"We are willing to spend millions to defeat you next term unless you go along with us, Congressman." - Corporate Right

This is pertinent:

Democrat Barack Obama became the first major presidential candidate to reject taxpayer financing for his general-election campaign, allowing him to spend without limit in his contest against Republican John McCain.

The move, never attempted in three decades of public financing for presidential candidates, puts the Illinois senator in the position of being a self-styled reformer, pledged to diminish the influence of money in politics, who now plans to wage the most expensive campaign in history.

He's not complaining. He's criticizing. : ) What does his record have to do with the criticism? I think it works. Most of his money came from individuals, right? At least that's the story. Maybe it's just a story. I haven't done research. I commented on this on the first thread, but got no response. No, I'm not being egotistical--or not only. : ) I thought I had a worthwhile point, something worth talking about, but no one went there. (shrug)

#3 He's not complaining. He's criticizing.

He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

Nope he's complaining and some of his recent comments support that.
Incidentally look why this ruling came about.The lawsuit democrats are bitten square on the ass with this one.If they weren't so lawsuit happy to achieve their political goals instead of running on their own initiative they would'nt be in this position now would they.

rwd

just sayin',

in a Constitutional pissin' match with the Supreme Court - - the Executive branch would loose . . hands down

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest

"He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision."

Seems as though Obama should have thought of this last year, and as usual was silent. Instead he nominates John Sullivan for one of the FEC positions? Someone who has been against the Feingold-McCain Act? Maybe he should worry less about his domestic agendas, and concentrate more on his abysmal nominees.

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest

They don't want the NRA throwing facts at the public.

rwd

forceful bipartisan response

Now there's something we haven't heard before last week.

rwd

And just how much money did the unions throw at dems this last election?? 450M maybe......

Nice to agree with the man I voted for once in a while.

The $1,000,000,000 candidate has spoken.....against big money. LOL

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest

#6 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-23 12:31 PM

AKA, a Union.

perhaps Obama will simply fire some justices,

that's how Chavez would assure his people's best interest

obama the corporate whore complaining about corporate bribery is akin to a whore complaining about his pimp.

end the corporate person.

anything less is a waste of time.

This is significant when considering presidential races but far more so when considering Congressional and Senatorial races and the opportunity for businesses to punish individual Senators or Congressmen for voting against the interests of a particular corporation are huge.
The righties here defend this decision as if they ever really thought seriously about it instead of just repeated what they have been told by corporate shills earning millions to tell them what to think.
When this country decides it's time to stop importing every manufactured item sold here good luck trying to find enough members of Congress who will go against the corporate honchos.
BTW, I'm still waiting for a reasonable response from yesterday about foreigners buying American corporations and using those corporations to buy and sell members of Congress. Don't even pretend that isn't going to happen because the SC said it's now perfectly legal.

"people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest

#6 | Posted by vernon"

So then "people" in the second amendment can also be referring to a State?

Vermin, You can't have it both ways with the Constitution like you have with your she-male.

This is significant when considering presidential races but far more so when considering Congressional and Senatorial races and the opportunity for businesses to punish individual Senators or Congressmen for voting against the interests of a particular corporation are huge.

yes and Senators or Congressmen are beating on corporate doors all year asking for money and most times with veiled threats.

"This is significant when considering presidential races but far more so when considering Congressional and Senatorial races and the opportunity for businesses to punish individual Senators or Congressmen for voting against the interests of a particular corporation are huge."

Funny, I figured they did vote in favor or against when they "accepted" coprorate money.

The fact that we already have too much corporate money flowing into politics used as justification for this ruling makes me suspect that those who support it think two wrongs make a right. We know we need to stop the flow of lobbyist money into campaigns, this ruling will just make it harder to change that.

or back Paul's audit the FED...& overthrow the FEd?

Decisions, Decisions

Well, this is certainly not the song and dance the Democrats are singing:

"CEOs to Hill: Quit Calling Us for Campaign Cash"

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress."

"They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking."

If organized groups calling themselves "political parties" can spend unlimited amounts on campaigns...

...then why can't other organized groups do so as well?

Corporations, like political parties, are groups of individuals with a common interest.

Denying free speech is denying free speech.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter now. The Supreme Court has spoken.

"And just how much money did the unions throw at dems this last election?? 450M maybe......

#10 | Posted by chickenrancher"

Nothing ChickenShit. In the past Unions could not contribute to campaigns only their members. Guess what numbnuts that changes as well now. Unions will now be able to contribute just like corporations.

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest

#6 | Posted by vernon

Oh how cute.

Vern actually thinks anyone other than the bigwigs will have a say in how the money is spent.

Hypocrite! Takes the money and then complains about it.

"Corporations, like political parties, are groups of individuals with a common interest.

Denying free speech is denying free speech.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter now. The Supreme Court has spoken.

#23 | Posted by BENDOR "

Bent, corporations are owned entities they do not represent common interests. They only represent the interest of the board and CEO (the board contains primary shareholder representatives). You are obviously thinking of a cooperative not a corporation. I thought all of you conservatives were business geniuses?

to think a clerical 'error' on corportations being persons back in the late 1800's could have so much consequences...

Denying free speech is denying free speech.

Except no free speech was ever denied.

Every individual could still support whomever they chose to support and corporations could still air commercials attempting to sway public opinion.

All we have now is yet another example of the haves being unequal over the have-nots.

"Denying free speech is denying free speech."

When was anyone denied free speech?
With this ruling who gains free speech who did not have it before?

"When was anyone denied free speech?
With this ruling who gains free speech who did not have it before?

#30 | Posted by danni"

Danni, the conservatives are simply channeling the spirit of the writers of the constitution no way would they be trying to interpret it in an activist manner.

#30 | Posted by danni

Try reading this:

"A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: Congress Shall Make No Law'"

"our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office. The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it? Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?"

"as the Court acknowledged, the position that corporations cannot engage in political speech has a fatal logical flaw. Almost every major media outlet in the country is owned by a corporation and most of them advocate for or against candidates via endorsements, opinion columns, or politically-oriented programming. Why should General Electric, which owns MSNBC, be permitted to use its nearly unlimited resources to influence elections..."

in a Constitutional pissin' match with the Supreme Court - - the Executive branch would loose . . hands down

It didn't stop Bush or Reagan. Congress can make all the laws they want to and the Courts can make all the ruling they want too but ultimately it is the executive branch that enforces or ignores the law and the constitution.

...people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest...

They all already have a vote. Why should they get two? Is buying an election now the same as winning it with one man one vote? Does joining a partnership for profit now mean they are a political party without a political agenda, but only a profit driven agenda no matter how unethical that corporation has become?

