Supreme Court Rules Against Campaign Finance Restrictions
In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.
Siding with filmmakers of Hillary: The Movie, who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”
“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.
It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.
Good for the SCOTUS. They got this one right.
Score one for the corporatocracy!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1212 hrs
Joe Mamma are you just stuck on stupid!
From the original article
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.
This returns free speach to more than just many groups, not just corporations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1253 hrs
It’s good to see that the co-sponsoring, smug, sack of shirt who swore an oath to uphold the constitution has been repudiated. His namesake legislation has been deemed un-constitutional and illegal.
How much more of an epic failure could you be as a lawmaker? If he had an ounce of decency, he would resign in disgrace. However, that won’t be necessary as the progressive electorate in Wisconsin will send him back to Washington again to fight on in destroying this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1323 hrs
Could paragraph five of the article have any implications regarding occasional attempts to stifle talk radio? so-called fairness doctrine?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1340 hrs
It’s good to see that the co-sponsoring, smug, sack of shirt who swore an oath to uphold the constitution has been repudiated.
How much more of an epic failure could you be as a lawmaker? If he had an ounce of decency, he would resign in disgrace.
We all now McCain has ruined his reputation, but this might be a little over wrought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1410 hrs
Isn’t this the ruling George W. Bush expected to get when he signed McCain Feingold in the first place. Didn’t he expect the bill to be overturned by the supreme court?? As much as I like “W”, it was another bad decision on his part to sign the bill, he should have vetoed it immediately. Just think of all the mischief that’s happened because of this (George Soros and all his ilk). This is a bitter sweet victory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1512 hrs
While it did strike down a portion of McCain-Feingold, the ruling dealt with a law banning corporate involvement in campaigns from the early 80s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1738 hrs
I’m so glad that we finally will be able to have corporate money playing a role in American politics. That is something that has been sorely missing on both sides of the isle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 1801 hrs
Without expressing an opinion on the right or wrongness of this particular decision, I agree with DJ. Protecting the free speech of entities which are not voting citizens is one of the top 3 issues destroying American politics. Any ruling which allows more of it, whether Constitutionally correct or not, will not improve politics in this country. It will make things worse.
Posted by scott on January 21, 2010 at 2036 hrs
Corporations are organizations of citizens. So are unions. So are non-profits. So are political parties. They are citizens banding together for some mutual purpose. Those citizens should have a voice in politics, even if their message be one that the Democrat Party does not wish to hear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2146 hrs
It is certainly right and just that the wealthy have more “freedom” of speech than I. They are obviously more worthy- they’re rich!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2152 hrs
That’s why it’s important that collections of citizens - like corporations, unions, bike clubs, advocacy groups, etc. - also have their right to speak freely protected. I can’t go out and buy a million dollar ad campaign like a Bloomberg or a Kohl, but I can toss in my $25 with thousands of like-minded people and buy those ads.
Posted by Owen on January 21, 2010 at 2200 hrs
You could do that yesterday just as easily. In fact, many people did and have been for years. That is not what this decision was concerned with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2203 hrs
Hey geniuses, many corporations in this country have foreign ownership. So for a pack of bozos that whine and belch about illegal immigrants, who are foreigners, you are now going to have your lives run by foreigners.
But hey. You’ve got your guns.
Morons. Welcome to your new world order.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2258 hrs
Corporations are organizations of citizens.
But they are not citizens themselves. They do not vote. They are guaranteed nothing in the Constitution or the bill of rights. We decided to pretend they’re like citizens in some ways, but a metaphor for a thing is not the thing itself. A union is not a constituent. Neither is a corporation or any other interest group.
And, yes, the influence of these groups is sometimes good, sometimes bad, but in the aggregate it’s a net loss for democracy.
Posted by scott on January 21, 2010 at 2307 hrs
John Roberts just gave American democracy a good swift kick in the balls.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2323 hrs
He just helped it along. American democracy has been singing falsetto for decades.
Posted by scott on January 21, 2010 at 2324 hrs
American democracy has be a castrato for decades
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2328 hrs
Good for the SCOTUS. They got this one right.
This is a bitter sweet victory.
Let me get this straight. You guys have no qualms with the blatant conflict of interest inherent with public employee unions given free reign to spend money to support union friendly politicians?
Taxpayer money being spent by special interest groups (public employee unions) to support policies to enrich and empower special interest groups is inherently wrong. Yet here you guys are cheering them on.
This is the worst SCOTUS ruling since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (established personhood rights under the law to corporations).
BTW Owen - A while back I remember you posted something questioning when the USA “crossed the Rubicon” and began it’s decline… it was that day in 1886 when collections of people were granted the same rights as individuals.
I thought conservatives supported the empowerment of the individual over the collective. I don’t understand how that doesn’t apply to this case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2010 at 2351 hrs
And, yes, the influence of these groups is sometimes good, sometimes bad, but in the aggregate it’s a net loss for democracy.
That’s the problem with the arbitrary rules that restrict freedom of speech… you see, your idea of what is sometimes good is QUITE different from mine. When you restrict the ability of a group to speak with a unified voice simply because you disagree with the message or the messenger, that endangers freedom for everyone…. even you, Scott. Standing by idly as one group is denied the right to speak makes it all the more likely that it will happen to your group sometime soon.
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;
There is nothing in that statement that implies that only individual citizens be protected by it. It make no specific reference at all to a specific group…. it is a blanket umbrella protection. It covers Code Pink, Exxon, Move-On.org, Bank of America…. no exceptions, not a one, and no room to read any into it either. Congress shall make no law…. the operative words there are MAKE NO LAW.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0008 hrs
The constitution guarantees the right to assemble as well as the right to speak. Assemblies of people ishould not have their right to speak revoked merely because they are together. More importantly, the constitution has not granted to the federal government the power to regulate speech.
When we are dealing with corporations and labor unions, however, we are dealing with assemblies which have been granted special priveleges by the government. Additionally, they are entities generally organized for the purpose of interstate commerce, one of the few things the federal government was actually granted the power to regulate. The grant of those privileges, combined with their commercial nature ought to indeed allow the federal government to regulate their actions, including speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0010 hrs
3rd Way, do you think Michael Moore’s movies should be banned?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0011 hrs
What about Sierra Club newsletters? Should those be banned, or should they be allowed to convey their message?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0017 hrs
Would that be Michael Moore, or Michael Moore, Inc. jesusisjustalright? Would that be the Sierea Club, or the Sierra Club, Inc?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0020 hrs
Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world’s biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings—which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion.
http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/01/21/citizenstea
See the difference? Citizens have always been able to get together, pool their money and use it to transmit their speech.
What this ruling accomplishes is something far more drastic.
There is nothing to stop large corporations from spending billions of dollars in advertising. Elections will no longer be about ideology, only profitability. Any elected officials that support policies that reduce profitability for large corporations will be replaced in short order.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0021 hrs
When you restrict the ability of a group to speak with a unified voice simply because you disagree with the message or the messenger, that endangers freedom for everyone…. even you, Scott.
It really doesn’t! Because I’m not a union or a corporation. I’m an individual.
Standing by idly as one group is denied the right to speak makes it all the more likely that it will happen to your group sometime soon.
Fine. Let it be so. Let all interest groups—even ones I agree with—shut the fuck up and let actual Americans speak uninterrupted. I’ll take the good with the bad and trust in democracy.
There is nothing in that statement that implies that only individual citizens be protected by it.
If your argument is valid I only have one thing to say: Amend the Constitution with all possible speed before our country implodes under the weight of special interest political influence.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 0026 hrs
do you think Michael Moore’s movies should be banned?
If someone paid to have Michael Moore’s movies broadcast on network television… yes they should be banned. The last time I checked you had to pay to see Michael Moore’s movies.
Payment for political influence should be illegal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0027 hrs
What’s to stop a few large corporations from, say, buying up all of the advertising space for the last two weeks before the next presidential election? They could run blatantly dishonest ads 24/7 to get a candidate elected that they could own. It would be well worth spending $5bn for that - They could get legislation enacted that would pay for that many times over. And who would be able to match their spending power? Unions? rofl…
All of you supposed tea party “patriots” that support this disgust me. All of that populist rhetoric was just a bald-face lie, wasn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0028 hrs
It wouldn’t be worth $5 billion to win an election if statists like you, djheru, would let the tea partiers keep their money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0037 hrs
Two points:
“Elections will no longer be about ideology, only profitability. Any elected officials that support policies that reduce profitability for large corporations will be replaced in short order.”
Substitute various other groups for “large corporations” and each group wants “profitability” for its members. That includes unions and leftist groups, as well as the NRA and rightwing ones. Let them all flap their jaws as much as they want, just so they disclose what their group is in each ad.As for anyone having “unfair” influence, the answer is education, to teach children as they grow to be discerning about ads of all types, and to consider the source. In other words, teach them how to think, not what to think (as is done currently). Then give them the freedom to apply their minds, join groups if they want, and vote as they wish.
