Thoughts on Super Pacs? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/16/2012 6:01 PM

   With the hilarious Super Pac from Colbert, oh wait I mean Stewart, while parody and humor, it has to make one think of a lot of problems and issues caused by the Super Pacs.
   
   Now the republican candidates are now saying they want to get rid of Super Pacs, as they are getting hammered by opponents Super Pacs. Will congress correct the Supreme Court ruling on Corporations are people and finance campaign laws? Do we really need a new constitutional amendment?
   
   As I stated before, I could see part of letting corporations being part of the process, if they are paying taxes, should they have a voice in the process? Of course I think the people running the corporations already have a voice and what about "We the People"
   
   Saw over the weekend, a former congressman and Admiral from Pa. said now with the new Super Pac era, someone wanting to get a vote to a certain conclusion, could come in and tell the congressman how he would like that person to vote, he could kind of force a vote because he could easily run super pac ads in the next campaign.
   
   Wonder what others think about it.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   1/19/2012 9:01 AM

   With all due respect, the repubs were not wanting to get rid of super pacs, they were just asking there competitors to call out the super pacs when they publish false info.
   
   Where the heck did we get this name super pac anyway, they are just a group of people not affiliated with the candidate that run ads. Anyone should be able to buy an ad if they put there money up. After all this is america, land of the free.
   
   What is different between the so called super pacs and what the 527's did during the last election. Only difference is that the 527's were exempt from the old law because they were all democrat cronies

   
   
   
   
3. McCallum David K

   
   1/19/2012 9:01 AM

   Uhhhhhhhh Dennis get ready to duck.........rocks, stones, arrows, bottles.......coming your way. You cannot disparage the other side.

   
   
   
   
4. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/19/2012 10:01 AM

   Dennis Cook said: With all due respect, the repubs were not wanting to get rid of super pacs, they were just asking there competitors to call out the super pacs when they publish false info.
   
   Where the heck did we get this name super pac anyway, they are just a group of people not affiliated with the candidate that run ads. Anyone should be able to buy an ad if they put there money up. After all this is america, land of the free.
   
   What is different between the so called super pacs and what the 527's did during the last election. Only difference is that the 527's were exempt from the old law because they were all democrat cronies

   
   
   No sticks or stones David, the only thing is, did Dennis listen to the candidate on Monday night? Gov. Romney said he wished Super Pacs would disappear. And as far as the 527's being exempt was it really all democratic cronies? The democrates must have not wanted Senator Kerry to beat President Bush. Maybe you meant, the 527's were exempt because of the democratic and republican cronies?
   
   Yes it is the land of the free and anyone can put up money to buy an ad, but don't you think they could put their money to better use in training programs and such? An ad doesn't create too many jobs, just an engineer and voice over person, (well TV ads do add actors and camera people) no extra jobs at the stations they run the ads on. Just more profit. Maybe we can invest or 401K's into broadcasting businesses for the summer and then move our investments right before the election since their profits should drop about that time when ad buys stop?
   
   And I'm just happy some people are playing today, here I was feeling ignored?
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
5. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   1/19/2012 6:01 PM

   Well another great thing about america is that no one can tell us how we have to spend our money, but apparently you do because you think they should be training people with it. Where does everyone get off thinking they can tell someone how to spend their own money. America is in the position now because our govt thinks it knows how to spend other peoples money better than they can. Well they do now how to use it to buy votes

   
   
   
   
6. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/19/2012 7:01 PM

   Dennis,
   
   I just mentioned they could use it to train people in reference to the other thread on last Monday's presidential debate where I was actually agreeing to some points as what would be good if those unemployed could be trained new skills as to how the republicans can get people off of unemployment because they want to cut unemployment benefits.
   
   I could give a rat's butt, (I wanted it to be a stronger word but I am hopefully avoiding it so I don't get this post pulled) what people do with their money. I honestly don't think I tell people what they can do, but I can give my opinion though because it's our first amendment right, even though I don't have the money to get it out like others. And it is my opinion that I would be doing something better with my money then trying to influence politicians.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
7. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   1/20/2012 11:01 AM

   Mel,
   
   Point taken. It is absolutely your right to say it. I can tell that you mean well when you start thinking about the situation, although your post about how they should spend the money training people instead of on commercials seemed a little more dictatorial, thats why I jumped on it.
   