Your twisted thinking leads to poor decision making.

I must say, Obama is a whole lot smarter then the right is giving him credit for on this issue. The right prefers to sell their soul to the devil and call it free enterprise. Obama is not afraid to call a spade a spade (no pun intended).

the union rank and file do they get a say in how their union dues are donated ?

If this is purely a First Amendment issue, then it seems to me that religions should have the same right to promote candidates of choice. As of now, they are precluded on the grounds that they are a charity.

I see a broader issue. In the same way religion and state are separated, commerce and state should be similarly separated. That would deny the corporations the enormous control they have over legislators. Then they would have to compete in a free market environment

I think both commerce and religion should be cut off from political influence. It's only a dream.

#32...KBM...You argument is a fair one, at least on the surface, but everyone knows that a political endorsement by a news media organization is by default an opinion. We are also aware of which media is biased and in what way. We can choose our news source and look at both sides of the issues. This is healthy. What we will now be faced with in future elections is private corporations interested only in selling a product endorsing a candidate without political orientation as a factor. The opportunity for corruption and lies by politicians just made an astronomical leap to the absurd.

The fact is, presidents should not be allowed to appoint judges. They should be elected just like other politicians. Now, even if they were elected, it would be too late. This is truly a disastrous decision for the workers in this country. The next step is finding that unions are unconstitutional too.

I think both commerce and religion should be cut off from political influence. It's only a dream.

#35 | Posted by Ray

So you're opposed to this decision, right?

in a Constitutional pissin' match with the Supreme Court - - the Executive branch would loose . . hands down

tell that to lincoln.

"The Supreme Court has spoken.
#23 | Posted by BENDOR"

For now. The people could be lucky enough to witness a Scalia coronary, Alito dying of scabies, or Thomas choking on a pube during Obama's presidency, and this decision could be reversed.

What's money got to do with voting, unless someone hands you a wad of cash for your vote?

Free speech is especially important in politics. Any group can raise a ruckus and funds. Just keep it an open record so all sides can lambaste the other sides based on the contributors and the quantities.

No hidden contributions.

Good decision by the SCOTUS.

"Free speech is especially important in politics. Any group can raise a ruckus and funds. Just keep it an open record so all sides can lambaste the other sides based on the contributors and the quantities.

No hidden contributions.

Good decision by the SCOTUS.

#40 | Posted by daprof"

Elections are fundamentally won by money. There was a reason why they put in campaign contribution limits. If they are going to treat a corporation as a "person" with the same limit on contribution then the decision doesn't mean too much unless of course Rethugs incorporate a million or two s-corps for the election year.

So you're opposed to this decision, right?
#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yes. I don't see this as a First Amendment issue. I see it as an extension of the symbiotic graft between government and commerce. Surprised?

"Obama is not afraid to call a spade a spade (no pun intended).

Does that inlcude himself? Or would he be considered a hypocrite?"

Some have laid the blame at the feet of President Obama for failing to follow through on promised reforms, both at the FEC and in the presidential public financing system. Obama pledged to fix public financing as a presidential candidate -- even as he rejected Treasury funding and hauled in record amounts of private money.

No wonder progressive activists are getting restless. Reform advocates fret that if the president doesn't follow through soon, the next election will kick into gear and their narrow window to enact changes will close. Feingold has drafted a bill with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to revamp the presidential public financing system, but it appears to be languishing at the White House.

If this is purely a First Amendment issue, then it seems to me that religions should have the same right to promote candidates of choice. As of now, they are precluded on the grounds that they are a charity.

#35 | Posted by Ray

No. The loose their tax exempt status if they promote a canidate.

Tax exempt has nothing to do with the first amendment.

No. The loose their tax exempt status if they promote a canidate.
Tax exempt has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Let's look at the First Amendment.
"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 [my italics] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment specifically prohibits religious influence, but says nothing about commercial influence. I see this as a flaw in the First Amendment. The corporations drove a loophole in the First Amendment by gaining legal recognition as a person. I believe corporations are a bona fide legal entity with regards to limited liability and property rights of the owners. They should be cut off from political speech as religions are.

I love to watch the libbies get all upset over something they can't do a thing about. It's beautiful.

> This is significant when considering presidential races but far more so when considering Congressional and Senatorial races and the opportunity for businesses to punish individual Senators or Congressmen for voting against the interests of a particular corporation are huge.
The righties here defend this decision as if they ever really thought seriously about it instead of just repeated what they have been told by corporate shills earning millions to tell them what to think.
When this country decides it's time to stop importing every manufactured item sold here good luck trying to find enough members of Congress who will go against the corporate honchos.
BTW, I'm still waiting for a reasonable response from yesterday about foreigners buying American corporations and using those corporations to buy and sell members of Congress. Don't even pretend that isn't going to happen because the SC said it's now perfectly legal.

Actually, you're full of crap. The SCOTUS was deliberating on specifically the McCain/Feingold bill. Foreigners and foreign corporations, and foreigners through foreign corporations, have been banned from giving campaign money since 1966. Read FEC.gov before you open your mouth about something you know absolutely nothing about.

Foreigners and foreign corporations, and foreigners through foreign corporations, have been banned from giving campaign money since 1966.

There is a loophole there. Foreign governments are not banned from acting as agents for their corporate interests.

Actually, they're -expressly- forbidden.

Just like Wall Street pretended to endorse free markets, while they corrupted them, five in SCOTUS pretend to uphold the Constitution while they destroy it. Replacing Pharaohs, Emperors and Kings with CEOs and their political puppets is not progress or Democracy.

Actually, they're -expressly- forbidden.

Maybe in writing, but in practice it's very easy for a government to frame an anonymous corporate interest as a national interest. Country A threatens high tariffs on some import. Country B threatens retaliatory tariffs. NAFTA has a tribunal to settle trade disputes, and so on.

"They should be cut off from political speech as religions are" - Ray #45

But of course religions are not really cut off from political speech in practise. They do it by such subtle means as hinting that Catholic politicians might forgo communion if they support women's rights and that they will go to hell as well.

That's not counted as political speech.

"I love to watch the libbies get all upset over something they can't do a thing about. It's beautiful." - Rightisright

Just what we'd expect from Fascists, thank you so much.

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest
#6 | POSTED BY VERNON

horseshit..The people WORK for a non-human structure. I guess this is for when we are all slaves to our robotic overlords in 20 years..seriously.

"the union rank and file do they get a say in how their union dues are donated ?"

To what? Union dues are not used to finance campaigns, not in the NEA anyway.

I believe now they will be. Then we will need to ask your question.