Posted by Soapbox Jill on January 22, 2010 at 0043 hrs
That comment makes no sense. I’m sure that Chase and Citibank would love to change the law so that they could charge up to 100% interest on credit cards and $100 monthly fees on checking accounts.
And I’m sure that the cigarette companies would love to be able to advertise on tv and sell to minors.
And of course, the Chamber of Commerce would love to do away with minimum wage, overtime laws, workplace safety regulations, maternity leave and sexual harassment legislation.
All of this and more is just a few billion dollars worth of campaign ads away. I hope you enjoy it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0046 hrs
will be replaced in short order.”
Substitute various other groups for “large corporations” and each group wants “profitability” for its members. That includes unions and leftist groups, as well as the NRA and rightwing ones.Yes, but none of those groups have nearly the spending power that corporations do, and none of those groups would be able to gain as much profit (actual profit, not metaphorical) from controlling legislation as corporations do.
As for anyone having “unfair” influence, the answer is education, to teach children as they grow to be discerning about ads of all types, and to consider the source. In other words, teach them how to think, not what to think
Of course, that will be pretty hard when public school funding is slashed after the corporate controlled legislatures of every state do away with their business taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0050 hrs
That comment makes no sense.
was referring to this:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0051 hrs
That comment makes no sense.
was referring to THIS:
It wouldn’t be worth $5 billion to win an election if statists like you, djheru, would let the tea partiers keep their money.
Sorry, this issue has got me all wee-wee’d up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0053 hrs
Let them all flap their jaws as much as they want, just so they disclose what their group is in each ad.
Infinite political influence available to the highest bidder… just like founding fathers envisioned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0056 hrs
I would enjoy a return to constitutional government immensely, djheru.
Corporations and unions buy influence for handouts. Handouts from the biggest corporation and fattest cat of them all: government. The tea partiers have spoken up against handouts. Stop handing their money out and you will quickly find a sudden deflation in the price of buying elections, (but then you Keynesians see all deflation as bad and you’d then be calling for a politician bailout to keep the price of elections from falling).
Elected offices are already bought and sold. The Tea Partiers have it right. Eliminate the money and you limit the incentive to buy offices. Everything else is just window dressing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0105 hrs
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas JeffersonThe idea of corporate personhood did not exist during the time of the framers.
They do not deserve the full rights of natural persons. The rights that they have are privileges that were granted to them by the government. Our rights as natural persons are God given and inalienable.
Corporations are mandated by law to serve only the interests of their shareholders by being profitable, and nothing else. They are amoral, and do not have the cognitive ability to speak outside of the collective voices of their shareholders, therefore, only the collective shareholders should be allowed the freedom of speech, not the corporation as an entity.
Granting corporations the right of free speech infringes on the rights of natural persons by the corporation’s ability to create a monopoly of political speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0109 hrs
@BV you make a valid point, but you are only concerned with the money that government is able to hand out. Corporations aren’t as concerned with government handouts as they are with removing the restrictions on their profitability that the government has implemented to protect us, the citizens they are supposed to represent, as I noted in #31
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0112 hrs
Corporations are concerned with the handouts a thousand times more than anything else. Handouts are a sure thing. Mere legislation effects the competition as well and thus are not nearly the big deal people would like to belieive they are. Additionally, I have no interest in restricting anyone’s profitability.
I am responsible for my own protection and I protect myself. The government implements its’ legislation primarily to control me. Were protection to be the criteria by which laws were enacted and government agencies created a good 85% of the federal government would go away entirely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0127 hrs
If you are concerned about corporations, unions, and special interest groups buying influence then you should be in favor of term limits. As they would have to continually purchase the same influence over and over again as our congressmen term limited out. They would quickly learn that that this continual purchasing practice is a poor return on investment.
In any case while I may despise what is said I will fight for freedom of speach, even from the la la land, left wing, kool-aid drinkers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0132 hrs
I am responsible for my own protection and I protect myself.
really? That is interesting. How exactly do you protect yourself from the local power plant dumping mercury in your water? How do you protect yourself from your car crumpling like a beer can when you get in an accident? How do you prevent yourself from the food and medicine having toxic ingredients?
I could go on and on.
The reason that the government exerts so much control over corporations is because they will continually act in ways that are abusive to the public as long as it is profitable. If drug companies can buy a few legislators that will remove the regulations that ensure that the medicine we buy is at least slightly tested to be safe and effective, the can collect much more profit. What are you going to do to “protect yourself” from that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0154 hrs
Corporations already spent 17 times more than unions in buying elections.
But if this plays out the way it looks like it will thanks to this ruling, soon you can forget about unions altogether.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0700 hrs
An informed public shouldn’t be so influenced by ads from corporations, unions, or the politicians themselves.
Do you really base your decision on who you vote for based on an ad?
Get a grip. Leave free speech alone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0732 hrs
Environmental control is an area where government can and does have an active role, djheru. It’s part of that 15%. And no, you couldn’t go on and on.
Competition and knowledge is what prevents my car from crumpling and my food from being poisoned. Competition and knowledge have no greater enemy than the federal government. Sorry, but fear doesn’t work on me and I long ago ceased to be a sucker for the argument that because the government created a Bureau of Sunshine that it causes the sun to rise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0824 hrs
Elections will no longer be about ideology, only profitability. Any elected officials that support policies that reduce profitability for large corporations will be replaced in short order.
You’re a hoot. Screaming “DEMOCRACY” while also screaming that the voters are stupid, stupid, stupid.
Choose one or the other, please.
Posted by dad29 on January 22, 2010 at 0846 hrs
corporations aren’t as concerned with government handouts as they are with removing the restrictions on their profitability
You don’t get it. The FIRST thing is revenues. Without revenues, there will be no profits of any sort. So the rent-seeking is primary.
Don’t believe that? Then look no further than Jack Murtha’s contributor-list.
Posted by dad29 on January 22, 2010 at 0851 hrs
Corporations already spent 17 times more than unions in buying elections.
Yah. All that “lit-dropping” and “phone-banking” done by unions is absolutely free of charge and has no value, eh?
But if this plays out the way it looks like it will thanks to this ruling, soon you can forget about unions altogether
I’d be happy to see public-employee unions disappear entirely.
Posted by dad29 on January 22, 2010 at 0853 hrs
Do you really base your decision on who you vote for based on an ad?
I would take it you regard corporations to be supremely rational. Then why would they piss money away on political ads that don’t work?
dad29, why you just go ahead and say all unions…and the middle class along with it. You are so “up with people” aren’t you dad?
BTW re: the lit dropping et al. As evidenced in Mass. the Brown shirt supporters were doing likewise—only they were paid to do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0903 hrs
PS—unlike many of the corporations in this country which are either foreign owned or have significant foreign investment (like the red Chinese), public employee union members are just about about citizens of this country.
Now, whose voice should count here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0928 hrs
“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. ... If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
Money is a tool for speech. Corporations are tools for speech as well. The first amendment is very clear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 0942 hrs
Why shouldn’t corporations have first amendment rights? They pay taxes don’t they?
When I heard Feingold and Schumer rail against this I knew it was a good decision. Score one for free speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1002 hrs
Why shouldn’t corporations have first amendment rights? They pay taxes don’t they?
Well, hell, why don’t we let them vote? Run for office?
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1004 hrs
Because their employees only get one vote each? Are you comparing voting with the right to speak?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1006 hrs
Their employees already had the right to speak.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1014 hrs
So you really don’t see the difference between voting rights and free speech rights…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1016 hrs
In the light of day I am hoping that some of us are making a bigger deal out of this than what it is, though last night Howard Fineman said it is tough not to make a big deal out of this.
Nevertheless, every corporate employee or executive have their free speech rights. In fact here’s a solution.
Why not limit the right of unions and corporations to promote within their own organizations.
What makes these organizations any different from 501(c)3s or churches, which are forbidden to campaign?
Again, because of the nature of the ownerships of many corporations, why should non-citizens have the right to influence our elections.
Yet the crickets chirp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1040 hrs
Keith,
No. People, unions, corporations etc. should be able to say whatever they want. The government should do NOTHING to limit this. Churches are tax exempt, which it why they’re limited, which is retarded (and unconstitutional). They should pay taxes and be allowed to campaign.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1055 hrs
If special interest groups are looking for political clout by all means lets just have them continue to meet with the president behind closed doors and swap favors. How dare they speak in a public forum for the entire nation to hear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1101 hrs
Corporations have limited liability and unions have been granted special privileges, which is why they should be regulated, jesusisjustalrightwithme. As has been pointed out above there is nothing whatsoever to prevent people from speaking or from organizing together and speaking.