   My whole point is that when the govt steps in to control entities it causes more problems than it fixes. Govt needs to stay out of it, let the markets work. If you have a good product people will buy it and you will make money. If you dont and you manage your business poorly, then you wont and you will be a statistic and move on. That is the realism of life. Some will fail, some wont. Our govt seems to be in the business of propping up failing entities and prolonging failure and subsidizing mediocrity. Our whole society is going that way, geez we cant even keep score anymore in our kids sporting events. The country would be better if everyone had to suffer some hard knocks every now and then, because you usually come out better for it. Our kids today have never had to deal with hard realities of life and they just want everything given to them (include the 20 somethings in that category).

   
   
   
   
8. Wahlin Scott B

   
   1/20/2012 12:01 PM

   Dennis Cook said:
   My whole point is that when the govt steps in to control entities it causes more problems than it fixes. (how about interstate highways, air traffic control, military) Govt needs to stay out of it, let the markets work. That did not work so well with the big banks If you have a good product people will buy it and you will make money. Like mortgage derivitives rated AAA by S&P If you dont and you manage your business poorly, then you wont and you will be a statistic and move on. That is the realism of life. Some will fail, some wont. Our govt seems to be in the business of propping up failing entities and prolonging failure and subsidizing mediocrity. The car companies are back on track. Our whole society is going that way, geez we cant even keep score anymore in our kids sporting events. The country would be better if everyone had to suffer some hard knocks every now and then, because you usually come out better for it. In the early 20th century women were told not to develop a close bond with their kids. Our kids today have never had to deal with hard realities of lifeTen years of war. They all know someone who has been in combat and died. and they just want everything given to them I have four kids in their 20's and I do not see it among them or their friends. (include the 20 somethings in that category).

   
   
   
   
9. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/20/2012 12:01 PM

   Thanks Dennis, I did think afterwards that is was possible that what I had said could have been interpreted differently because I might not have been clear or "I know what I meant when I wrote it" (happens all the time when I give instructions here, I understood perfectly what I was saying).
   
   I also understand what you are saying about government, but the caveat is government is trying to make sure things are fair for everyone (maybe fair is not the best word, but avoiding people from getting taken advantage of would be better?). Of course that is a broad statement, but in some situations, say for our debate on the pipeline for example. Business would like it so they can develop their product, produce and sell, that is what they are in business for. They need a pipeline, hey if they want to build it with their own money great too, (as compared to tax breaks that all forms of government give to help develop and encourage business, which is fine as well to a degree). The issue becomes on who's land, who's resources, laws, regulations....all that is important to help protect those that might not have an interest or say in that business. Can government go too far? Yea, sounds like if the pipeline is killed, the developers have to start all over...why? Government should allow them to make changes and actually work together to find the change that will benefit the most. Can businesses go to far? Sure, look at the environmental disasters in the late 60's and 70's, if business would have been more proactive, we wouldn't need the EPA. Of course the EPA is there to also help states protect themselves from other states. If the states should have all their rights which is a big republican talking point, I agree up to a point as long as it isn't hurting other states, that is where the federal government is needed.
   
   So many issues to decide and so little time, but if just us on this forum can look and see both sides of the issues and sometimes agree, sometimes not, why can't our elected officials and those others that are out their voting?
   