"And just how much money did the unions throw at dems this last election?? 450M maybe......
#10 | Posted by chickenrancher"
Nothing ChickenShit. In the past Unions could not contribute to campaigns only their members. Guess what numbnuts that changes as well now. Unions will now be able to contribute just like corporations.
#24 | POSTED BY FURIO

These dumb shits don't understand democrat interest actually have more MONEY than republican interest. They won't be so sarcastic or gleeful when a trillion is spent on the next dem candidate from overseas corporations that have an incorporated interest in the US..This is foreign money that can now LEGALLY influence US elections.

Yea like Randi Weingarten and Andy Stern don't get involved with politics,

I love to watch the libbies get all upset over something they can't do a thing about. It's beautiful.

#46 | Posted by rightisright

welcome to the 11%

people organized as a corporation are still people. They share a common interest
^^^^

Just cos I work for a corporation, doesn't mean I agree with their politics, nor were they elected to speak for me using their money. As stated, gives a single entity more say than any single idividual.

Taking into consideration that most of the political ads I've seen in the last 2 decades are so bare of facts or distorted beyond recognition that it's morally repugnant, it makes me wonder what agenda this fullfills.

So, nope, I don't agree with the SC ruling and find it pretty comical...in a disheartening "I'm-going-to-die-lets-smile-
and-hope-it-doesn't-hurt-too-
much" kind of way.

"Shrug".

Loh

How about equal time, equal money spent on campaigns, level the playing field. So many minutes of TV coverage, like the debates. Publish the name of the candidate running in advance so that research of the person can be done, then a neutral site where the records of the candidate can be posted and perused and each person can make an educated decision of who to vote for. Make it the same for local, state, and national elections. Time to take big money out and put the citizens in charge of the nation by electing the honest and ethical people to office. Of course, then new rules for terms, lobbying (allow no influence), and cronyism or nepotism.

The SCOTUS peeling back McCain-Feingold is a win for the everyman. Here's why: McCain-Feingold heavily favored encumbents and also enhanced the grip of the "news" media on shaping public perception. Free, unfettered speech is the way to go. It allows competitors to speak out to the degree they're able/want to.

I agree with BETTYO that transparency is needed.

They don't want the NRA throwing facts at the public.

rwd

#8 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2010-01-23 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why don't you share the real "facts" with us...

Just for the record, I'm a gun owner. I have many long guns for hunting.

AND I STILL THINK WE NEED GUN CONTROL.

Why do simpleton red necks feel they are better at protecting themselves than the paid forces that train... Tell us, are you thinking the government wants to take your guns so they can control you?

Do you have a bunch of food and ammo burried out in the woods????

No one should be allowed to commit crimes with firearms and not be held accountable. Retarded (or mentally unstable) people should not be allow to purchase firearms.

Your firearm should have a ballistic record on file incase you (or someone else) decides to murder someone with it...

Firearms are a weapon of chioce for killing people always has and always will be As much as I enjoy hunting and practice shooting I have no problem obeying the law....

Why do simpleton red necks feel they are better at protecting themselves than the paid forces that train...

Clueless

Tell us, are you thinking the government wants to take your guns so they can control you?

Again...clueless

Do you have a bunch of food and ammo burried out in the woods????

???????

No one should be allowed to commit crimes with firearms and not be held accountable. Retarded (or mentally unstable) people should not be allow to purchase firearms.

Well,duh

Your firearm should have a ballistic record on file incase you (or someone else) decides to murder someone with it...

Reasonable within limits

Firearms are a weapon of choice for killing people always has and always will be As much as I enjoy hunting and practice shooting I have no problem obeying the law....

Neither do I

What else you got.
Try taxing ammo and gunpowder and creating laws around the actual owning of firearms to make it to expensive and prohibitive to own weapons.
Also look at the SCOTUS last vote count on gun ownership in DC and read the stupidity of some of the liberal justices arguments.

Are you a feelgood liberal who thinks laws should be created from bumpersticker logic?

Its hard to tell but i'll give it time.

rwd

#63 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2010-01-24 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You can assert your "Clueless" comments all you want. I think the Ammo should be taxed....
AND THE REVENUE USED TO STOP THE SENSLESS CRIMES THAT HAND GUNS AFFORD CRIMINALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT.

If taxes have hindered your ammo consumption then you likely have more than a hobby on your hands...

The NRA is a racist bunch of insecure red necks...

Are you a feelgood liberal who thinks laws should be created from bumpersticker logic?

~rwd

No, I'm a rational average American that thinks we're in big trouble when it comes to violent crimes in my country. And I'm tired of people telling me how the government is comming to take our guns.

Tell us where gun control should stop, winger.

Your firearm should have a ballistic record on file incase you (or someone else) decides to murder someone with it...
~lft

Reasonable within limits
~rwd

Please elaborate on what "reasonable within limits" means.

You either ID your weapon or not...

#64 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Again..clueless

AND THE REVENUE USED TO STOP THE SENSLESS CRIMES THAT HAND GUNS AFFORD CRIMINALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT.

If taxes have hindered your ammo consumption then you likely have more than a hobby on your hands...

I am stunned.Thank God for the NRA to protect American freedoms from idiots like you.

rwd

#67 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2010-01-24 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The NRA isn't protecting anything except the candidates they want in office. and they use red necks like yourself to further their adgenda.

You still havent answered the question...

Where should gun control stop???

"Denying free speech is denying free speech."

When was anyone denied free speech?
With this ruling who gains free speech who did not have it before?

#30 | Posted by danni

In this case? Citizens United.

Your second question? Why Exxon-Mobile of course!

"Denying free speech is denying free speech."

When was anyone denied free speech?
With this ruling who gains free speech who did not have it before?

#30 | Posted by danni

I'm with you Danni on this one. This is going to fuel and strengthen the mega-corporation. However, I think the Court did its job in interpreting the law and not legislating. Now it's up to Congress to "define" this entity. Good luck to them. There are not too many in Congress who would do this.

You still havent answered the question...

Where should gun control stop???

#69 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2010-01-24 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

RWD, were you going to offer your attempt at the question?

Please tell us how background checks and waiting periods are bad for us. tell us how registering a gun with the govt. is bad. How about a ballistic ID on file incase your weapon is used in a crime-those awful fucking liburls want to control you don't they. While you're at it tell us why you need a weapon with a bayonet attached or a rifle with a built in grenade launcher...

RWD, were you going to offer your attempt at the question?

Please tell us how background checks and waiting periods are bad for us. tell us how registering a gun with the govt. is bad.

I have never said backround checks are bad.Ever.

The waiting period is another matter.If You are a first time buyer I would say it is reasonable,say 3 days.
Why should I have to wait after that if my backround check comes back clean.
I walk into my dealer with my gun strapped to my hip and I should wait?