If corporations wish to speak, then they can incur the unlimited liabilty that private citizens face when speaking. If unions wish to speak then they can give up their negotiating priveleges.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1111 hrs
I think we’re on to something.
Any organization should have the right to talk to the people within their own membership. The members are within their perfect rights to speak, contribute and if they want to, become a candidate.
Everyone has the ability to amplify their collective voices—through a campaign or party membership.Don’t like any one of the two political parties. Form a new one. It’s your right.
The idea that a foreign owned company should have amplified clout thanks to their amassed money is a perversion to democracy.
I object that a company that I buy products from will be using my money to overcome my political voice.
And by the way, be careful what you wish for. Many of you here are against the climate change movement, promoting diversity and pushing for rail transportation, but you are way behind the curve of corporations what want to see these things happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1129 hrs
Have you guys ever read the 1st 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is freedom of speech itself that is protected. The Constitution is unconcerned about who is doing the speaking. Claiming that freedom of speech is not protected because the speaker is a member (or a leader) or a club is a complete non sequitur.
But I’ll make a deal with everyone who thinks the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to corporations or unions or 501 (c)3 organizations. My deal is as follows.
1. OK, we’ll agree that corporations are not people.
2. So, if a corporation violates this law, if you mean to enforce the law you may not;
a. incarcerate any people, or
b. fine any people.
3. If any people lose any liberty or money in the enforcement of this act, this act will cease to operate, as it would be clearly unconstitutional.I don’t understand this issue because while I can usually see both sides of an issue, here I’m just obviously right and everyone on the other side has to do a bunch of mental gymnastics that just end up looking ridiculous. If you want to limit the rights of peaceably assembled people to speak, you should amend the Constitution like adults.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1231 hrs
When you speak out to restrict the speech of another, for whatever wonderful reason you might have, what you are really saying is that control of political speech is acceptable. Either you allow all speech and hold politicians accountable for their actions in response to it, or you risk a power group denying YOU your right to speak because of whatever wonderful reason they might have for shutting YOU up. It’s all or nothing. That’s why the founders wrote it that way…. a smart bunch, that one.
If you don’t like all the union, environmental profit lobby, corporate, or foreign lobbying for hand-outs, then show that by supporting a smaller government with limited taxation and limited resources to offer those hand-outs in the first place. It’s the massive trillion dollar budgets filled with goodies that pervert the system. Get rid of the candy, and the trick or treaters will stop showing up. The problem the liberals have is that they LIKE all the goodies… as long as the goodies are spent the way they liberals see fit.
The government handouts are the problem folks. No one would have a hand held out if they did not think there was a reward.
More free speech, less free money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1240 hrs
In oral argument, did four of the Justices support book banning?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on January 22, 2010 at 1249 hrs
The idea of corporate personhood did not exist during the time of the framers.
Perhaps not, but they sure knew about the press. And about civic organizations. And about organized religions. And probably countless other groups of individuals who have all been understood to possess the same free speech rights as individuals. Do you really mean to imply that by “press” only individual, named reporters enjoy the privilege?
The existence of corporations isn’t the major change that the framers didn’t envision. I submit that it is the rise of “mass media,” where a single message can be broadcast and re-broadcast thousands or millions of times. But even there, the framers knew about billboards and placards and newspapers and periodicals, all of which can be re-read an infinite number of times as well. The technology was just slower. But the principles are the same. People, or groups of people, should be able to say what they want.
The “the sky is falling” angst over all this is misplaced; these campaign finance restrictions were absurd and should never have been enacted in the first place. The SCOTUS didn’t arbitrarily create a right out of thin air; they just clarified a right that’s been there all along, and was illegally restricted by the legislature. The sky didn’t fall before McCain-Feingold, did it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1252 hrs
“If corporations wish to speak, then they can incur the unlimited liabilty that private citizens face when speaking. If unions wish to speak then they can give up their negotiating priveleges.”
Totally agree.
What’s crazy about this, and what I don’t understand about the anti-speech crowd, is why would you listen to the corporations that you don’t like? If there’s enough popular support for an anti-political-speech law to pass, couldn’t all those supporters just not listen to the ads paid for by big corporations, rendering them useless?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1302 hrs
why would you listen to the corporations that you don’t like? ...couldn’t all those supporters just not listen to the ads paid for by big corporations, rendering them useless?
It would be nice if we could rationally respond to advertising in this way, but we cant. Marketing professionals know how to push the emotional buttons that affect us on a subconscious level that our reasoning mind just cant filter out (at least if they are done well).
An example would be as such: The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money. They would be able to operate more profitably if they were able to facilitate the election of some representatives that would reduce or eliminate the regulations that insure that drugs are tested for efficiency and safety so that their production costs would be lower and so that they would be able to get new products to market faster. Obviously, this would be harmful to consumers, which is why the regulations were enacted in the first place, as a response to abuses by corporations.
In their ads, they are not going to come out and say “vote for [blank] because he is going to get rid of all those pesky regulations that protect you”. The ads will be emotionally manipulative, and will probably claim that removing the consumer protections will make us safer.
Remember, about 60% of us are die-hard partisans that will never be persuaded by the other side. What’s up for grabs are the ignorant, easily manipulated “undecideds” that would rather learn about Tiger’s sex life or some reality show contestant than to partake in public life as an informed citizen. And they are the ones that will be especially susceptible to campaign ads, and they are the ones that will be deciding elections.
Anyone who hated the way the media frenzy and hype got Obama elected should be hating this decision, because that is how every important election will be decided here on out. Unless you didn’t really hate the process that got him elected, just the fact that he was a dem. Then you are probably just fine with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1316 hrs
I’m in favor of getting rid of those regs (it’s “efficacy”, by the way).
“Obviously, this would be harmful to consumers, which is why the regulations were enacted in the first place, as a response to abuses by corporations.”
The delays in getting drugs to market caused by the FDA has killed far more people than it has saved.
At least you’re honest about wanting to repeal the first amendment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1321 hrs
“It would be nice if we could rationally respond to advertising in this way, but we cant.”
Speak for yourself.
” and will probably claim that removing the consumer protections will make us safer.”
Bad example, since removing FDA approval WOULD make many of us safer. Sometimes delays in drugs getting to market cost a lot of lives, even if you don’t hear about it to the same extent you hear about drugs getting to market that are not safe and cost lives that way. It’s extremely difficult to say whether the lives saved by the delays offset the lives lost by the same delays. But whatever, that’s a different issue.
“Remember, about 60% of us are die-hard partisans that will never be persuaded by the other side. What’s up for grabs are the ignorant, easily manipulated “undecideds” that would rather learn about Tiger’s sex life or some reality show contestant than to partake in public life as an informed citizen.”
If you think the partisans are the well informed in this country, you are a stupid, ignorant man. I’d wager that we undecideds are much smarter and more well-informed than you idiots with your toes on the party line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1325 hrs
The SCOTUS didn’t arbitrarily create a right out of thin air; they just clarified a right that’s been there all along
That is simply not true. The Bill of Rights does not grant the freedom of speech to us. As conscious entities, that freedom is an inextricable property of our existence.
Corporations were GRANTED rights as created legal entities. Corporations are, for legal purposes, entities that are separate from their shareholders. That’s why you can sue a corporation, and if you win, you still don’t get to collect from the personal wealth of the shareholders.
These separate entities do not have the cognitive processes needed to “speak”. Only their shareholders do, and their shareholders have always had the ability to come together and collectively “speak”.
A corporation is not just a collection of shareholders, it is a completely separate entity, and it does not have the ability to “speak”.
This is the exact same reasoning that the SCOTUS has used to deny the freedom of religion to corporations. There is no reason that it doesn’t apply to speech as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1325 hrs
If you do not think that a corporation cannot “speak” then you don’t have anything to worry about, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1331 hrs
Let’s try that again.
If you do not think that a corporation can “speak” then you don’t have anything to worry about, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1333 hrs
Before you fools spout off about how FDA regulations have killed more people than they’ve saved, why don’t you look at the reason that the regulations were implemented in the first place. Apparently you are unfamiliar with early 20th century history.
I’d wager that we undecideds are much smarter and more well-informed than you idiots with your toes on the party line.
Smart, well informed people usually don’t need to resort to slinging insults. Apparently you don’t know the difference between “undecided voters” and “independent voters”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1333 hrs
If you do not think that a corporation can “speak” then you don’t have anything to worry about, do you?
No, a corporation cannot speak, but the owners of a corporation can take advantage of the protected status of corporate assets to amplify their own speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1337 hrs
If you deny corporations freedom to speak this also should apply to the media corporations, the press are all controlled by giant corporations. The media should get no special rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1341 hrs
removing FDA approval WOULD make many of us safer.