   The next question, if government doesn't need to get involved with business why have a businessman be your president? Maybe a diplomat might be more appropriate or soldier, judge, or other skill set (guess that might be why their is no job description)? I guess that could be a good debate when the republicans make their final pick?
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
10. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    1/20/2012 12:01 PM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Dennis Cook said:
    My whole point is that when the govt steps in to control entities it causes more problems than it fixes. (how about interstate highways, air traffic control, military) [size=150">Scott, those are things the govt are supposed to do, those arent markets[/size"> Govt needs to stay out of it, let the markets work. That did not work so well with the big banks [size=150">A lot of the big banks would not have been in that position had they not been forced to give subprime loans by the housing reinvestment act that the democrats passed[/size"> If you have a good product people will buy it and you will make money. Like mortgage derivitives rated AAA by S&P [size=150">Like i said, if they werent forced to make subpar loans that mess wouldnt have happened, govt got involved and screwed it up.[/size">If you dont and you manage your business poorly, then you wont and you will be a statistic and move on. That is the realism of life. Some will fail, some wont. Our govt seems to be in the business of propping up failing entities and prolonging failure and subsidizing mediocrity. The car companies are back on track. [size=150">color][/size">[/color] Our whole society is going that way, geez we cant even keep score anymore in our kids sporting events. The country would be better if everyone had to suffer some hard knocks every now and then, because you usually come out better for it. In the early 20th century women were told not to develop a close bond with their kids.[size=150">What the hell does that have to do with anything?[/size"> Our kids today have never had to deal with hard realities of lifeTen years of war. They all know someone who has been in combat and died.[size=150">Im not talking about those kids, those are generally kids that have been raised with a good ethic and are usually not the problem. Im talking specifically about the winey butts who are at the wall street protests saying the rich need to give to ME, ME, ME, ME.[/size"> and they just want everything given to them I have four kids in their 20's and I do not see it among them or their friends. [size=150">Well thats great, you wouldnt be a golf course superintendent if you didnt have a good ethic yourself and you instilled that into your kids, i commend you for that[/size">(include the 20 somethings in that category).

    
    
    
    
11. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    1/20/2012 1:01 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Thanks Dennis, I did think afterwards that is was possible that what I had said could have been interpreted differently because I might not have been clear or "I know what I meant when I wrote it" (happens all the time when I give instructions here, I understood perfectly what I was saying).
    
    I also understand what you are saying about government, but the caveat is government is trying to make sure things are fair for everyone (maybe fair is not the best word, but avoiding people from getting taken advantage of would be better?). Of course that is a broad statement, but in some situations, say for our debate on the pipeline for example. Business would like it so they can develop their product, produce and sell, that is what they are in business for. They need a pipeline, hey if they want to build it with their own money great too, (as compared to tax breaks that all forms of government give to help develop and encourage business, which is fine as well to a degree). The issue becomes on who's land, who's resources, laws, regulations....all that is important to help protect those that might not have an interest or say in that business. Can government go too far? Yea, sounds like if the pipeline is killed, the developers have to start all over...why? Government should allow them to make changes and actually work together to find the change that will benefit the most. Can businesses go to far? Sure, look at the environmental disasters in the late 60's and 70's, if business would have been more proactive, we wouldn't need the EPA. Of course the EPA is there to also help states protect themselves from other states. If the states should have all their rights which is a big republican talking point, I agree up to a point as long as it isn't hurting other states, that is where the federal government is needed.
    
    So many issues to decide and so little time, but if just us on this forum can look and see both sides of the issues and sometimes agree, sometimes not, why can't our elected officials and those others that are out their voting?
    
    The next question, if government doesn't need to get involved with business why have a businessman be your president? Maybe a diplomat might be more appropriate or soldier, judge, or other skill set (guess that might be why their is no job description)? I guess that could be a good debate when the republicans make their final pick?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Mel,
    I think fair is a poor word choice there. Life is not fair, why should some people get cancer and some not, why are some kids born with birth defects and some not (including one of mine)? The idea of leveling the playing field is not something the govt should be doing, they should be trying to create an environment that is pro business, because that is good for everyone. When businesses are making money that means people are working. When an unfortunate circumstance takes place like someone illegally taking advantage of someone else, well we have fraud laws for that and those people should be thrown in jail. When a business does something illegal and harms the environment, they should be held to the law and be brought to justice. Bad things are going to happen occasionally and we cant change our whole way of thinking just so no one ever gets hurt, but if someone does, then the law should bring the accountable parties to justice. That would be the incentive to do the right thing. If we are going to go the approach of no one ever getting hurt, then we need to outlaw cars, trains, airplanes, bicycles, greensmowers, etc. We can't go that route in this country, it is not the principles we were founded on. I mean look at what the pilgrims did way back when, they planted food for the whole colony, but then people decided they were not going to work to help with the crops. There solution was to creat a general store for trading and if you werent going to work to create something you had no way to barter in the store and you could not eat. If they would have said well thats not fair, then they would have been forcing the producers to take care of the nonproducers. Well how about having the nonproducers being taken care of by the producers? Is that fair? NO, unless they physically cant take of themselves. Our whole market based system was built on this principle, that if you have something someone else wants they will give you what you want (either another product or money). This system has turned us into the most prosperous nation in the history of the world in just over 200 years. Why because it works. Is it always fair? NO, but we have laws in place to cover illegal activity if it occurs. There are countries that have been around for thousands of years who are living under a so called level playing field and they do not prosper like we have and they are actually going the other way in terms of higher debt loads and less economic growth, they will eventually fail like GREECE is now.
    
