OT- Congratulations to Bradley grad Mike Unes!

[amckillip]

I don't wish to prolong a political topic...

You say that, as you prolong the topic, you could be a great politician! And state the same thing over, yet I can find no data to support your (actually the PJS' editorial writers claim) at all. I do find it funny that the PJS' editorials are factually correct here, when they support your opinion, but when KW states something, he is wrong and factually incorrect and spinning the truth...

[JMM28]

I'm just worried about the placing of any Senior in a Nursing home now though........

I am worried about the impending layoffs of chinese and pizza buffet workers across the greater Springfield region....

[Da Coach]

I do find it funny that the PJS' editorials are factually correct here, when they support your opinion, but when KW states something, he is wrong and factually incorrect and spinning the truth...

I guess I am guilty of reading, analyzing, and fact-checking each editorial individually, and making a judgement on each editorial based on their own merit.
Unlike some people who apparently just accept whatever is written as gospel.

[Da Coach]

I am worried about the impending layoffs of chinese and pizza buffet workers across the greater Springfield region....

That's so wrong...it's just so wrong...


BTW, I did want to mention that Mike Smith is also a Bradley grad from 1988 (Hersey Hawkins' senior year). Thanks to Mike for 16 years of service in Springfield!

[Beninator]

I would love to see where the '92%' quote came from as the stats from the public record differs greatly, including from the article you just provided that has to meet higher journalistic standards than the editorial you previously provided. I can say that, because it's very easy to look at the actual records and see that more than $80,000 (or 8%) came from local donations, it's a no-brainer, but I'm guessing you're a republican and chose not to look at that (everyone does it, not just you by any means). I get very frustrated by the lack of factual support for claims made regarding $ figures in politics by both sides. A high school with basic algebra who took the time to think these things through could disprove most of the claims thrown out by politicians and even moreso the fear-mongers on television. It is so easy to go look at CBO estimates and see these people are completely fabricating #'s. So, my point being, if you think only $80,000 of his money came from outside of Chicago, go right ahead. I'll look at the numbers for myself.

We have our lovely Supreme Court, which earlier this year upended almost a century's worth of campaign finance law, to thank for this! See the terrible decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission! smh

[Da Coach]

We have our lovely Supreme Court, which earlier this year upended almost a century's worth of campaign finance law, to thank for this! See the terrible decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission! smh

Please...this is called free speech. It is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
And this Citizens United case does not really apply to this election we are talking about. The big money came from the state parties, which has always been legal.

[tornado]

special interests and Soros-types have always funnelled $$ to the causes of their choice -- so why is it objectionable when it happens on both sides of the aisle?

[houstontxbrave]

special interests and Soros-types have always funnelled $$ to the causes of their choice -- so why is it objectionable when it happens on both sides of the aisle?

Just because it has always happened does not mean it is right. If the candidate receives money from a 3rd party are they going to be more attentive to the interests of that money or to the individuals who they represent?

Term limits, and campaign contributions must be limited and controled for anything to get done politically in this country.

[tornado]

I don't mind what rules they use to limit things -- but make it even for both sides..

One of the most fundamental rights we have in America is the right to spend our money as we see fit or to give it to whomever we want to give it to --
I cannot imagine the federal government can or even wants to try to reign in that freedom.

Money essentially represents what we have worked for...it is basically a unit of productivity -- the more you work the more money you get.
There has always been and always will be a jealousy some have that others have more or spend more money - especially if it goes to causes that individual doesn't support.

[houstontxbrave]

I don't mind what rules they use to limit things -- but make it even for both sides..

One of the most fundamental rights we have in America is the right to spend our money as we see fit or to give it to whomever we want to give it to --
I cannot imagine the federal government can or even wants to try to reign in that freedom.

Money essentially represents what we have worked for...it is basically a unit of productivity -- the more you work the more money you get.
There has always been and always will be a jealousy some have that others have more or spend more money - especially if it goes to causes that indivisdual doesn't support.
The mature way of dealing with it is NOT to covet -- but just let others have or do what they want with their money, instead -- the jealous or covetous way of dealing with it is object loudly and try to pass a law and outlaw your neighbor's free choices.
Even if you inherit it or receive it from someone else, then somewhere - someone had to work for it -- because nobody just prints their own money.
...so if I can't give my money to a candidate, then am I also barred from working for that candidate?

Do you also believe it is fair to have foreign controled companies donating sums of money to candidates?

I just think our political system and its candidates was not intended to be decided by which candiate could raise the most money. And it certainly was not intended for votes and support given preference to those who dontated the most money to an election campaign.

Apparently this Smith guy had no issues with voting side by side with Madigan on many issues. If that is true, was he voting with Madigan because that is what he knew was best for those he represented or was he voting with Madigan because Madigan is the head figure in his party and Smith's financial backing was contingent on his relationship with Madigan IE party money?

It is a horrible cycle that is allowed. 16 years to vote apparently not for what is best for your community but to retain your job. How would have this Mr Smith's attitude towards his election and respondsibilites been if his term was limited to 6 years?

Term limits are imposed on the President of this country but for most all other elected its unlimited.

[Da Coach]

Do you also believe it is fair to have foreign controled companies donating sums of money to candidates?

I, along with most Americans would have no problem with limits on foreign money. But it would have to be applied equally. Until the Citizens United case, there was an inherant unfairness in the previous law that restricted some private donations, but allowed massive, unlimited donations by unions, who force their members to contribute to causes even if they do not agree with them.

[Beninator]

Please...this is called free speech. It is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
And this Citizens United case does not really apply to this election we are talking about. The big money came from the state parties, which has always been legal.

Since you seem to agree with the ruling, which I believe is one of the worst rulings ever by a US Supreme Court, do you think that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual? smh

[Da Coach]

Yes. The 1st amendment of our constitution says-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to change this, then you'll have to amend the constitution.

[houstontxbrave]

I, along with most Americans would have no problem with limits on foreign money. But it would have to be applied equally. Until the Citizens United case, there was an inherant unfairness in the previous law that restricted some private donations, but allowed massive, unlimited donations by unions, who force their members to contribute to causes even if they do not agree with them.

Why should a foreign owned company be allowed to even give one penny to a campaign for election in the United States?

I do not believe a foreign owned company should be able to give but I agree there needs to be limits to donations from US owned companies along with US citizens.

But I think term limits and zero access from lobbiest is most important.

[dogsrus]

That's so wrong, it's just so wrong....

I'm glad the sarcasm was caught.....didn't really have a "dog" in this fight but I DO believe that commercial hurt Smith. JMHO.