I’ve seen this argument before and I think there’s a giant hole in it. You go ahead and look at drugs that have been submitted for approval and at those which have been approved or disapproved and figure it that way. But what you’re not looking at is the tidal wave of utter snake oil that never even gets submitted because of the very fact that the FDA exists. Remove any government safeguards and I guarantee that the pharmaceutical industry will soon resemble the herbal remedy/vitamin supplement/hair-regrowth/penis enlargement industries. As it used to do before we had an FDA.
And I still haven’t seen anything in these comments to make me believe that this decision is anything but bad for democracy.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1341 hrs
Sure we do, captain non-sequitur. We also have the ability to separate actual arguments from fun insults.
And you still haven’t explained why you’re so worried about the unfettered speech of entities that you claim cannot speak.
Please do, because I’m looking forward to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1342 hrs
I think that was covered in comment 73.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1346 hrs
Ah, so your version of the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless the guy is in a corporation in which case he can’t say anything because we don’t like corporations.”
Did you get your Constitution at like a Burger King? Is it written in crayon?
Scott, we can save the merits of the FDA for a different post, the fact is that it’s anything but obvious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1347 hrs
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless the guy is in a corporation in which case he can’t say anything because we don’t like corporations.”
I would prefer that it say “or abridging the free speech of individuals.” Or citizens. Whatever you want. People. Real people, not pretend ones.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1349 hrs
A corporation is not a conscious entity. It is a legal agreement. It has no cognition. You keep confusing the corporation with the members of the corporation. The members of a corporation have always been able to come together to speak. The legal entity know as a for profit corporation was not created and GRANTED privileges in order to facilitate speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1350 hrs
Diheru, two quotes from one of your comments.
Before you fools spout off
Smart, well informed people usually don’t need to resort to slinging insults.
But those who believe in the Constitution don’t make any sense, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1350 hrs
That’s why I said “usually”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1352 hrs
Why are you having such a hard time distinguishing between “a guy in a corporation” and “a corporation”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1354 hrs
What a corporation was intended to do has no bearing on this at all. A person must ultimately speak. People have the right to free speech, and they don’t sacrifice fundamental rights when they enjoy the benefits of limited liability.
Just admit what you want. You want to ban individuals from speaking because you don’t like their message.
Once you admit it you can start trying to reform your ways.
Scott, you seem to be against this portion of the first amendment:
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1359 hrs
Why are you trying to turn a group of people into a rock?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1401 hrs
The freedom of speech is a “Natural Right” derived from “Natural Law”
Only “Natural Persons” should have the benefits derived from “Natural Law”
Just as corporations do not have religious rights, because they do not have the ability to posses and express religious belief, they should not have the right to freedom of speech, because they do not have the cognitive ability to speak.
The MEMBERS of a corporation do, and I don’t have any problems with the board of directors of any corporation getting together and speaking as a collective group. But only natural persons should be able to exercise natural rights
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1406 hrs
People do indeed not sacrifice their rights when they speak, and only people speak. They should, however, no longer be afforded the special privileges, rights and protections granted corporations, unions and other organizations. These are not fundamental rights.
The supreme court has effectively created a class of disfavored speakers with decision, namely private citizens, to whom it affords neither the extraordinary protections and powers granted corporations nor the extraordinary priveleges granted labor unions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1408 hrs
Why are you trying to turn a group of people into a rock?
The group of people can form a collective organization to talk all they want. Corporations were not created to speak. They were created to facilitate commerce. Commerce is not speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1410 hrs
The supreme court has effectively created a class of disfavored speakers with decision, namely private citizens, to whom it affords neither the extraordinary protections and powers granted corporations nor the extraordinary priveleges granted labor unions.
Well said
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1412 hrs
What was the New York Times Company created to do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1412 hrs
The corporation (Lion’s Gate) that distributes Michael Moore’s movies was created to speak.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1414 hrs
The supreme court has effectively created a class of disfavored speakers with decision, namely private citizens, to whom it affords neither the extraordinary protections and powers granted corporations nor the extraordinary priveleges granted labor unions.
Bullshit. This decision has no effect at all on your individual ability to speak. If you want limited liability, form a corporation. That’s why we have corporations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1414 hrs
This is not a move that affords protection for big, bad, manipulative groups. It affords protection FROM the biggest, baddest, most manipulative group on the planet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1416 hrs
The New york Times Company was created to take advantage of priveleges, powers and protections afforded corporations in order to generate profit for its’ shareholders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1417 hrs
So…they should stop publishing newspapers with x time of an election? Or just not publish at all?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1422 hrs
BVBigBro,
Do you think it would be acceptable for the government to tell the NY Times that they are no longer allowed speech? You see no problem, constitutional or otherwise, with the government shutting down all newspapers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1423 hrs
The press was granted a special exception, obviously
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1424 hrs
And there’s nothing that would stop, say, a large manufacturing company from purchasing some type of media outlets and using those to their advantage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1428 hrs
“If you want limited liability form a corporation.”
I don’t want limited liability, nor should my speech be contingent upon registering myself as a corporation. Rather, it is you who want limited liability in the form of a corporation, and then the power to use that corporation to generate extraordinary speech. That limited liability is a cost to me. Further, it is a cost to me that is unassociated with any natural right but is instead one that is accrued entirely through the creation of an artificial entity. You do not have a natural right to charge me for your speech.
If you wish to raise money through a corporation for speech then raise that money, distribute it to an individual and incur the resulting costs and liabilities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1428 hrs
Oh, they were? But sure;y the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, does it? So there’s no freedom of the press for corporations, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1428 hrs
If you’re in a partnership do you give up your free speech rights too? You enjoy certain government grated protections there too (although not as many). What about if you’re married? That’s a legally privileged organization. Don’t want the “marrieds” having too much influence, no sir. Let’s shut them up. What if you have student loan debt? Or received Pell grants. Or a subsidized small business loan?
How about an LLC? Close call? If you’ve adopted children? Received a patent? Purchased prescription drugs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1429 hrs
“The press” is apparently the type of corporation that the 1st amendment DOES apply to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1431 hrs
The New York Times is free to publish to its’ heart’s content. But that is not what they, or you want. They, and you, want to form a corporation so that they may incur costs and liabilities for which they are not personally liable and then publish to their heart’s content. That is something very different.
The New York Times incorporates as a convenience, not because one must incorporate in order to publish. Their convenience should not be a cost to me. The fact this has become normal does not change the reality of what is being done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1435 hrs
““The press” is apparently the type of corporation that the 1st amendment DOES apply to.”
Oh, it is? And you know this how?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1435 hrs
BVBigBro, all of my speech is extraordinary, and I don’t need a corporation to make it so.
Corporations do not have more rights than you. They just don’t. Limited Liability has nothing to do with free speech. Nothing.
I got a kick out of djheru hiding behind the amendment he claims doesn’t exist. Genius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1435 hrs
Got it BV. We’ll mark you down in the “The Government Should Silence the New York Times” category.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1438 hrs
In comment 101, you have described the problem, PaulNoonan, nemely that the government has recognized some as more equal than others. The solution is not to continue to weave the tangled web, but to untangle it. The government should not be in the marriage business, nor should it be lending money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1439 hrs
I get a kick out of you lying and saying that I claim the 1st amendment doesnt exist. Ok, not really. And corporations DO have more rights than I do. That is why they are used. If I own a construction company as a sole proprietor and I am negligent and ruin your house, you can sue me personally. If I form a corporation, you can’t sue me, you can only collect the assets of the corporation.
Corporations have advantages that allow them to accumulate capital more efficiently than individuals. Forcing individuals to compete with corporations is unfair.
Corporations are separate entities from their members. They do not have natural rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1441 hrs
Limited liability has everything to do with free speech because this is the mechanism by which corporations generate the revenue which they then use to promote their speech. No limited liability, no revenue. No revenue, no speech.
No, jesusisjustalright, the government has the right to regulate the speech of the The New York Times, Inc. You keep leaving off the Inc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1444 hrs
If you give advantages to one type of speech, you are suppressing the others.
Corporate money used to pay for the speech of its members has the advantage of protected, accumulated capital that individual speech cannot compete against on an even basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1444 hrs
The media is the first to scream we have freedom of the press. But the fact remains all media are large corporations. Here is an idea
freedom for the press
freedom for unions
freedom for any interest group that meets with me in private.
freedom for goverment to transfer funds to acorn so they can speak .
Everybody else go punt.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1447 hrs
New York Times Inc. speaks through the New York Times.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1447 hrs
Then, jesusisjustalrightwithme, it should be a simple matter for New York Times, Inc. to transfer its’ money to another entity which has no limited liability, incur the costs and liabilities therein, and speak to no end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1453 hrs
So really, you just don’t want there to be corporations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1459 hrs
No, I just want them to stay out of politics and stick to commerce. What is so wrong with only allowing citizens to control our political process?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1502 hrs
The members of a corporation have just as much right to representation as everyone else, but they should not be able to use the protected capital of the corporation to drown out the speech of individuals
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1504 hrs
97. “The press was granted a special exception, obviously”
Taking this thread of thinking, if that were true, it would be unconstitutional. McCain-Feingold should have also applied to the media corporations. Either we’re going to censor ALL corporational speech, or none. You cannot have special classes. I’m also with jesusisallright… that churches should be able to speak out, too. FREE SPEECH is not arbitrary.Posted by Soapbox Jill on January 22, 2010 at 1505 hrs
The media is the first to scream we have freedom of the press.