    Life is not fair, but prosperity should not be frowned upon, it should be encouraged. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to get an education and become successful and that is the montra that we should be promoting. If you promote self interest you end up better as a whole because less people are dependent on others

    
    
    
    
12. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    1/20/2012 1:01 PM

    [quote">Life is not fair, but prosperity should not be frowned upon, it should be encouraged. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to get an education and become successful and that is the montra that we should be promoting. If you promote self interest you end up better as a whole because less people are dependent on others
    
    Dennis Cook
    
    Posts: 32
    Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:08 am
    
    
    
    NEEDS MOAR
    Jeff you know this place? It's in Thailand apparently?

    
    
    
    
13. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    1/20/2012 1:01 PM

    Dennis, I think we are closer on the topic of business then we might think, we might use different terms and have a little bit of variance on items depending on if we are looking at things with a shade of gray or black and white or blue? It might be what comes first the chicken or the egg? The business because of the need of a product or as our discussion was a few weeks ago, the need to make money, or the law or regulation to help protect the consumer.
    
    I think where we as a country and society and people have problems is when we try to decide what laws and regulations do we pass or that is needed to protect everyone. As we follow "We the People" and "The Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness" that doesn't mean the same thing for all people. For the pipeline example, the oil companies and pipeline company, the pursuit of happiness is running the pipeline across the citizens of the Nebraska area's aquifer, Some people of Nebraska, and as Jon pointed out in his post under pipeliine, people in San Fransisco are not happy. Of course that is what we ask government then to fix for us. People on some sides want to not force anymore regulations, we in business know what is best for our business but is that the best for those that might not have a voice but can be affected by an outcome? If there are laws to address it then use them, when there are no laws or the laws (and I included regulations as a law) are inadequate then the government needs to address it (look at the internet issue).
    
    Can government make a bad call? Yes that happens, just as business that might make a bad call fails, sometimes as maybe was pointed out with the GM and Chrysler deal, sounds like both sides might not be happy, both sides might have lost, but if those companies would have gone bankrupt what might have been the outcome. Well it didn't happen so that is just opinion. My guess is had they closed we (the country) would have really been in it deep.
    
    I know on many topics I seem like a raging liberal, but I want to think that I am really a social conservative but that is the label I give myself, everyone else can judge or label me what they want. I do know I think and act the way I am because of the the trials and tribulations I have taken.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
14. Wahlin Scott B

    
    1/20/2012 4:01 PM

    Newt's Super Pac Film in case you missed it. Of course you have the freedom to skip it!
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BLWnB9FGmWE

    
    
    
    
15. Wahlin Scott B

    
    1/20/2012 4:01 PM

    It is hard for me to withstand lazy kids of today comments when so many of them are still in harms way. And many more of these 20-somethings are severely injured for life or dead. These two guys were on my son's combat team. The one on the left was shot in the neck by a machine gun during an ambush. He was severely injured but conscious and able to apply pressure to his wound. He was next to my son when it happened. My son took the machine gun out with a 60mm mortar with a white phosphorus round. My son packed the wound and dressed it up and called for a "bird". The guy on the right was shot by a machine gun during an ambush. He was hit in the mouth with the bullet coming out the back of his head. He died instantly.
    
    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/erikafghan05.jpg[/img">
    
    And let's not forget how many of the Occupy folks are veterans, what Rush would undoubtedly call "phoney soldiers".

    
    
    
    
16. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    1/20/2012 7:01 PM

    Thanks Scott for the story on those brave guys. I do think we don't appreciate them like we should, and I do know they are appreciated more then the guys like D-Mac and his fellow soldiers. I am at least glad that regardless of how we feel about war in general or the wars we have waged, we recognize them.
    
    On Newt's pac film, is that the one they were supposed to correct some of the items, did they correct that yet? I get at what the film is trying to show, just hope that it is accurate for us to decide for ourselves.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
17. Wahlin Scott B

    
    1/20/2012 8:01 PM

    Not only was that guy shot in the neck, the 18yo on the other side of my son was also shot in the neck. My son packed and wrapped them both, and they both lived. As my son told me, "There weren't any rich guys where I was."
    