How about a ballistic ID on file incase your weapon is used in a crime-those awful fucking liburls want to control you don't they.

Why would the Gov want a bullet anyway?The presumption I will commit a crime?

While you're at it tell us why you need a weapon with a bayonet attached or a rifle with a built in grenade launcher...

In my state it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun.
To answer your question..because I want one.

You are pretty fucking rude.In the future if you want to have a conversation with me turn it down.

rwd

#73 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Do you agree or disagree with the recent SCOUTUS ruling on lifting the DC gun ban?

rwd

Note that the majority of both parties and most independents agree with the court.

Could it be that Pres. Obama, Sen. Shummer, et leftists al are afraid that too much debate to and fro will uncover the underlying dishonesty of the progressive philosophy that assumes the unwashed populace needs guidance from their intellectual betters?

"Could it be that Pres. Obama, Sen. Shummer, et leftists al are afraid that too much debate to and fro will uncover the underlying dishonesty of the progressive philosophy that assumes the unwashed populace needs guidance from their intellectual betters?"

How does not wanting business to have a larger voice equate with assuming that the unwashed populace needs blah blah blah? I actually assume the opposite.

Also, could I please have a link on this? "Note that the majority of both parties and most independents agree with the court."

"Note that the majority of both parties and most independents agree with the court."

Where do you get this???

Obama's opinions on campaign financing are worthless, especiallly after the garbage he pulled during the election.

#75 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2010-01-24 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag

I agree.

Why would the Gov want a bullet anyway?The presumption I will commit a crime?
~RWD

because if your weapon was used in a crime they could trace it back to an owner...

BTW, I agree with R vs w also.

"Obama's opinions on campaign financing are worthless, especiallly after the garbage he pulled during the election."

That's fine, Hag, but I want to know what _you_ think, not about Obama, but about the decision. : )

+++++

Interesting Gallup poll results. I would suggest that they talked to idiots. : ) Seriously, I don't get it. I think it's a terrible idea, and smart people agree with _me_. (Joke, for those who have a hard time with humor.) But really, I don't get it. I've seen some arguments here, and I see sometimes where you're coming from, but I still think it's wrong. And yes, I see corporations and unions as fundamentally different. They may be made up of individuals (though unions and corps operate in very different way), but those individuals already have a vote and can express their opinions. OTOH, those noting that it's _speech_ that's protected, not who speaks the speech, have an interesting point. That said, why don't non-citizens have speech rights if they live and work here or incorporate here? (I know there's a good answer--by which I mean satisfying to me : ) --there, but I can't find it in my scattered brain right now.)

Prag,
What I'm thinking is that, in light of precedent, this ruling had to come out the way it did... if the question of corporate persoonhood is not addressed.

I might agree with what Obama said here, but screw him. He didn't give a damn about outside influence when he allowed people to use prepaid gift cards to donate to his campaign.

"Note that the majority of both parties and most independents agree with the court.

Could it be that Pres. Obama, Sen. Shummer, et leftists al are afraid that too much debate to and fro will uncover the underlying dishonesty of the progressive philosophy that assumes the unwashed populace needs guidance from their intellectual betters?
#76 | Posted by 3853177z at 2010-01-24 02:56 PM"

I hate to bring up the old standby, but your first "note" begs for a 'link or stink'. It's too outrageous and too general to go by without being called on for supporting proof. The balls in your court, 3853177z.

As for point #2: You're absolutely on to something (sarc)! In this day/age of TV, Radio, Internet, PAC groups, video cameras, cell fones, Ipods (heck, even the printing press!), I find it laughable to think that ANYONE (celebrity, politician, even Joe/Jane Shmoe) could even belch without the world saying 'excuse me'. And yet, you want folks to swallow the notion that President Obama (et. al.) are fearful the "underlying dishonesty of the progressive philosophy that assumes the unwashed populace needs guidance from their intellectual betters" will be uncovered. Wow. How DID they do it???

Yet (and this is probably the best part) through all that "truth", YOU have managed to see right through their scheme. Seriously???

(* sorry, had to take a short break *)

If anything, there's too little debate now and TOO MUCH advertising hammering simplistic slogans over and over. This SC decision will promote MUCH more of that same (and I don't mean debates). Of course, that's just fine if your goal is to guide the 'unwashed populace'. Maybe you just think that's a problem if 'the guidance' disagrees with your opinion ;-)!

As I mentioned on a another similar thread: if folks want to treat corporations (unions, etc.) as "a person", then subject them to the same campaign limits as "a person". Otherwise, I suspect the motivation for promoting this concept has little to do with free speech and much more to do with prying open a loophole.

Be careful what you wish for...

Seems Only speech that supports the Democrat Party's point-of-view and their leftist policies is "good speech" that should be "allowed" according to this so-called "Party of the Little People".

SO, What are they afraid of? That the People may actually be informed by sifting through all the bullshit put out by the government, hollywood, the main stream media, the unions, and the government run schools and finally vote these leftist loonies out of office.

I can understand their fear of the People knowing of the Democrat Party's corruption and intentions to destroy the basic freedoms and capitalist economic system of this great nation -- all to the end of ensuring their lasting power over the people.

Viva the Internet, Talk Radio and Fox News! Only with the free flow of political speech can this nation remain free to be governed by a sovereign and informed electorate rather than a few elitists who think they should run all our lives.

Best. Week. Ever.

in no particular order

1) "Massachusettes"(sic) Miracle

2) $ SCOTUS Decision $

3) Scott Ritter Pedo arrest

4) "UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

5) Mr Obama's populist tack on Wall Street crushes stock market.

Sweet

#72 | POSTED BY TONTONMACOUTE

don't bask too long..I am sure some rightwinger will be caught diddling a young boy or fucking investors out of billions soon. Oh BTW Nasa released its temperature records which this week. The stock market needs to be fucked over

LEGIO - I guess you would be content living in a hovel without heat or lights, no dishwasher, no car, no modern conveniences and scratching for food.

That is what the environmentalists ultimately want for us, to be leveled to 5th world status at the mercy of the rest of the world and nature herself, trying to keep warm and fed.

It is the capitalist economic system that keeps you fed and clothed, whether you are in the private sector, a public employee, or on welfare.

Better not bite the hand that feeds you too hard, else you might find yourself sitting on a rock wondering where your next bite of food is coming from.

"SO, What are they afraid of? That the People may actually be informed by sifting through all the bullshit put out by the government, hollywood, the main stream media, the unions, and the government run schools and finally vote these leftist loonies out of office."

What exactly are the government run schools (vomit) offering as bullshit these days? Please educate me.