No, actually that would be the bill of rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1505 hrs
I think one of the stickiest points is in comment 93. To those who are ideologically predisposed to see the government as the most threatening, least effective and least trustworthy entity in any comparison, giving corporations the ability to express their political opinions unfettered is always going to be a plus. For those of us who see and fear the undue influence such organizations already have, the government is our only option to reign them in.
Do you trust the government’s ability to regulate the “speech” of corporate entities more than you fear the government itself?
Do you fear undue corporate influence on American politics more than you fear allowing the government to restrict it?
Your answers to these questions will almost certainly determine which side of the argument you fall on.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1510 hrs
“I’m also with jesusisallright… that churches should be able to speak out, too. FREE SPEECH is not arbitrary. “
And pay taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1511 hrs
The members of a corporation have just as much right to representation as everyone else, but they should not be able to use the protected capital of the corporation to drown out the speech of individuals
FOX and MSNBC come to mind…where do they fit in? They are huge corporations…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1538 hrs
This is nothing more than legislating from the bench with judicial activism. Something certain individuals complained loudly about in the past but find no problem with it now.
This is all but a little hypocritical considering Kennedy’s recent vote to allow a school to suspend a student who unfurled a banner advocating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” I guess corporations deserve a greater freedom of speech than a real live person in a park.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1554 hrs
@JIJAWM: What does paying taxes have to do with free speech? Do you think there should be a litmus test for speech? Should individuals have to pay taxes before speaking out as well?
@Scott: You fear business more than the government? That is astounding. I can’t even begin to discuss that with you.
@Pat Judicial activism is when something new is added or interpreted to exist in the Constitution. This was the exact opposite of activism… they simply read a very short and straight forward sentence in the Bill of Rights and saw that it made no exceptions in it’s application. No matter how much you hate a groups opinion, the Constitution still protects that group equally. That is why it works so well. It protects us from the tyranny of all kinds, and from all quarters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1710 hrs
Funny thing Scott is that those who hate government the most are the ones who want to own it the worst.
Still haven’t heard anybody chime in with the fact that corporations owe no national allegiance and yet expect to be treated the same as the citizens who live under the Constitution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1713 hrs
Well this week Family Guy the Constitution didn’t protect us from corporate tyranny, at least the five on the Supreme Court saw it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1719 hrs
I can’t even begin to discuss that with you.
I didn’t say I feared business more than government. That’s a very broad and general statement. What I said is that I fear corporate influence on politics more than I fear government efforts to reign it in. That’s a very specific scenario. Given different circumstances or a different period in American history I might feel the opposite way.
No matter how much you hate a groups opinion, the Constitution still protects that group equally. That is why it works so well.
I’m all for protecting speech I don’t like. You seem confused about that. What we’re objecting to is not the message, it’s the messenger. Corporate entities are not people and their speech can (and should) be limited in ways that yours and mine cannot.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 1735 hrs
Thomas Jefferson knew it when he wrote,
“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gain.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1758 hrs
I am perfectly fine with corporations, Paul Noonan. I am not fine with the policy of treating corporations and other organizations as non-persons entitled to special protection when it comes to commerce and then turning around and pretending that they are persons entitled to special protection when it comes to rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 1909 hrs
For those who believe a corporation has a natural right to speech I ask you to ponder one question: Do corporations and unions with special powers and protections have a natural right to exist? Do I as a person possess a natural right to join together with another person or persons and limit my liability vis a vis another person or persons who are not members of the corporation and may not even know of its’ existence? Do I have a natural right to force another to hire only members of my union?
If you answer that question yes then what is the basis for regulating or registering the existence of a corporation or union? Must I register a natural right? Do I really possess the natural right to do possibly unlimited harm with limited or no consequences merely by declaring myself a corporation or to force my labor on another by declaring myself a union?
If you answer that question no then you are saying corporations and unions have a natural right to speech but no natural right to even exist. That will be a difficult position to defend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 2008 hrs
Still haven’t heard anybody chime in with the fact that corporations owe no national allegiance and yet expect to be treated the same as the citizens who live under the Constitution.
@ Keith: Corporations are not living beings. They are organizations comprised of people who are in business together. A corporation is a piece of paper. Any opinions expressed in the name of that corporation come from it’s employees and owners. Those people do have a right to expect equal protection under the law ... even if you don’t like business. Stop anthropomorphizing corporations into some living creature. It makes you sound a bit off the deep end.
What I said is that I fear corporate influence on politics more than I fear government efforts to reign it in.
@Scott: That is, at least, a bit more reasoned response. I maintain that taking away many of the governments give-away programs would do much to stop influence peddling. If we get rid of earmarks (as Obama promised <tapping foot> still waiting for that), then we remove the reward for lobbying. A smaller government is naturally a less corrupt government.
Corporate entities are not people and their speech can (and should) be limited in ways that yours and mine cannot.
@Scott: You are falling into the same trap. Corporations never say anything at all. They are silent golems of paper and contract. Their only manifestation of speech emanates from those behind the curtain working the levers, the corporations owners…. all people… people with First Amendment rights to speak in any manner that they choose. Congress shall make No Law… that’s what it says. No law at all. Not one regulating speech, the speaker, or the messenger. It is quite clear on that.
By your line of reasoning, political parties should be denied speech. They are corporations after all, and not people. The Red Cross, Marquette University, The Green Party, The Democrat Party, The Sierra Club, do you want to deny them speech as well? They are conglomerations of people held together by ideas and bits of paper. How is that different than Harley Davidson or Costco?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 2226 hrs
Corporations are not living beings.
Then it’s OK to limit their “speech.”
Those people do have a right to expect equal protection under the law
That’s what they had yesterday. This ruling has nothing to do with that.
You are falling into the same trap.
It’s not that I don’t see your point. I do. Let me try this… Ok. We do not limit people’s ability to “speak” through large organizations. Fine. Then we should not allow organizations like this to incorporate in the first place. They’re going to speak through an organization, then they should not be shielded from the consequences of that organization’s behavior, period. Starting to see where I’m coming from?
Congress shall make No Law… that’s what it says. No law at all. Not one regulating speech, the speaker, or the messenger. It is quite clear on that.
I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut. I think an argument can be made that it’s talking ONLY about individuals. But if you’re right, then here’s what I say: Amend the Constitution to exclude entities other than individual people. For the good of democracy.
The Democrat Party
If you’d like to have a civil discussion about ideas and you expect to be responded to respectfully and thoughtfully, stop insulting us. It’s the Democratic Party.
How is that different than Harley Davidson or Costco?
Maybe it’s not. Maybe that would be fine to treat them all the same. Perhaps it would be better for democracy if we did.
Posted by scott on January 22, 2010 at 2238 hrs
Still haven’t heard anybody chime in with the fact that corporations owe no national allegiance and yet expect to be treated the same as the citizens who live under the Constitution.
So let’s treat foreign corporations differently than US corporations instead of denying them all their first amendment rights?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2010 at 2356 hrs
@131 if you amend the constitution to only allow individuals to have political free speech, not groups of them in corporation or organizational form, that should also include the entities of the media. Only letters to the editor, no more editorials. And reporters should be scrutinized for nonbiased coverage, too. They have larger influence and voice than individuals.
Take it a step further and individuals with more money or inclination to exercise their speech to fund ads, create blogs or any other expression beyond what other individuals can or would do should be limited, too, right? How about well-known musicians/singers/entertainers: they would also have more influence, so limit them. Let’s redistribute free speech so every voice or group of voices are cut down to equal portions.
Posted by Soapbox Jill on January 23, 2010 at 0116 hrs
if you amend the constitution to only allow individuals to have political free speech, not groups of them in corporation or organizational form, that should also include the entities of the media.
Wrong. Freedom of the press is in the bill of rights. It’s a special exception, already in the Constitution. There’s no reason why it has to be like other groups.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 0141 hrs
Take it a step further and individuals with more money
No. An individual is an individual. I’m just talking about groups that the government is currently allowing special privileges to act as if they were a person in some ways. Such as corporations. Either you shut the fuck up, or your members bear the responsibilities of your actions.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 0143 hrs
@134 “There’s no reason why it(the press) has to be like other groups.”
THAT depends on the reason for limiting speech of other groups.
