haven't had a good Chinese empire in a while.

Any way you look at it, reclaiming the democracy can only be achieved by violence. The media is locked, Congress is locked, lobbying is locked, protesting is locked, and even dissent is locked. There's zero chance of getting America back without a revolt.

>>12


I don't understand.  A major collapse of the government, a revolt, or devastating war will cause change, but what will prevent people from trying to rebuild their previously established system, especially when the majority believed it worked or was the "right" system intiially?

>>13
Many middle and lower class people are extremely discontent with the current government and would radically change if it they had the power to do so, but are afraid that they would lose what they've "gained" even if they're losing it already. Forgotten is the ideal of freedom and righteousness; everyone just wants their big-screen TV and big mac and who can blame them? America is comfortable, and until the ratio of comfortability:evil changes, we'll still be content.

When given the power, there WILL be changes. See: American Revolution. We improved upon the English government, even if it was the "model government" of that time - like the US is now. Why wouldn't the same happen after another American Revolution?

Do the people of today have the ability to take on the government of today in with violent means the way they did during the American Revolution? Isn't the power gap too huge?

Why do we always have people harping on about revolution? It's a bloody and repulsive affair, and only to be undertaken if there is no other option. Do we still have options? Yes.

If you're first in line to die for your beliefs, maybe I'll follow. Until then, you're just another gasbag full of bravado (or testosterone) typing away at a keyboard.

A successful insurrection needs atleast 3% of the adult population and 10% supporting them.

I could also postulate that a LOT more than 10% of the population are supporting the insurgents in Iraq. A lot more because the insurgents don't have nearly equal fire power.

The great thing about this is that there are plenty of wacky 2nd amendment militias in the US already

>> 17

3% and 10%, eh?

Where did you get that number?

Also, if only 13% support you, then your revolution is anti-democratic, isn't it?

Do those of you who foment revolution believe that you're so wise than the citizenry you ostensibly are trying to save, that you would do what you will without a majority of them behind you?

>>19
Who cares for democracy? Not revolutionaries, at least. "Revolution" is leftard for "coup". It's all about taking power and doing what you can to make your prick happy.

Revolution worked before because people then didnt have anything to lose. Now when there are more developed worlds and the lifestyles have changed, people have much more things to lose in a revolution. They rather just sit in their comfy home and go about their daily business then try to go and actively change the goverment.

>> 21

What you're describing is people living in functional nation states. In a functional nation state where the majority of people have comfy homes and daily business to take care of only a sociopath would stoop to violent revolution.

On the other hand, millions of people at this moment live in nations where the vast majority of people don't have comfy homes or the security which allows a daily business routine to develop. These people can legitimately work towards revolution.

If anyone in your immediate family owns a car, or has ever gone to college, or if you've never personally been shot at, if any of those things are true, then you're currently experiencing one of the best and easiest lives in human history. So please stfu.

>>22
No, what we're experiencing is a rise in living conditions due to technological advances and capitalist advances on poorer countries. You think that because you live an easy life you live under a good government? What if this good government was forced to practice inhumane standards in order to get to that point? If Soviet Russia had made living conditions better it would have been a good government even if all media was censored and its citizens were jailed without reason? You're a moron with no principles or grasp of democracy, please stfu.

>> 23

Yes, precisely. I think thou dost protest too much, you whiny little bitch.

There are billions of people some living most now dead who would have given up their right to freedom of speech or almost any other of your inalienable rights for a god-damned bag of rice. You're a moron with no grasp of reality, because guess what? If you refuse to give up your rights and starve to death, you don't have any rights anyway: only people can have rights, not corpses.

If Soviet Russia had made living conditions better than no-one who benefited from those living conditions would have had the moral imperative to revolt, and most likely none of them would have. The ones who should and do revolt are the ones being jailed, not the ones watching soap operas on their state-sponsored televisions.

Maybe maybe maybe you'd starve to death for your right to write "fuck" on your face in magic marker and shout "anarchy in the uk!" in front of Buckingham Palace... and if so, I think it is you that is the moron.

>>24
That may be the way you fuckers roll over there in Europe with your implied question statements and thousand-year history of being stepped on your face by your elected President, but in fucking America our theory is freedom first. This theory was polluted by being overly comfortable during the 1950s due to YOUR FUCKING WAR THANKS A LOT EUROPE YOU WRECKED AMERICA.

>> 25

LOOOOOL.. I concede my internet to you because you made me laugh so hard I snorted in a university computer lab.

Though um, by the way, who wrecked AmeriKKKa? I thought it was Joseph McCarthy.

What the fuck is >>25 gibbering on about?

I can no longer tell if someone is a hilarious troll or a complete idiot.

I thought it was a definitely hilariously jingoistic troll.

By the way, enlighten my n00b ass as to how you bold? Can you use html in this?

**anarchy in the uk!!!**

>>28

I <i>think</i> it's in bbs, like angle bracket i angle bracket

>>30
(　ﾟДﾟ)　／ア ULTIMATE F F F F FAILURE

*lol* **olol** ololol

it's bbcode

bump

>>1
lobyists = corruption
earmarks = corruption
US gov't = corruption

my hope - somebody sets off a nuke during the next pres. inauguration so we can start over on our gov't.  they're all worthless pieces of shit.