Desolate Carnage
Page 1 of 4 - 1 23»
 
Dc.net Election Day 2012 Exit Poll
Archived | Views: 7764 | Replies: 161 | Started 12 years, 1 month ago
 
#854395 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:42:32
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
*All answers are private and confidential*



What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)

Please let us know any additional comments that you might have:
 
#854396 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:45:40
Group: Members
Posts: 50,46540k
Joined: Mar 29 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 9,628.10 $ $
If all answers are private and confidential why am i even typing this here?
I fucked a fatty while drunk in the past X years. There, I said it and im clearly proud nor am I embarrassed.
 
#854397 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:46:26
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)

Please let us know any additional comments that you might have: brb, phone

 
#854398 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:49:29
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:45:40)
If all answers are private and confidential why am i even typing this here?
I fucked a fatty while drunk in the past X years. There, I said it and im clearly proud nor am I embarrassed.


thank you
only you can see this reply
 
#854399 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:51:20
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)

Please let us know any additional comments that you might have: thanks dc.net for your ongoing coverage in this all important time
 
#854400 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:52:55
Group: Members
Posts: 27,88820k
Joined: Aug 31 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 381.50 $
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:51:20)
What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000


 
#854402 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:07
Group: Members
Posts: 50,46540k
Joined: Mar 29 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 9,628.10 $ $
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:49:29)
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:45:40)
If all answers are private and confidential why am i even typing this here?
I fucked a fatty while drunk in the past X years. There, I said it and im clearly proud nor am I embarrassed.


thank you
only you can see this reply


somehow i doubt that since i can also see hedo and nick's replies

have i clearly drank enough to understand what is going on here or have i drank too much to clearly understand the jokes?

This post has been edited by xstakemx on Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:28
 
#854403 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:35
Group: Members
Posts: 50,46540k
Joined: Mar 29 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 9,628.10 $ $
This poop has been edited by xstakemx on Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:59:28
 
#854406 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:02:24
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:59:07)
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:49:29)
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:45:40)
If all answers are private and confidential why am i even typing this here?
I fucked a fatty while drunk in the past X years. There, I said it and im clearly proud nor am I embarrassed.


thank you
only you can see this reply


somehow i doubt that since i can also see hedo and nick's replies

have i clearly drank enough to understand what is going on here or have i drank too much to clearly understand the jokes?


right, yes
exactly
 
#854409 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:06:47
Group: Members
Posts: 50,46540k
Joined: Mar 29 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 9,628.10 $ $
Quote (___ @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:02:24)
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:59:07)
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:49:29)
Quote (xstakemx @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:45:40)
If all answers are private and confidential why am i even typing this here?
I fucked a fatty while drunk in the past X years. There, I said it and im clearly proud nor am I embarrassed.


thank you
only you can see this reply


somehow i doubt that since i can also see hedo and nick's replies

have i clearly drank enough to understand what is going on here or have i drank too much to clearly understand the jokes?


right, yes
exactly


:drtunk:
:yay:
:omg:
:shootin:
:papaya:
:skooma:
 
#854411 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:15:35
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
God damn Obama
 
#854414 | Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:50:28
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
jill stein heatmap: oregon and maine
 
#854415 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:00:04
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)
 
#854416 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:07:09
Group: Members
Posts: 18,44410k
Joined: Jan 19 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,262.32 $




What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000 if going by household

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barry Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)

Please let us know any additional comments that you might have: BALLS

 
#854417 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:12:20
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
- Male
- 30-44
- Over $50,000
- Some college or associate degree
- Other (please indicate) i lean liberal socially, believe that protecting people is more important than protecting business, and think corporations are clearly people with rights to speech) one may claim this is a democrat but i dont believe the dems actually represent enough of my views in a consistent enough manner to be labeled as such
- In the last 3 days. (as i filled out my ballet yesterday)
- Barack Obama (no 3rd party candidate really hit home for me, i still felt dirty but i couldnt reward the GOP for what they have done over the last 4 eyars)

voting for mitt was never an option. which mitt would it have been? the one who pandered to the religious base or the centrist? also, mitt has only won one election in his life, was immediately voted out, and has an unfavorable rating in that district.


i hope everyone can read this

This post has been edited by blind_chief on Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:13:29
 
#854418 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:14:14
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 21:50:28)
jill stein heatmap: oregon and maine


WOOOOHOOOO
 
#854419 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:17:38
Group: Members
Posts: 26,99320k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,959.57
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:14:14)
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 21:50:28)
jill stein heatmap: oregon and maine


WOOOOHOOOO


grassroots secures the hipster vote
 
#854421 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:18:02
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:17:38)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:14:14)
Quote (___ @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 21:50:28)
jill stein heatmap: oregon and maine