IF one thinks the constitution should be changed to restrict speech of some groups because the reach of their influence exceeds that of individuals, or because their views come from other countries, such restriction should be applied evenly, and include the political speech of news media conglomerates - powerful interest groups in their own right, which oftentimes echo views from countries overseas (European socialist ones, for example).
IF we’re gonna cut and paste free speech limits for some groups into the U.S. Constitution, the bill of rights is not out of bounds for change.
(BTW, this is meant to push the envelope for discussion. I support our original Constitution as is and the liberty for all acknowledged therein.)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 0231 hrs
(BTW, this is meant to push the envelope for discussion. I support our original Constitution as is and the liberty for all acknowledged therein.)
We hear that all the time Jill. what exactly does that mean?
My problem with the corporate money from a practical standpoint is in fact the debate has been distorted. Heath care reform screams for campaign finance reform.
What a lot of BS. A handful of Senators subvert the will of the people because they have been bought by medical industry interests. The Senators are all good people no doubt and one has to keep in mind if they didn’t take the money, someone else would. It’s a perversion of democracy.
The upshot is that in the past ten years at least crap can’t get done in Congress because the money has petrified it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 0759 hrs
This is a very complex problem, and the only real solution is to give the voters the option of a corporately supported candidate or a publicly funded candidate.
Otherwise, why should corporations who can’t vote and can’t be sent to jail for wrongdoing be allowed unfettered speech? Their obligation is to the shareholders, not the nation, or the would not be outsourcing the country.
On the other hand, why should NBC (owned by GE) be allowed to speak and Exxon-Mobile not?
Be care of what you wish for guys… this ruling is going to backfire, and better, light a fire under those who want to implement electoral reform. I see it as a good thing because of that. The Supreme Court has just screwed the right-wing.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 0909 hrs
Missed the rest of the discussion, just got back from a cruise with my wife, and I am FAAAAARRRR to into vacation mode to spend the time reading all of this, but…
This decision is outstanding.
Whatever has been said on here about those with money having more say than those without are just plain wrong. It still boils down to one man one vote, whether I choose to run ads supporting a particular candidate or not, my ads do not make the decision for you.
The first amendment specifically states that congress shall pass no laws restricting the freedom of speech, and limitations on political speech are just that, restrictions on speech. I am tired of the creations of subheadings and titles for different “classes” of speech, just as we have different “classes” of people, some deserving protection while some are to be left to their own devices. Speech is speech, whether it be hate speech, political speech, right speech or wrong speech, my words are mine, and I have every right to say what I want, when I want…
The restriction of speech in order to create a “more polite” society is nothing more than restriction of speech. We need speech police in this country about as much as we need thought police. I understand that many believe that the protection of some by restricting the rights of others is a right and proper way to create a “more fair” discourse, but in reality when the rights of one fall, and the lawmakers understand that they can get away with restricting the rights of one group, they know they have the power to restrict the rights of any group.
This is a victory for the constitution and freedom!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1000 hrs
>>> “The first amendment specifically states that congress shall pass no laws restricting the freedom of speech”
Yea, yea, yea…. for CITIZENS, not corporations, not frying pans, not articles or properties.
I’d feel a lot better if we could put corporations in jail when they kill people.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1018 hrs
Doug, please explain to me where corporate managers, stockholders and union members don’t already have free speech. The members of those entities are are just fine.
These organizations can do something ordinary citizens cannot—amass money for campaigns. Sure there is one man one vote but your argument about ads is faulty in as much as if they didn’t work, corporations and unions wouldn’t do them.
Then there is the answered question on this blog about the foreign influence in corporations.
Corporations have proven time and time again that they have no allegiance to this country, except when it comes to no-bid contracts. Where is it that we owe them citizenship when they don’t act like citizens. The idea that freedom of speech given to individuals pertains to groups is faulty logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1031 hrs
And incidentally, if “corporations” could speak let them speak. But as Keith says, their CEOs and executives and shareholders already have their individual right to speech. That they also get to drown out the speech of others seems a bit obnoxious. And this form of speech really translates to votes, thus the rich have multiple votes.
And I feel this way about unions too.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1059 hrs
Corporations are not living beings.
Then it’s OK to limit their “speech.”
@Scott: So now you are reduced to silly semantic word twisting? Ok, I’ll play along. Yes, by all means…and speech that comes directly from inanimate objects (not to include Joe Biden), buildings, or paper contracts should be limited. Any speech originating from a human source should be wholly unrestricted though. Understand now?
I’m not so sure it’s that clear cut. I think an argument can be made that it’s talking ONLY about individuals. But if you’re right, then here’s what I say: Amend the Constitution
@Scott: I have no idea where you read the word “individual” into it. You’ve got to get some better glasses. No such thing is written or implied. If you’d like to try and start the ball rolling on an amendment that ends free speech as we know it, by all means, go ahead. It would be quite amusing.
The Democrat Party
If you’d like to have a civil discussion about ideas and you expect to be responded to respectfully and thoughtfully, stop insulting us. It’s the Democratic Party.
Are you called Democrats, or Democratics? Republicans call themselves such and they refer to their organization as the Republican Party (I am not one, I refer to myself as conservative… no party). Makes sense. If you wish, I shall refer to you as a “Democratic” from now on. It makes no real sense… but I’ll play along if that’s what you like. I have no idea how you find Democrat Party to be insulting to you and your fellow Democratics though. Oddly, the name Democratic Party was created as an insult to that group… so should I avoid using that as well? How shall I refer to your group to avoid imagined insult on your part? Really, that’s what you’re going to point out as uncivil? Let’s not get ridiculous here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1102 hrs
Yes, by all means…and speech that comes directly from inanimate objects (not to include Joe Biden), buildings, or paper contracts should be limited.?
No. Are you being deliberately obtuse? We’re not talking about literal human speech only. Spending is speech as well. (Or so it’s been ruled in the past.) Advertising is speech. Obviously these are things which do not emanate from the vocal chords of a single human being in the form of spoken words. So, yes, “inanimate” things like corporations do speak. They spend, they advertise. These are the speech type things that we’re talking about here. I think it would be ok—good, even—to restrict it in the area of politics.
Any speech originating from a human source should be wholly unrestricted though. Understand now?
Everyone here agrees with that.
I shall refer to you as a “Democratic” from now on. It makes no real sense… but
I’m going to hold you to that.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1117 hrs
For everyone out there that is saying that it is just so incredibly easy for individuals to get together and form groups to pool together…. think again. Examples of the laws of unintended consequences of McCain Feingold:
And where were Keith, scott, dj, et al while Obama shunned public financing of his campaign and met with Andy Stern weekly? Or is it just the “good for me, but not for thee” syndrome?
Damn that Constitution, eh? Maybe y’all should join the Nader group who wants to change the first amendment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1151 hrs
Jill is dead on in 131. Freedom of the press is noted in a three word clause in the very same first amendment that the Democrats.. Democratics? Oh hell… the lefties want to deny to the rest of us. Does freedom of the press also apply to the corporate opinions of the media companies? Why should those companies be exempt. Yes, if you lefties want to restrict freedom of speech, then I’d go ahead and restrict the opinions of any reporter who is writing on behalf of any organization.
Either you shut the fuck up, or your members bear the responsibilities of your actions.
Incorporated groups on individuals have no special rights when it comes to free speech. Up till a few days ago, they actually had less rights than you do, Scott. They are as responsible for what they say as you are.
Otherwise, why should corporations who can’t vote and can’t be sent to jail for wrongdoing be allowed unfettered speech?
@Jack: Can’t be sent to jail? I’d ask the Enron, Merrill Lynch and Global Crossing folks about that for a start. You can contact some at the Federal Correctional Institution located in Bastrop, Texas, as well as other locations.
@Doug & 139: Well put! No law, no special cases, no restricted classes.
These organizations can do something ordinary citizens cannot—amass money for campaigns.
@ Keith: Quite wrong. You can, if you wish, get together with friends to amass money, or even spend your own if you are so inclined. In fact, this ruling makes it easier for you to do so by removing many of the treacherous land mines that McCain and Feingold placed in your path…. landmines with serious judicial repercussions that defended the incumbent to a great extent. Many called their “reform” the incumbent protection act. It now requires a lot less lawyers to navigate the seas of free speech, as you no longer need to fear saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, about the wrong person, after having filled out the wrong paperwork, and having used the wrong money. Well, ok… we still have some of those issues, but SCOTUS has shed much light on the subject and maybe things will improve even more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1202 hrs
everyone out there that is saying that it is just so incredibly easy for individuals to get together and form groups to pool together
Who’s saying that? And what difference does it make either way? We’re not talking about “groups” in general. We’re talking about groups which are given special status and now, it seems, constitutional rights. (Are they going to bear arms now, I wonder?) At least that’s what I’m talking about.