+++++

"That is what the environmentalists ultimately want for us, to be leveled to 5th world status at the mercy of the rest of the world and nature herself, trying to keep warm and fed."

And which environmentalists are you talking about?

LEGIO - I guess you would be content living in a hovel without heat or lights, no dishwasher, no car, no modern conveniences and scratching for food.
That is what the environmentalists ultimately want for us, to be leveled to 5th world status at the mercy of the rest of the world and nature herself, trying to keep warm and fed.
It is the capitalist economic system that keeps you fed and clothed, whether you are in the private sector, a public employee, or on welfare.
Better not bite the hand that feeds you too hard, else you might find yourself sitting on a rock wondering where your next bite of food is coming from.

#88 | POSTED BY KISSNTELL

Yes I am an environmentalist, hunter and fisherman.
I am a farmer dumb fuck. I know where my food comes from. I also have a Masters in Economics so blow your capitalistic system horseshit out of your ass.

True Blue check out Gallup dot com. Balls back in your court. :~)

Except no free speech was ever denied.

Yes, it was.

A group put together a documentary about Hillary Clinton and it was banned from being shown just weeks prior to the 2008 primaries. That is clear and blatant censorship - a denial of free speech.

The first ammendment protects free speech - it makes no distinctions among speakers. From a constitutional standpoint, which is what this was all about, this is the correct decision. If the dissenting opinion invoked the constitution, I might see this differently.

Democrat Barack Obama became the first major presidential candidate to reject taxpayer financing for his general-election campaign, allowing him to spend without limit in his contest against Republican John McCain.

The move, never attempted in three decades of public financing for presidential candidates, puts the Illinois senator in the position of being a self-styled reformer, pledged to diminish the influence of money in politics, who now plans to wage the most expensive campaign in history.

online.wsj.com

This issue at hand is campaign finance, and President Obama has a clear record on the issue. Complaining about the SCOTUS decision is easy political points because he knows he cant do anything about it anyway.

#2 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-01-23 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

His money came from small, individual contributors like me who gave, not large corporations who will pour tens of millions into buying campaigns.

"True Blue check out Gallup dot com. Balls back in your court. :~)
#91 | Posted by 3853177z at 2010-01-25 12:09 AM"

Nice volley, but did you even read your own link?

"Viva the Internet, Talk Radio and Fox News! Only with the free flow of political speech can this nation remain free to be governed by a sovereign and informed electorate rather than a few elitists who think they should run all our lives.
#86 | Posted by Kissntell at 2010-01-24 08:15 PM"

So,Kissntell, you're 'OK' having a 'few elitists' (e.g., coporate CEO's, union leaders, media moguls, etc.) having unlimited 'rights' to keep us "informed" while individuals are hampered by campaign contribution limits.

Got it ;-)!

This bears repeating:

NO ONE is denying ANYONE their free speech. What is being questioned is whether corporations are:
a) "people" and (more importantly)
b) "people WITHOUT campaign contribution limits" (in essence, making corporations "people" with MORE rights than individuals).

AGAIN, this is not a free speech issue.

#93
Sense, your position has the air of truthiness, but is far from verifiable. In fact, there is good foundation to question its veracity since candidate Obama decided to begin accepting donations from people with prepaid gift cards, the identity of these donors is almost entirely unverifiable and there is ample evidence that often donors who used these cards were either not who they claimed to be or worse yet, not even citizens.

Hag--I'm interested in the gift card use. Does this mean that the cards were prepaid to be Obama contributions? Could anyone buy them, from anywhere in the world? Seems ripe for abuse, this practice. (Though if I buy a gift card and send it to my friend in France, who then activates it, well, I am an American and I bought it, so it was really my donation, right? Irrelevant, mostly, to the argument, but amusing.) Do you know if the campaign came up with the idea or someone else did? Do you know if any other candidates used the practice?

Tangentially, to those pointing out that Obama spent more money than any other candidate, as if that's a bad thing, well, he had to. Or so the argument goes. 1. Relatively unknown (has to beat the name recognition of the others (from both sides of the aisle). 2. Black. Yeah, I know, race card. No, I'm not claiming he won or would have lost exactly because of race, but it's pretty clear that he had to get more air time than others, and if you look at the NH primary, it sure seems possible that race played a factor in his loss. So I don't have a problem with Obama outspending the others, though I do have a problem with the gift card practice as described by Hagbard.

Nice bit of rationalization, TRUEBLUE.

If the poll was Rasmussen's, you and your extreme partisan buddies (who are only 20% of the population...this'll set you off I'm sure) would have summarily dismissed the whole thing as spew coming from "that right wing biased polling outfit".

Why don't you just sit back and accept the fact that, on this issue, you and your crowd are in the minority?

a)I learned in kindergarten that 50% plus 1 equals a majority. Maybe you missed that basic lesson when you were a kid.

b)c)d)Oh, come on. This is desperate rationalization at its best...something I have discovered that Obama is great at.

"Nice bit of rationalization, TRUEBLUE. "

Actually, he (?) brings up some fine points, particularly the one about wording and the one about when this survey was conducted. Wording always matters in polls. ALWAYS.

And no one questions that 50.1% is a majority, but some here were suggesting something more substantial than a simple majority.

This isn't about Obama, though; this is about the Constitution. And I say the Petition to Amend thread has it right. That's the way to go. Deal with personhood, then this other stuff will fall into place.

Having though about this, I have concluded that I agree with those who say that this ruling is constitutionally apt. I don't like it, but I can't assert that it's a wrong decision qua decision.

"Actually, he (?) brings up some fine points" says PRAGMATIST

A "fine" point is in the eye of the beholder. "Contorting" a point is another possibility when ones is consciously or unconsciously trying to rationalize something.

No, TRUEBLUE: I want Everyone, but Everyone who has a stake in this nation's future to have their say and let the electorate make an informed choice.

No one, but no one, should be censored by the government in their political speech. We can only be free if the electorate is informed, which means, getting the point of view and information from ALL SOURCES. It is up to a free people to then sift through all of it to make an informed decision.

Why is it, Trueblue, that you want to shut ANYONE up? What -exactly - are you afraid of? Perhaps that your point of view might be discarded by an informed electorate?

#93 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-25 04:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you believe that you are not using common sense.

"When push came to shove, NO CANDIDATE in history raised more money, including heaping gobs of it from special interests like unions and trial lawyers than candidate Barack Obama." Arizona Republic.

Barack is anti free speech and a hypocrite to boot!

"Nice bit of rationalization, TRUEBLUE.

If the poll was Rasmussen's, you and your extreme partisan buddies (who are only 20% of the population...this'll set you off I'm sure) would have summarily dismissed the whole thing as spew coming from "that right wing biased polling outfit".