WOOOOHOOOO


grassroots secures the hipster vote


OCCUPY PORTLAND BOR
 
#854422 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:41:49
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
bro*
 
#854423 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:42:50
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
also, this is the wonderful part of the election where the challenger is a sociopath and cant understand defeat and does clearly know how to write that speech without coming off as a condescending prick and the winner just waits with a smile

neither is honorable, though one is less sleezy
 
#854424 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:45:27
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
also, elizabeth warren wins
huge win for a person trying to reign in corporate greed over personal safety
 
#854425 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:47:43
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
 
#854426 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:49:26
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:45:27)
also, elizabeth warren wins
huge win for a person trying to reign in corporate greed over personal safety


I had never seen campaigning for a contested senate race (or serious campaigning for much of anything) before this race. But last 2 months
-Scott Brown hates women.
-Scott Brown loves women.
-Scott Brown hates women.
-I'm Scott Brown's wife. Scott Brown loves women.
-Scott Brown hates women.
-Scott Brown loves women.
 
#854427 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:50:01
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:47:43)


yea, its kinda a big deal
conservative activist looks at people who didnt fill in local races decides its a good idea to fill in any unchecked boxes as republican. no idea how many. only the assurance that if its more than the margin of victory then we will have a new election. if its less than the margin of victory than fuck it.

also, 3-5 years, $125k fine
GN8 CUNT
 
#854428 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:53:30
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly
 
#854429 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:59:22
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense
 
#854430 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:59:25
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:49:26)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:45:27)
also, elizabeth warren wins
huge win for a person trying to reign in corporate greed over personal safety


I had never seen campaigning for a contested senate race (or serious campaigning for much of anything) before this race. But last 2 months
-Scott Brown hates women.
-Scott Brown loves women.
-Scott Brown hates women.
-I'm Scott Brown's wife. Scott Brown loves women.
-Scott Brown hates women.
-Scott Brown loves women.


lol
we had a local representative race that was close to this. i dont even live in their district and i got spoon-fed their adds every commercial break with the same 2 ads for the last month. fuck you both.
 
#854431 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 00:59:49
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
elizabeth warren is one of the biggest cunts ive ever seen in politics
 
#854432 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:02:56
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (hedonism @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:59:49)
elizabeth warren is one of the biggest cunts ive ever seen in politics


Professor* Warren please
 
#854433 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:03:56
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
actually at the end she did throw in a few commercials saying "I'm afraid Scott Brown will give republicans a majority in the senate."
 
#854434 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:09:13
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?
 
#854435 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:11:37
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
liz warren is one of the few politicians who wants to help the people over the banks
anyone against her is honestly delusional or confused about the roll of people vs. fictional entities
yes, this should come across as belitteling, sorry but clearly really
 
#854436 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:15:16
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views. this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen. nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs".

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state
 
#854437 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:17:18
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:09:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?


Citizens of the United States do that all the time. The money of the corporation belongs to the owners. If the owners can do it why shouldn't the corporation be allowed to. Why do you want to limit only corporations from influencing politics when they have tax shelters. Why clearly make it all people. Or is that already a law?

And are you saying you don't believe that corporations should be limited liability?
 
#854438 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:20:37
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:15:16)
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views.  this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen.  nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs". 

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state


religion is like the oldest institution humans have; how exactly do you think it will ever be separated from people's views
 
#854439 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:23:09
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:15:16)
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views.  this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen.  nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs". 

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state


God tells us to love each other. You seem to be the only one expressing hatred towards Him.
 
#854440 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:24:56
Group: Members
Posts: 24,89920k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44.40
i voted for weed, broooo
 
#854441 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:25:17
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
Quote (StQ @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:24:56)
i voted for weed, broooo


lol steeks, me too
 
#854443 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:28:22
Group: Members
Posts: 24,89920k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44.40
Quote (hedonism @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:25:17)
Quote (StQ @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:24:56)
i voted for weed, broooo


lol steeks, me too


420 broski

colobamarado bruh
 
#854444 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:30:11
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (hedonism @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:25:17)
Quote (StQ @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:24:56)
i voted for weed, broooo


lol steeks, me too


i get my md 2016
 
#854445 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:31:56
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:17:18)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:09:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?


Citizens of the United States do that all the time. The money of the corporation belongs to the owners. If the owners can do it why shouldn't the corporation be allowed to. Why do you want to limit only corporations from influencing politics when they have tax shelters. Why clearly make it all people. Or is that already a law?