And where were Keith, scott, dj, et al while Obama shunned public financing of his campaign
I’m not sure what your’e getting at. Yes, I happen to be all for public financing of elections. Do I feel betrayed that Obama didn’t opt for that? Heck no. He was a fool to say so in the first place. Public financing isn’t a matter of some candidate or another “pledging” to opt for it. That’s bullshit. You opt for it, the other guy wins. Pretty simple. No, what we need is to make it so that everyone running for president (for example) is publicly financed. And I’d like to see free media airtime for them, too, as a condition of FCC licensure. If candidates couldn’t go after private contributions and didn’t need them anyway because their largest expense (TV) was now free.. I think that would go a long way toward bringing some responsiveness back to Washington. No longer will they be constantly triangulating their positions vis a vis what their potential contributors think. Perhaps they’ll feel just a little freer to put what’s good for constituents first. None of which makes me a hypocrite. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Damn that Constitution, eh?
What are you smoking now? I simply say that if the Constitution does not allow for restrictions on corporate political speech, then I’m in favor of amending it post haste. You know, amendments. Like has been done 27 times already? Like, say, the second amendment? Or perhaps those folks were just saying “damn the constitution.”
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1203 hrs
Mom, Obama is getting his due. Health care died because of the moneyed system, and it may well cost him reelection. (Though I think he is pleased that MA blocked his moving forward with a bill that the majority hates. Thank God for bribery, eh?)
Damn that Constitution? Well, we have some diehards who stake their lives on it—at the moment—but if there IS an amendment to change the power of corporations they’ll lambaste it. Go figure.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1208 hrs
the Democrats.. Democratics? Oh hell… the lefties
That didn’t last long. You just can’t help yourself, can you? Whatever. Dropping it.
the lefties want to deny to the rest of us.
A gross mischaracterization and you know it.
Incorporated groups on individuals have no special rights when it comes to free speech. Up till a few days ago, they actually had less rights than you do, Scott.
What they have is that we’ve granted them the privilege of existing in the first place. And we’ve given their officers and shareholders a shield from liability. As far as them having less free speech rights than I do, yes. I know. Everyone here knows. Try to catch up. Now, apparently, they have the same speech rights that I do. And I think that’s wrong. As they’re not actual people. My speech is a right. Their speech is an ability granted to them by the government. It’s not a right. Nor should it be.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1209 hrs
We’re not talking about literal human speech only. Spending is speech as well. (Or so it’s been ruled in the past.) Advertising is speech. Obviously these are things which do not emanate from the vocal chords of a single human being in the form of spoken words.
Are you implying that the 1st Amendment only applies to spoken words done so without amplification or distribution? Now that would indeed be ridiculous. Advertising is free speech. During the revolution, advertising was used with great effect. Private publication of ideas and opinions has always been a staple on the American menu of freedom. Corporations exist and act based on the wishes of the humans who run them and at the behest of the owners (often you and me). Corporations do not act on their own like some sort of post Armageddon terminators. When you see an opinion in print labeled “Whole Foods” that disparages Obamacare, those words came from that corporations CEO, an individual human citizen exercising his rights on behalf of his group. He paid a price as open minded liberals tried to boycott his company, but that is all part of free speech too, just ask the Dixie Chicks if you can find them. The point is that a corporations speech ALWAYS originates with people… people who have the same rights that you do… even if you don’t like it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1218 hrs
You can, if you wish, get together with friends to amass money, or even spend your own if you are so inclined.
Yes, and so can members of corporations. They always have been able to, and that’s only fair. You are confused again about the difference between a corporation and the members of a corporation.
Freedom of speech is a natural right. It only applies to natural persons.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1218 hrs
The point is that a corporations speech ALWAYS originates with people… people who have the same rights that you do… even if you don’t like it.
No, there is no such thing as the speech of a corporation. Corporations can’t speak, just like they can’t feel. What is happening is the MEMBERS of the corporation are using the protected, privileged assets of a corporation to give THEIR speech an unfair advantage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1223 hrs
Look, in order to speak, you have to be able to form ideas and beliefs. If you can show me how a corporation can form ideas and beliefs independently of the MEMBERS OF A CORPORATION (who already have all the freedom of speech they need as individuals), then I will concede that the corporation should be able to spend money to express those ideas and beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1230 hrs
Now, apparently, they have the same speech rights that I do. And I think that’s wrong.
@Scott: Well, I can’t really argue that point with you. We just have wildly different ideas of what freedom is. I believe that freedom and constitutional protections should apply equally to everyone, be they a Democratic or a Republican, a member of the Sierra club or the NRA, a business owner, or a union employee. They all get the same rights here in the America I know and we repudiate the idea that some people should have less rights than others. You feel that rights should be offered in different levels depending on your personal opinion of whatever group we are examining… sort of a corporate and organizational Jim Crow era. I can’t say that I like that one bit, and I certainly don’t agree with the Democratics on which groups should have their rights curtailed… I don’t imagine that you’d much agree with Pat Robertson on which groups he would silence either… now would you Scott?
Perhaps it’s better that we stick with the ideals that have made us the great nation that we are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1235 hrs
Are you implying that the 1st Amendment only applies to spoken words done so without amplification or distribution? Now that would indeed be ridiculous
Yes it really would. I don’t think you’re even trying to understand my position at all.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1236 hrs
believe that freedom and constitutional protections should apply equally to everyone, be they a Democratic or a Republican, a member of the Sierra club or the NRA, a business owner, or a union employee.
No one here has disagreed with that. Even once.
You feel that rights should be offered in different levels depending on your personal opinion of whatever group we are examining
Totally wrong. Like I said, you’re not even really trying to understand my position are you?
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1240 hrs
>>> “Perhaps it’s better that we stick with the ideals that have made us the great nation that we are. “
Oh give me a break. This so-called free political speech has “made us a great nation?” It has corrupted our politicians, our entire democracy and crashed our economy. Find another cliche.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1241 hrs
Not only that, Jack, but isn’t the recent decision a departure from the way things have been done for like 100 years or something?
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1244 hrs
You feel that rights should be offered in different levels depending on your personal opinion of whatever group we are examining
Oh Fun! Lemme try…
You feel that only those with enough money to be able to afford ads on national media outlets should be able to participate in the political process.
See-mischaracterizing arguments isn’t just for conservatives, it’s fun for all!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1253 hrs
Yea Scott, it is a departure, but I can’t ignore that our founders weren’t perfect and that they’ve made mistakes. I am sure that they never—in their wildest dreams—believed that “speech” was going to be equated to cash bribes.
But I’ve listened to both sides carefully and it is a very difficult issue. Yes, I could make the case of the other side, and believe solidly in it. And still believe that this stupid decision is going to work in the favor of the Left, ultimately. It has already started to fire them up.
But rather than a constitutional amendment I’d rather see electoral reforms like public funding of campaigns, instant runoff voting, redistricting reforms, etc.. They can happen sooner and have a more meaningful result, but the Righties won’t like that either.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1316 hrs
I’m into all those ideas, Jack. Throw in some changes in senate rules, too. Throw in electoral college reform. I heard this one neat idea where each state legislature makes it a law that their electoral college votes will be cast for the person who wins the popular vote. Instant run-around of the stupid EC, with no constitutional amendment required.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1321 hrs
I like that idea, Scott, though I don’t know how it would have affected Bush-Gore in 2000.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1324 hrs
I don’t really know either. I just think the EC is fundamentally undemocratic.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1326 hrs
The electoral college does usually result in votes cast in populous staes having more value, so you can consider that undemocratic, but we live in a republic of states, not a single entity democracy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1332 hrs
everyone out there that is saying that it is just so incredibly easy for individuals to get together and form groups to pool together
Who’s saying that?
In looking back, it seems that dj (#13, #25, etc.) was the primary one saying that. I stand corrected on the “everyone”...
Let’s take a slightly different take on this shall we? Penthouse. A corporation that sells a product. Penthouse has been the subject of many suits to try to limit its access because it is pornography. All rulings (except the age-related ones) have been in favor of protecting the “free speech” of this company to produce and sell this product for profit.
Why should political speech be any less free?
Even squishy Anthony Kennedy - who wrote the opinion - knows that political speech should be just as protected - if not more protected. Period.
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
Noam ChomskyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1419 hrs
One of the problems I have is that such “political speech” is multiplied by dollars and wealth, and it can be foreign cash as well.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 23, 2010 at 1425 hrs
Interesting video from the Libertarians over at CATO... with quotes from the actual oral arguments by the Soliciter General…
Regulating political speech defines the “slippery slope”. SCOTUS made the right call here. That all the Progressives hate the decision just makes the case even stronger.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1441 hrs
That all the Progressives hate the decision just makes the case even stronger.