Why don't you just sit back and accept the fact that, on this issue, you and your crowd are in the minority?

a)I learned in kindergarten that 50% plus 1 equals a majority. Maybe you missed that basic lesson when you were a kid.

b)c)d)Oh, come on. This is desperate rationalization at its best...something I have discovered that Obama is great at.

#98 | Posted by 3853177z at 2010-01-25 10:28 AM"

Some rationalization, 3853177z.

Are you referring to yesterday's poll from Rasmussen:

"Why is it, Trueblue, that you want to shut ANYONE up? What -exactly - are you afraid of? Perhaps that your point of view might be discarded by an informed electorate?
#101 | Posted by Kissntell at 2010-01-25 11:30 AM"

Strawman Alert!

Perhaps your point begins from a false assumption and then (surprisingly!) draws an erroneous conclusion.

AGAIN...

NO - ONE - IS - SHUTTING - ANYONE - UP. All individuals HAD the same freedom of speech.

A MUCH more valid question is WHY anyone would support given a coporation (which is neither an individual, nor can be easily verified to even be a "citizen") MORE resources/opportunity to exercise their free speech than an average US citizen?

Another/similar question: why is it that corporations require MORE (if ANY!) opportunity beyond what an individual citizen has to exercise their free speech?

And you're 'concerned' about the problems with "elites"???

TRUEBLUE: Rasmussen makes solid points like Gallup.

Bottom line: Polls differ; both illuminate sentiment on an issue at a given time; both prove that polls can be conveniently interpreted...depending on one's political persuasion...one way or another.

BUT Obama is the LAST person on earth qualified to talk honestly about "floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money". See my comment #103 above.

"A "fine" point is in the eye of the beholder. "Contorting" a point is another possibility when ones is consciously or unconsciously trying to rationalize something."

Well, in the eye of this beholder, he brought up good points. From the perspective of poll analysis, he brought up good points. If you can't agree that language matters on surveys, then we have little to talk about when it comes to polls.

+++++

"Barack is anti free speech and a hypocrite to boot!"

Huh? Please explain. He took money--gobs of it--from special interest groups? Wow, great unbiased language from Arizona Republic. To make a convincing argument about someone's hypocrisy, you need to do more than quote a hyped line from a newspaper that is diametrically opposed to the alleged hypocrite's ideology/persona.

That said, yes, if he took that sort of money from that sort of group, his comments about this decision are indeed questionable.

+++++

Never mind this:

"Bottom line: Polls differ; both illuminate sentiment on an issue at a given time; both prove that polls can be conveniently interpreted...depending on one's political persuasion...one way or another."

You just shot all your previous arguments about polls to hell. And your interlocutor actually went to Rasmussen and didn't disagree with it. I'm amazed.

Re: #106 | Posted by 3853177z at 2010-01-25 01:09 PM

WHAT? No 'extreme partisan' comment now that the Rasmussen poll has backed up my initial point?

"both prove that polls can be conveniently interpreted...depending on one's political persuasion...one way or another."

NOW who's rationalizing? While I agree that the interpretation of a poll CAN be spun, what I provided was a straight-forward summary based upon experience and statistical rules. Your breezy dismissal is not. You might (!) disagree with my points, but how about attacking THEM instead.

Bottom line: Polls differ PRECISELY because of several factors. For example: timing, sample size, sampling technique, and [NOT least] what/how the question is asked which was my "rationalized" point EXACTLY.

Thanx for making it!

dont need to read responses from left here
just want to ask them to look up how many MILLIONS obama recieved from goldman sachs for his campaign while he is into his 'hate big corporation' moment here...

also CHUCK SCHUMER is said to have gotten a bundle from them for years...

and companies like GE will no longer have an advantage..
GE gets MILLIONS from govt and they could STILL campaign on NBC even on days of elections...

AND LAWYERS are said to be giving to DEMS 85% of the total money given by lawyers.

and it wont change anything in the long run.
may even help some "LIBERAL" groups...report said that the 'sierra club' was recently fined 25K for a violation..Now they wont have that again..so does THAT make some of you libbies mad???
I think not

dont need to read responses from left here

#109 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-01-25 02:57 PM

You never understand them anyway. =P

ah,...I could hear the drum beat as I read your post.

good one.

(punk)

You never understand them anyway. =P

#110 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-01-

maybe my elementary teachers shouls have used a telelprompter.

BA DUMP DUMP

"shouls(sic) have used a telelprompter(sic)"

A 2x4 might have worked better.

#116

Timby never looked better.

mister zat..
may I suggest you take a trip to the back page and read the muptiple threads about the global warming SCAM..

thank you....

back to work???? yeah sure...be sure to clean the mop when you get through

be sure to clean the mop when you get through

AFK made a mess thinking he was in a porn booth....AGAIN!

#73 lfthndthrds > Please tell us how background checks and waiting periods are bad for us.

Instant background checks, which the NRA supported, keep the criminals from getting firearms. Waiting periods have gotten people killed. Name any other item in the Bill of Rights for which waiting periods are proposed ... much less legislated.

> tell us how registering a gun with the govt. is bad.

If they want to come get it, they know where it is. Certain weapons that have been banned in the past were removed from their owners using registration lists. Don't forget the police taking people's guns away during Katrina, and said police doing little or nothing to protect the police (not that the police have any constitutional duty to protect individuals).

> How about a ballistic ID on file incase your weapon is used in a crime-

Stupid. A "ballistic ID" can be easily changed in any semi-auto firearm (firing pin & extractor, btw) .. or a rat-tail file used on the crown of the barrel. And if the cops actually trace my stolen firearm back to me, it does absolutely nothing to ID and catch the crook who stole it and used it.

> While you're at it tell us why you need a weapon with a bayonet attached or a rifle with a built in grenade launch

"Needs" have nothing to do with rights. Nobody "needs" desktop publishing software or software to create a web page -- they might just pass along their anti-government ideas to others.

If somebody actually has a bayonet on the end of the rifle, I'd fear the bayonet about 1% as much as I would the rifle. The whole "bayonet lug = bad" was another case of politicians who know nothing about firearms (part of the big bad "assault weapons" fiasco under Clinton).

How many rifles are for sale now that have a "built in grenade launcher"? I'd seriously like to know.

BTW, I'm not an apologist for the NRA, just a strong support of gun rights (while supporting long jail terms for those who use guns to commit crimes).

" muptiple(sic) threads "

Aflacbabble reminds us why public education in Texas is shit.

I skipped the last 30 or some comments. But one issue I haven't seen on this thread yet is taxation without representation?! Corporations are taxed billions of dollars with no vote, though most, I'm sure, would argue not without representation(lobbyists).