    I do not know about the accuracy of Newt's Super Pac Film. Maybe that is one of the downsides of Super Pacs: it's their money and they can spend it any way they want even if it is to lie about quick boats or dirty deals. After all, this is America and every time the government gets involved they mess up the balance (in favor of the filthy rich) of our great nation.

    
    
    
    
18. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    1/21/2012 10:01 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    Dennis Cook said: With all due respect, the repubs were not wanting to get rid of super pacs, they were just asking there competitors to call out the super pacs when they publish false info.
    
    Where the heck did we get this name super pac anyway, they are just a group of people not affiliated with the candidate that run ads. Anyone should be able to buy an ad if they put there money up. After all this is america, land of the free.
    
    What is different between the so called super pacs and what the 527's did during the last election. Only difference is that the 527's were exempt from the old law because they were all democrat cronies

    
    
    No sticks or stones David, the only thing is, did Dennis listen to the candidate on Monday night? Gov. Romney said he wished Super Pacs would disappear. And as far as the 527's being exempt was it really all democratic cronies? The democrates must have not wanted Senator Kerry to beat President Bush. Maybe you meant, the 527's were exempt because of the democratic and republican cronies?
    
    Yes it is the land of the free and anyone can put up money to buy an ad, but don't you think they could put their money to better use in training programs and such? An ad doesn't create too many jobs, just an engineer and voice over person, (well TV ads do add actors and camera people) no extra jobs at the stations they run the ads on. Just more profit. Maybe we can invest or 401K's into broadcasting businesses for the summer and then move our investments right before the election since their profits should drop about that time when ad buys stop?
    
    And I'm just happy some people are playing today, here I was feeling ignored?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Mel-
    
    Don't you think your time would be better spent going out and creating jobs, then wasting your time exercising your free speech on this forum?

    
    
    
    
19. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    1/21/2012 11:01 AM

    James,
    
    1.) In my current position I am not able to create jobs but with-in my budget.
    
    2.) I have chosen a profession that I really love and really enjoy, and that is golf. There are 2 reasons why I can't go out and create jobs in that profession, one is, I don't have the money to buy or build a golf course and run it to create jobs (and is that really smart in this golf economy?). The second reason is next.
    
    3.) Even if I had the money, or I suppose I could go into the landscaping business or I remember between this job and my last (8 years ago) I thought about getting into a contracting business of managing athletic fields (seeding, fertilizing, aerating, things that schools and little parks departments weren't doing because they didn't have the staff, equipment and resources) at that time due to our families health issues and pre-existing conditions, I was concerned with affording insurance and getting dropped and not being able to get new insurance. I am not sure I have to worry about the issue of getting dropped now due to the Affordable Health Care Act. Affording it might still be an issue.
    
    Hey maybe I should ask all the politicians that are saying they are going to create jobs if they will help me. Thanks for the suggestion.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
20. Wahlin Scott B

    
    1/21/2012 12:01 PM

    There are going to be a lot of unnecessary nasty comments like James' to Mel. The conservatives have nothing and are not sincere in the least.
    
    Consider all of the horrible remarks they have made about Michelle Obama. Yet they are considering putting forward a candidate who, if elected will give us a First Lady who is okay sharing her boyfriend's bed with his wife!
    
    They are considering putting forth a candidate who has proven over and over that he has absolutely no empathy for working people.
    
    Nasty rhetoric and anger are all they have left.

    
    
    
    
21. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    1/21/2012 12:01 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: James,
    
    1.) In my current position I am not able to create jobs but with-in my budget.
    
    2.) I have chosen a profession that I really love and really enjoy, and that is golf. There are 2 reasons why I can't go out and create jobs in that profession, one is, I don't have the money to buy or build a golf course and run it to create jobs (and is that really smart in this golf economy?)So what you are saying is that if you had the money to "create jobs" you wouldn't do it in this economy? Isn't that what you have been faulting big business for all along here? sitting on their money and not creating jobs?. The second reason is next.
    
