@Builder,
DAVID wrote;
DAVID wrote:To begin with: your source trying to slip by that "researchers"
without specific id. thereof, raises doubts qua dispassionate
objectivity n sincerity of exploration in good faith.
Builder wrote:The article refers to
the source, which you've clearly not bothered to peruse.
Pages 34 through 37 list all the source material used for this research project.
And if you're trying to say that "researchers" lack "dispassionate objectivity", you are joining with Finn in claiming that the peer-review process that follows the research and theory process in the American University system, is worthless. Is that what you're trying to say, David?
DAVID wrote;
Quote:Of course, I expect the lobbying efforts of business and of labor unions
to have effect, as thay shud. That is the democratic process.
For reasons that should be clear to everyone that has a rational thought process, the impact of lobbying on the political process needs to have specific limits and boundaries. Those are basic tenets, put in place, to protect the sanctity and credibilty of any democratic system.
The study proves beyond doubt, that corporate influence is responsible for the majority of decisions made by the government, and the majority of the people are not influencing those decisions at all.
The Citizens United ruling (which has nothing to do with uniting citizens) by the SCOTUS, coupled with the very recent
McCutcheon v FEC ruling have put paid to any limits on any individual, when it comes to influencing or bribing, (call it lobbying, means the same thing, David) any politician or representative.
End game for democracy.
DAVID wrote;
Quote:I am very pleased with the success of my own lobbying efforts.
You've been bribing someone lately? Do tell.
Yes, of course, paradigmatically qua casting my vote.
No surprize.
DAVID wrote;
DAVID wrote:I do not accept the tone of paranoia inherent in your quoted material.
Builder wrote:
You clearly didn't read it, nor did you read the actual source document that the link points to.
If you're asking for information, David, the polite thing to do, would be to peruse it, and make an informed comment.
NO, no, no. We are only making lite conversation
and it is both presumptuous and unreasonable of u
to expect that we are going to read your external sources,
as distinct from your own personal posts (unless we have an
impassioned interest in what u r telling us).
My reference was to your exhibited quotes; nothing else.
David