Though it's not verbatim in the Constitution, taxes definitely played a role in the American Revolution and bear consideration.

While I don't believe in giving corporations a vote, by what other avenue do they have of expressing their concern over taxes imposed on them by politicians?

And before you say lobbyists, just think, we could BAN corporate lobbyists now!

Comments anyone?

On a side note, those who can't sort through corporate ads, campaign ads, and news propaganda shouldn't vote to begin with. There needs to be an knowledge and IQ test before people vote. HA!! "I stereotype, it's faster" R. Bingham

TRUEBLUE - My point is that ANYONE who has a stake in this nation, and is taxed and regulated by those morons in Congress -- including Corporations which are taxed and regulated nearly to death -- should be able to state their position and defend their points of view.

So,actually, by wanting Corporations to not have the ability to engage in political speech, you Do favor denying freedom of speech to an entity made up of individuals who are taxed and regulated without benefit of the protections of the Constitution.

"So,actually, by wanting Corporations to not have the ability to engage in political speech, you Do favor denying freedom of speech to an entity made up of individuals who are taxed and regulated without benefit of the protections of the Constitution."

In a corporation, what individuals suffer from being taxed? Even leaving that alone, the individuals that make up this corporation have freedom of speech _as_ individuals. Why do they need it as a disembodied unit as well?

So yes, I favor denying freedom of speech, IF that is taken to mean donation of money, to an organization. They are free to speak and issue press releases all they want. If Corporation X wants to endorse one candidate over the other, fine. But why do they get to pump their millions into coffers? I do not see that money as free speech. But the SCOTUS (five of them) does, and that argument is now, for the foreseeable future, over. We all need to get over it and move to amend (fuckin' unlikely, just as term limits are unlikely).

Really, arguing it here is more pointless than many of our arguments, though educational in some respects.

But you know, I'll probably post on this thread at least one more time. : )

"TRUEBLUE - My point is that ANYONE who has a stake in this nation, and is taxed and regulated by those morons in Congress -- including Corporations which are taxed and regulated nearly to death -- should be able to state their position and defend their points of view.

So,actually, by wanting Corporations to not have the ability to engage in political speech, you Do favor denying freedom of speech to an entity made up of individuals who are taxed and regulated without benefit of the protections of the Constitution.
#122 | Posted by Kissntell at 2010-01-25 04:49 PM"

I believe I understand your point and have attempted to address them.

Once agian, I'll address the points you are (now) bringing up:

1. Those 'morons' are our (YOUR) elected officials. If they are morons, what does that say about those who elected them?

2. "Corporations which are taxed and regulated nearly to death" makes for fine rhetoric, but beyond the hyperbole, the ACTUAL tax rate that US corporations pay is not onerous. Similarly, the regulations are not (in all cases) onerous. Please do some homework/comparison with the business world economy to vindicate your claim that US Corporations are being taxed/regulated to death. You might even find that some regulations are promoted BY large corporations specifically to limit competition from competitiors (e.g., small business). If you suspect that what I claim "ain't so", ask yourself why most corporations prefer to remain here (even though they might outsource labor/services).
Hint: it's not patriotism; it's economics.

3. I'm sorry, but it is becoming increasingly apparent (even annoying) that you refuse to address my points while stubbornly maintaining a blissfully unaware understanding of what I have actually stated:
a) NO ONE is being denied representaion and/or free speech (and certainly not by me).
b) I am NOT promoting (or suggesting, or DESIRING) that Corporations can NOT engage in political speech. They do and DID.
c) IF I did (as you claim), then you'd be correct. I don't; you're not.
d) What I find highly suspect (and contrary to the Constitution and my position is in agreement with 4 out of 9 SC Justices) is the need for corporations to have representation IN ADDITION to the representation afforded the individuals in the corporation. If you want corporations to have their status elevated to "a person", fine. How about giving them the SAME LIMIT that "a person" has? I'd support that. Would you?

4. BTW, as for protections, corporations already enjoy many benefits that the average person does not in this country. Corporate veil, Subsidies, Business deductions to name just a few. I have owned a (small) business for years. Please spare me a litany of problems that businesses have because they don't have the "benefits of the protections of the Constitution". It just ain't so.

I believe people on this site have become entirely too unhinged over this corporate personhood thing, and have not thought through how much our country would suffer without it.

If a corporation doesn't have rights, then I suppose it shouldn't have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I guess that means if the cops want to bust into any corporate offices without a warrant and rifle through all of the corporations files, trade secrets, atty-client memoranda, private correspondence, etc., you'd all be alright with this?

Same for labor unions for you lefties? when republicans are in charge, they can pass laws allowing inspection of all aspects with no warrants, no nothing.

Even the local plumber who decided to incorporate would have his shit subject to being gone through without reasonable cause, just because he decided to incorporate - even though he's the only shareholder, director and officer?

ABC, NBC, WSJ the same? No 1st amendment rights, no freedom of speech to write editorials ect? Nowhere in the 1st amendment is there a distinction between corporations, partnerships, or individuals. Yet, you'd draw those distinctions even though these are all, at the end of the day, run and governed by individuals.

Think of the power you'd give up to the state. It sounds all nice and fuzzy now, but in practice, it would be nightmarish.

I don't know, Somoco. I would expect lots of other laws and regulations cover what you're talking about. I really can't imagine that ALL of those things come down to corporate personhood, though it's an almost fascinating premise. I'll have to ask my friend the legal scholar about it.

And I would think the freedom of the press clause would cover writing editorials and all that.

But as for search and seizure--hm. Curious.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (now): I have no desire for labor unions to have rights (in this regard) that corporations (businesses) don't. I am okay with my representation/my voice being part of an endorsement process by the NEA. I am okay with a corporation endorsing a candidate. I am not okay with my union or a corp. giving buckets of money directly to a campaign's coffers. Those are very different things.

But of course, what I'm okay with or not okay with is irrelevant. The decision is not mine to make. I do find the party-line vote (so to speak) rather... intriguing.

"If a corporation doesn't have rights, then I suppose it shouldn't have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I guess that means if the cops want to bust into any corporate offices without a warrant and rifle through all of the corporations files, trade secrets, atty-client memoranda, private correspondence, etc., you'd all be alright with this?"

Have you read the Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment? If not, here it is:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

NOTE: While it does mention specific rights pertaining to a person, it ALSO covers: "houses, papers, effects" and continues with: "and the persons or things to be seized.". Those explicit statements pertain to property and have been upheld through many years of precedence.

This does not ascribe "personhood" to corporations nor does it need to since the corporation's "safety" is already explicitly guaranteed in the 4th Amendment. As such, your concern is unfounded and unwarranted.