And are you saying you don't believe that corporations should be limited liability?


im just saying that a corporation is no longer the simple entity that once was. in todays world corporations are world-wide. for example, should apple, which sells items in every country imaginable, be allowed to use world funding to influence american policy whilst avoiding as much tax liability as possible in america? how do you draw the line on foreign nationals having influence over our national politics if a corporations world-wide? what constitutes a national corporation and a multi-national corporation? why is it wrong to assume that any money going towards influencing american politics came from american business, and only american business? how does one even know whats "american business" and something more?

basically the world is clearly as simple as it was 200 years ago, the world is a smaller place than it ever has been. things need to be discussed and redefined.
 
#854446 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:36:32
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:31:56)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:17:18)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:09:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?


Citizens of the United States do that all the time. The money of the corporation belongs to the owners. If the owners can do it why shouldn't the corporation be allowed to. Why do you want to limit only corporations from influencing politics when they have tax shelters. Why clearly make it all people. Or is that already a law?

And are you saying you don't believe that corporations should be limited liability?


im just saying that a corporation is no longer the simple entity that once was. in todays world corporations are world-wide. for example, should apple, which sells items in every country imaginable, be allowed to use world funding to influence american policy whilst avoiding as much tax liability as possible in america? how do you draw the line on foreign nationals having influence over our national politics if a corporations world-wide? what constitutes a national corporation and a multi-national corporation? why is it wrong to assume that any money going towards influencing american politics came from american business, and only american business? how does one even know whats "american business" and something more?

basically the world is clearly as simple as it was 200 years ago, the world is a smaller place than it ever has been. things need to be discussed and redefined.


But does that have to be a separate issue from people who make their money internationally or keep their money in swiss/caribbean tax havens?
 
#854447 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:45:45
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:20:37)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:15:16)
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views.  this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen.  nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs". 

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state


religion is like the oldest institution humans have; how exactly do you think it will ever be separated from people's views


id argue that community predates religion. on the grounds that you are better at gathering berries than me, but i am better at hunting for meat. its clearly until i thought about why that i created religion to explain our differences (yes, its clear that i dont subscribe to conventional organized religion).

yes, i understand that religion is a fundamental aspect to us humans. but our country was supposed to be about separating the need that one religion was right and all others were wrong. clearly that all religion be removed only that you be allowed to practice anything. so shouldnt that mean that no religion gets special taxation rights? isnt a tax break basically a revenue fund? and what constitutes a religion and why does our government get to decide that? is it about a book, a prophet? or is religion done evolving now, and what we have is what we will always have?

why should religion have a stronger pull on politics than science? religion and science are both the quest to explain what we see around us. why is one questioned in the search for endless proof while one is taken as proof and any questioning only means you are an "unbeliever"?
 
#854448 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:28
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:45:45)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:20:37)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:15:16)
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views.  this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen.  nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs". 

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state


religion is like the oldest institution humans have; how exactly do you think it will ever be separated from people's views


id argue that community predates religion. on the grounds that you are better at gathering berries than me, but i am better at hunting for meat. its clearly until i thought about why that i created religion to explain our differences (yes, its clear that i dont subscribe to conventional organized religion).

yes, i understand that religion is a fundamental aspect to us humans. but our country was supposed to be about separating the need that one religion was right and all others were wrong. clearly that all religion be removed only that you be allowed to practice anything. so shouldnt that mean that no religion gets special taxation rights? isnt a tax break basically a revenue fund? and what constitutes a religion and why does our government get to decide that? is it about a book, a prophet? or is religion done evolving now, and what we have is what we will always have?

why should religion have a stronger pull on politics than science? religion and science are both the quest to explain what we see around us. why is one questioned in the search for endless proof while one is taken as proof and any questioning only means you are an "unbeliever"?


You got a lot of general statements in there. I don't pay enough attention to current events to put them together with concrete issues. So I don't really know how to respond unless there are more straightforward here are the facts what do you think type things. So basically whats the current tax/religion situation? And why exactly is it relevant to politics/government what constitutes a religion?
 
#854449 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:00:56
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:36:32)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:31:56)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:17:18)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:09:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?


Citizens of the United States do that all the time. The money of the corporation belongs to the owners. If the owners can do it why shouldn't the corporation be allowed to. Why do you want to limit only corporations from influencing politics when they have tax shelters. Why clearly make it all people. Or is that already a law?

And are you saying you don't believe that corporations should be limited liability?


im just saying that a corporation is no longer the simple entity that once was. in todays world corporations are world-wide. for example, should apple, which sells items in every country imaginable, be allowed to use world funding to influence american policy whilst avoiding as much tax liability as possible in america? how do you draw the line on foreign nationals having influence over our national politics if a corporations world-wide? what constitutes a national corporation and a multi-national corporation? why is it wrong to assume that any money going towards influencing american politics came from american business, and only american business? how does one even know whats "american business" and something more?

basically the world is clearly as simple as it was 200 years ago, the world is a smaller place than it ever has been. things need to be discussed and redefined.