    3.) Even if I had the money, or I suppose I could go into the landscaping business or I remember between this job and my last (8 years ago) I thought about getting into a contracting business of managing athletic fields (seeding, fertilizing, aerating, things that schools and little parks departments weren't doing because they didn't have the staff, equipment and resources) at that time due to our families health issues and pre-existing conditions, I was concerned with affording insurance and getting dropped and not being able to get new insurance. I am not sure I have to worry about the issue of getting dropped now due to the Affordable Health Care Act. Affording it might still be an issue.
    
    Hey maybe I should ask all the politicians that are saying they are going to create jobs if they will help me. Thanks for the suggestion.
    
    Mel

    
    
    
    Sorry if I have offended you Mel. I should have stated my position more clearly.
    
    I was trying to draw a parallel between your suggestion that instead of spending their (super Pacs) resources on advocating their particular views on they dedicate them to training or something more productive. I was suggesting that since you obviously have time to spare and a wealth of knowledge regarding golf maintenance practices you could surely do the same. Passing on your skills through mentoring at the expense of your free time (resources) rather than using it on forum (free speech) would be analogous to super pacs spending their money (resources) on training rather than advocating their position (free speech).
    
    I by no means meant to suggest that you paricipation in this forum was unwelcome.

    
    
    
    
22. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    1/21/2012 4:01 PM

    James Schmid said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: James,
    
    2.) I have chosen a profession that I really love and really enjoy, and that is golf. There are 2 reasons why I can't go out and create jobs in that profession, one is, I don't have the money to buy or build a golf course and run it to create jobs (and is that really smart in this golf economy?)So what you are saying is that if you had the money to "create jobs" you wouldn't do it in this economy? Isn't that what you have been faulting big business for all along here? sitting on their money and not creating jobs?.
    
    
    Mel

    
    
    
    Sorry if I have offended you Mel. I should have stated my position more clearly.
    
    I was trying to draw a parallel between your suggestion that instead of spending their (super Pacs) resources on advocating their particular views on they dedicate them to training or something more productive. I was suggesting that since you obviously have time to spare and a wealth of knowledge regarding golf maintenance practices you could surely do the same. Passing on your skills through mentoring at the expense of your free time (resources) rather than using it on forum (free speech) would be analogous to super pacs spending their money (resources) on training rather than advocating their position (free speech).
    
    I by no means meant to suggest that you participation in this forum was unwelcome.

    
    
    Thanks James, and you have me there on that issue. I guess that shows I either have a little conservative streak in me or I'm not completely stupid.
    
    I think there are two different issues in where we are now in the super pac debate (of course lobbying in general and money in politics in general but that should be for a different post) and I mean here in the forum, My big problem is and maybe it's because I can't see their advantage and am not realizing how much a business can benefit is, what am I going to get out of that investment into a super pac, campaign, politician etc. Is it really that much money, more profit, that I'm going to receive that I need to influence this race? Why wouldn't I invest it in either advertising my product, meeting with my customers (heck I would go take my customer golfing, it would be a lot more fun, even if I can't write it off,) training my staff, maybe identifying new staff, increasing benefits or pay for my staff, or even this, contributing money to the many worthwhile charities out there. I see those all benefiting my company more then blowing big wads of cash on a super pac, plus I think it benefits more people and the country rather then dividing us.
    
    I think the other issue and I don't want to say it's a class warfare or envy issue as the candidates say, I just think (as I see it anyway) why should someone putting all that money into those issues have MORE of a voice then me, (I guess that could be looked at as envy, sorry). But that is what this country is about, we can choose to spend our money, time, skills, gifts, etc. how ever we want.
    
    And I know what you are getting at with your analogy of me mentoring or passing on skills, but I also know my limitations and have no business doing that. (especially as I show my naivete on this money issue)
    
    Thanks Scott for the support.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
23. Wahlin Scott B

    
    1/22/2012 9:01 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fit79MQwyeY

    
    
    
    
24. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    1/23/2012 6:01 AM

    Just because Mitt Romney said he wished super pacs would disappear, that does not constitute all the repubs. He is one person. When we conservatives as a whole say we wish they would go away, then liberalism has won. Its about freedom and no person has the right to take another persons freedom unless they break the law.
    
    Scott, I commend those kids and all of those that are in harms way, but I did clarify myself that I was talking about those occupy wall street types who have no job and are out there saying the rich should pay more, when they aint paying nothing and their using more govt services than anyone