#126. I understand. Your view's valid. Whether funding money is really a form of speech. have to think about that.

#127. Huh? It says "people" and "their persons, houses, papers"

clearly, houses, papers, effects are only those houses, papers, effects belonging to people. it's clear from the text itself.

"#127. Huh? It says "people" and "their persons, houses, papers"

clearly, houses, papers, effects are only those houses, papers, effects belonging to people. it's clear from the text itself.
#129 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-25 08:04 PM"

Correct.

Don't corporations belong to people?

Again, what I've stated has been supported and interpreted as such through years of precedence.

Ask yourself, IF that were not so then why haven't your fears already been realized? Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

Gotta go to dinner for now. B back later..

Trueblue, your rabid and hysterical one-sided attack on corporations which are, after all, made up of individual shareholders and employees was devoid of any such attacks on labor unions and especially the government public sector unions, even though said unions are also made up of individuals. Unlike corporations, however, both private and public sector union members are forced to contribute their dues to what end up being donated to leftist politicians and their causes.

It is well known the unions have an unfettered ability to impact elections through their exhorbitant funding of candidates and leftist causes. This doesn't seem to bother Trueblue.

Because of the impact of those public sector unions in my state on elections with their ads and the buying of politicians who give them anything they want in terms of power, salaries and benefits in exchange for that vote and support, our state is in a terminal list financially.

These are Democrats who are bankrupting my state, just as they are bankrupting several states. Have you noticed that the states in huge trouble economically are all run by Democrats? And don't tell me those morons in DC who are running the show and Have Been Since 2006 -- Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al. -- are MY morons. They are, however, obviously Yours.

Corporations, large and small and small business are the means by which the public (government) sector survives. The parasites on private enterprise include people who work for the government and those who live off their neighbors through so-called "entitlements". No tax money = no government jobs and no goodies for free.

For that reason alone, the left should do everything they can to protect corporations and private enterprise and hope -- pray, if you will (I know that is Sacrilege to the left) --for their survival. It seems, however, that the leftists' hate for individual prosperity and evil "Corporate America" blinds them So that they will end up killing the golden goose that feeds their never ending entitlements, grants to study nothing anyone gives a crap about but gives them a their ill-earned income, etc., and, of course, their own always-open-mouths.

Everything other than the private sector is by nature parasitical on those who actually go out and produce something. Those "entitled" just sit around and bitch because the private sector is "greedy' and unwilling to 'contribute". There is never one word of gratitude.

Trueblue, it is fact that those corporations that support the government with taxes are the entities the left is so hysterical over the fact that they have been given political voice by this Supreme Court decision. Why is it that The Left seems to want to shut up anyone who doesn't agree with what they are saying or trying to ram down our throats? Hence their hysteria over this Supreme Court decision.

I still ask, what are they afraid of? That their point of view will be discredited once the People are fully informed with all sides of the equation?

The left sees the masses with contempt and just want individuals, including those who work for corporations to just work harder and send their money to Washington to be distributed by the ruling class in exchange for votes to keep them in power.

Side Note: BTW, can anyone tell me why anyone is "entitled' to receive the money earned by another citizen? The word "entitlement" is just another leftist bastardization of our language. Entitlements are not entitled by anyone. The are welfare and/or charity from one person who earned the money to one who didn't.

Relax Trueblue. I get everything you say; I just don't buy everything you say. But then, we don't have to agree. You can hate corporations all you want and hope for them to be silenced and for their ultimate demise. This is, after all, still America.

An excerpt from the decision..

>Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations.

During the debate of this decision I wondered why corporations were banned from advertising during elections but the media as defined in the decision is a corporation and exempt from the provision.

> Although currently exempt from 441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views "hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public's support" for those views.

In and on itself the law most definetly gave prefferential treatment to one corporation over an other(s)

> Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment , and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' political speech.

I believe the SCOTUS made the right decision in this case.Their decision falls squarely on 1st Ammendment rights and eliminated the inequity of the law.
If congress wants to make laws,they should at least do the job we vote them in for and make good solid laws.Granted not all laws will pass muster but it seems glaring that an issue of 1st ammendment rights went right through without any thought.

Where do you get those ideas, Kissntell?

In my very first post on this thread (go ahead, scroll up to #84), the first time I even broached the subject of 'corporations' was in the last paragraph where I wrote: "As I mentioned on a another similar thread: if folks want to treat corporations (unions, etc.) as "a person", ...".

Then scroll down to my post #94. In the first sentence I wrote: "So,Kissntell, you're 'OK' having a 'few elitists' (e.g., coporate CEO's, union leaders, media moguls, etc.) having unlimited 'rights' to keep us "informed" while individuals are hampered by campaign contribution limits."

I'll give you the benefit and assume you forgot about those items. However, as such, that completely discounts the majority of your bashing of me 'neglecting' the unions since it is an incorrect description of my position (either in my sentiments or as written).

BTW, Kissntell, it's not ("legally") certain that this SC ruling will even be applicable for unions.

So, "corporations" will reap the benefit but "unions" might not.

Happy now?

It's only devastating to the dems. Republicans should love it.

Also, Kissntell, don't even pretend to admonish ANYONE for a "rabid and hysterical one-sided attack" after that rambling, simplistic diatribe purporting to describe the motivations of a whole group of people (or myself).

I suspect you might get what I'm saying (well, at least what you thought you read and remembered) and that you don't buy everything. OK. Please make a bigger effort to at least bash me for what I claim and believe, rather than some fantasies you've convinced yourself about 'leftists'.

The tyranny we practice abroad become the tyranny we practice at home. We, like all empires, have been eviscerated by our own expansionism. We utilize weapons of horrific destructive power, subsidize their development with billions in taxpayer dollars, and are the world's largest arms dealer. And the Constitution is conscripted to serve as power's apprentice rather than its conscience.

Liberals, socialists, trade unionists, independent journalists and intellectuals, many of whom were once important voices in our society, have been silenced or targeted for elimination within corporate-controlled academia, the media and government. Wolin, who taught at Berkeley and later at Princeton, is arguably the country's foremost political philosopher. And yet his book was virtually ignored. This is also why Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, along with intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, are not given a part in our national discourse.

excerpted from Chris Hedges

We, like all empires, have been eviscerated by our own expansionism.

What is it that funkadelic said about drowning in your own shit?

"Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time. For ya'll have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe. I was not offended, for I knew I had to rise above it all or drown in my own shit."

"It's only devastating to the dems. Republicans should love it.
#135 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-01-25 11:10 PM"

You're probably correct, since Republicans are all about fairness and love of country over party.