But does that have to be a separate issue from people who make their money internationally or keep their money in swiss/caribbean tax havens?


if you dont mind american politics being influenced by people who dont mind clearly paying american taxes and dont mind ignoring american law then no, it does clearly matter. but how can you justify the current corporation in context to how they actually operate?
 
#854450 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:01:37
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:53:28)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:45:45)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:20:37)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:15:16)
the #1 thing that will help american politics, along with world politics, is the removal of religious affiliations from people views.  this is a fundamental progression that needs to happen.  nothing says hatred like "thats clearly my religious beliefs". 

would be great to recognize the 21 century and the actual separation of church and state


religion is like the oldest institution humans have; how exactly do you think it will ever be separated from people's views


id argue that community predates religion. on the grounds that you are better at gathering berries than me, but i am better at hunting for meat. its clearly until i thought about why that i created religion to explain our differences (yes, its clear that i dont subscribe to conventional organized religion).

yes, i understand that religion is a fundamental aspect to us humans. but our country was supposed to be about separating the need that one religion was right and all others were wrong. clearly that all religion be removed only that you be allowed to practice anything. so shouldnt that mean that no religion gets special taxation rights? isnt a tax break basically a revenue fund? and what constitutes a religion and why does our government get to decide that? is it about a book, a prophet? or is religion done evolving now, and what we have is what we will always have?

why should religion have a stronger pull on politics than science? religion and science are both the quest to explain what we see around us. why is one questioned in the search for endless proof while one is taken as proof and any questioning only means you are an "unbeliever"?


You got a lot of general statements in there. I don't pay enough attention to current events to put them together with concrete issues. So I don't really know how to respond unless there are more straightforward here are the facts what do you think type things. So basically whats the current tax/religion situation? And why exactly is it relevant to politics/government what constitutes a religion?


im kinda drunk/mostly tired ill poop tomorrow
 
#854451 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:02:12
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
i generally take for granted (mostly because i dont want to assume you dont know) many current events. its wrong, i know.
 
#854452 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:04:55
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 03:00:56)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:36:32)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:31:56)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 23:17:18)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:09:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Tue - Nov 6 2012 - 22:59:22)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 01:53:30)
also why exactly do people give a shit if corporations are considered people or clearly


just read this shit about the campaign spending thing
guess that makes sense


the question is clearly as black and white. but its really this:
the foundation of a corporation removes liability from its investors as the theory is that anyone can invest in a publicly traded company so no single investor is liable. the trouble is this absolves everyone from everything minus serious accusations to the ceo/cfo. on the topic of speech, though, fine. its an entity with a single voice. i can see that. its clearly a person, its a collection of people with essentially limitless cash, but i get the argument.

now what about the concept of multinational corporation? should they be allowed to, for example, set up a shelter in ireland to dodge taxes but also be allowed to campaign for certain causes (generally tax-based causes)? should you be allowed to skirt your responsibility to your "home" country while at the same time try to influence those very same responsibilities?


Citizens of the United States do that all the time. The money of the corporation belongs to the owners. If the owners can do it why shouldn't the corporation be allowed to. Why do you want to limit only corporations from influencing politics when they have tax shelters. Why clearly make it all people. Or is that already a law?

And are you saying you don't believe that corporations should be limited liability?


im just saying that a corporation is no longer the simple entity that once was. in todays world corporations are world-wide. for example, should apple, which sells items in every country imaginable, be allowed to use world funding to influence american policy whilst avoiding as much tax liability as possible in america? how do you draw the line on foreign nationals having influence over our national politics if a corporations world-wide? what constitutes a national corporation and a multi-national corporation? why is it wrong to assume that any money going towards influencing american politics came from american business, and only american business? how does one even know whats "american business" and something more?

basically the world is clearly as simple as it was 200 years ago, the world is a smaller place than it ever has been. things need to be discussed and redefined.


But does that have to be a separate issue from people who make their money internationally or keep their money in swiss/caribbean tax havens?


if you dont mind american politics being influenced by people who dont mind clearly paying american taxes and dont mind ignoring american law then no, it does clearly matter. but how can you justify the current corporation in context to how they actually operate?


So in my mind, I see no difference between the individuals and the corporations so the law should apply to both the same. So if you wanna make a law about funding campaigns it should be universal for individuals/corporations or whatever.
 
#854453 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:05:40
Group: Members
Posts: 24,89920k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44.40
STEEKS GOT DAT 20K DEEPS
 
#854454 | Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 02:05:55
Group: Members
Posts: 24,89920k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44.40
is this pg 2 yet
Archived | Views: 7764 | Replies: 161 | General Archive Topic List
Page 1 of 4 - 1 23»
 
Quit the Internet