That’s about as intelligent as someone saying about the SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade, “That the Righties hate the decision just makes the case even stronger”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1643 hrs
Good call mom. You have just compared corporate influence with soft core porn. The difference is that Penthouse for the most part harms no one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1704 hrs
I don’t think the founding fathers would have in when framing the concept of free speech that we would groove on the idea of companies run by the Swiss, Chinese, French and yes the British would be influencing our elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1709 hrs
Actually Pat, if you research the Progressive movement from the late 1800’s to today you would find that they are all about going around and negating the US Constitution and continuously limiting freedoms. With, of course, a smiley face, because its all for our own good.
Good reads: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (meticulously researched and footnoted) and American Progressivism from Ronald Pestritto and William Atto
Want to reduce the amount of money in elections? Find a way to do it without limiting free speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1714 hrs
Keith - since almost all (read both sides of the aisle) of our elected officials are political prostitutes - it seemed like quite an appropriate analogy.
But thanks for refuting how Penthouse selling porn (which many find offensive) is any different from Citizens United in offering a pay-per-view movie (which many find offensive).
But since you want a different example… How about other movies? Hollywood is chock-full of political movies - Rendition, Avatar, In the Valley of Elah, Sicko, An Inconvenient Truth, etc…. All very 1-sided and thinly veiled against a certain side of the aisle. Should all of those be banned within 30 days of an election too?
Or is all of the above as I state earlier - “good for me, but not for thee”.
Silly rabbit - hypocrisy is for Progressives too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1720 hrs
Good reads: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (meticulously researched and footnoted)
I was just reading the other day that his thesis is so ludicrous that no serious historians even deemed it worthy of rebuttal.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1729 hrs
Gee Scott - what reliable arbiter of “serious historians” are you citing? HuffPo? Kos?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1734 hrs
when framing the concept of free speech that we would groove on the idea of companies run by the Swiss, Chinese, French and yes the British would be influencing our elections.
Keith, you are naive and lack any working knowledge of your nations history. Foreign powers and organizations have always influenced our politics. America does not exist in a vacuum.
You feel that only those with enough money to be able to afford ads on national media outlets should be able to participate in the political process.
@djheru Completely wrong. You keep thinking that you need to add more words to the concept of free speech. I think everyone should be able to speak to whatever extent they choose to. No restrictions at all. Congress shall make no law…. that’s what I believe in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1745 hrs
“Good reads: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (meticulously researched and footnoted) and American Progressivism from Ronald Pestritto and William Atto”
Highly doubtful. It was trashed in The American Conservative in a review by Austin W. Bramwell. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/ where among other things he says, “That liberalism and fascism happen to overlap is not surprising. One can find just as many similarities between fascism and movement conservatism: both assail communism, exaggerate security threats, rationalize wars of aggression, and uphold nationalism (what sentimentalists call patriotism) and its symbols (flags, founding myths, worship of national heroes). Nothing in logic compels the ideas of liberalism, fascism, or movement conservatism to cohere into a system. On the contrary, creative theorists can mix sundry political ideas as freely as the ingredients of a cocktail. Given the vast range of questions to which competing ideologies purport to provide answers, the real surprise would be if any two ideologies had nothing in common at all.”
Or, as Jack at mustardseedblog.com says in the title of his column about Goldbergs book, “Fascism is Liberalism, Down is Up, and a Shit Sandwich is a BLT” (God I love that one
) http://mustardseedblog.com/2008/02/03/fascism-is-liberalism-down-is-up-and-a-shit-sandwich-is-a-blt/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1814 hrs
It’s true that sixty years of historians have viewed fascism quite differently, but according to neomom it’s meticulously researched. That has to count for something. Undoubtedly Goldberg’s book will change everything as serious thinkers everywhere flock to his compelling thesis.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1820 hrs
Gee Pat - the author of said “critique”, if you look at his entire (albeit thin) portfolio, you would find that for a supposed conservative, Austin Bramwell - Lawyer in New York City sure bashes conservatism and conservatives a lot.
I would bet that most of those that call themselves Progressives don’t know the origins. Or how the movement was battling for its figurative “soul”. Both Roosevelts, Wilson, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and yes Hitler were all Progressives. All believed in huge powers of the state with ruling by groups or committees of intellectuals. You know those that can tell all of us rubes the best way to live. Some obviously had some pretty totalitarian tendencies that didn’t end well. You can add in Margaret Sanger who pushed for abortion to eliminate the poor, the minorities and the disabled. Or George Bernard Shaw, who came up with the idea of gassing those that couldn’t carry their own water.
All in all - a pretty ugly group of philosophy, and devoid of an awful lot of the freedoms that America was founded on as evidenced in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The danger with the entire nanny-state, “we know better than you” thing is the concentration of power into a ruling class. That is decidedly NOT what America is about.
Parting thought…. isn’t it interesting that a whole bunch of folks that used to call themselves “Liberals” are now calling themselves “Progressives”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1913 hrs
As for the decision by the Supreme Court, it states that the 1st amendment was premised on a “...mistrust of governmental powers” and that the 1st amendment stands against attempts to “...distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content.” The decision further goes on to site case after case where the 1st amendment is held to apply to incorporated individuals. Now we may disagree with this ruling but it is consistent with many decisions by earlier courts.
The 1st amendment is a restriction on government. It was/is not a tool that grants special rights or privileges to individuals or corporations. It restrains the government. In this case, the Court stated that “All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.”
Also from the decision, “Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. ...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. 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.
The Court also addressed previous decisions in favor of the law and their flaws. “It reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The BuckleyCourt found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits,424 U.S., at 25, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, 435 U. S., at788, n. 26, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.”
Basically, the corruption lies with the official, not the speech or advocacy. You can have influence over an official through numerous means, (spouse, friendship, etc.). We would never assume that those states give the government the right to limit their speech.
We may dislike the ruling, but the rationale seems sound and accurate.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1937 hrs
“Gee Pat - the author of said “critique”, if you look at his entire (albeit thin) portfolio, you would find that for a supposed conservative, Austin Bramwell - Lawyer in New York City sure bashes conservatism and conservatives a lot. “
But no doubt, a more impressive portfolio than yours Neomom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1955 hrs
“Austin Bramwell - Lawyer in New York City sure bashes conservatism and conservatives a lot.”
How dare there be dissent in the ranks. He evidently doesn’t pass the Purity test.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1959 hrs
All I’m trying to say is that it was my impression that his thesis is not terribly well-recieved among historians. Of course that in itself doesn’t make him wrong. But it definitely gives one pause. Or it should.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 2001 hrs
scott - I’m not sure exactly what you think Goldberg’s thesis was. The term “fascism” always gets muddled up with the Nazi’s after Hitler went all meglomaniacal. In truth, he takes great pains to try to ensure that he is not equating liberalism with Nazism (unlike what most try to do with conservatives).
He tries to follow the roots of the philosphers to the movement and its branches - i.e. - Lenin, Mussolini, and Wilson were all branches of the same tree. In fact - Mussulini was the fascist, Hitler was a National Socialist. Wilson was a prick.
Modern “liberalism” is grown largely from FDR and the New Deal. But FDR was most assuredly a Progressive. In fact, he was quite dictatorial. When what he was pushing was being deemed unconstitutional, he tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices and pack the court. Do some research on his suppression of free speech, his 2nd Bill of Rights, and the NRA (not the gun guys).
It is a big dose of history that is not normally taught in American History courses nowadays. I found it quite interesting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2015 hrs
It is a big dose of history that is not normally taught in American History courses nowadays.
No shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2156 hrs
“It is a big dose of history that is not normally taught in American History courses nowadays. I found it quite interesting.”
History lesson 101 brought to you by schoolmarm, Neomom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2256 hrs
To bring Jonah Goldberg to a serious discussion, which for the most part this has been, is like brining a rubber chicken to a knife fight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2353 hrs
But no doubt, a more impressive portfolio than yours Neomom.
Ah, Pat…Still going with the name calling and nanny nanny boo boo line of reasoning? I have never bought into the frequent liberal argument that only the “experts” are qualified to read, digest, and pontificate on theories and research. Clearly neomom is not so weak minded as to be forced to derive all her critical thinking from the mind of some guru…. sorry, some expert.
I hate linking fascism and progressives. The end result of the two is often the same, but the reasoning of the two groups is quite different. The fascism that Europe experienced was largely the result of embracing a populist leader with a strong personality and a hidden agenda. The Hitlers of the world control people to benefit their personal goals… they don’t truly give a rats ass about the people they profess to hold so dear. The progressives are, in some ways, more dangerous. They actually believe that the people are incapable of living their lives properly, so they have the conviction that what they are doing is for your own good. They are astounded when the people elect a Scott Brown to oppose the progressive agenda and chalk it up to the stupidity of the masses. The real danger lurks in the fact that, given unfettered reins of power, the progressive will insist on making every decision for you, from cradle to grave… and they’ll sleep the sleep of the righteous while they do so.
CS Lewis said in one of his essays: ““Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”“
I could never say it better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0012 hrs
btw, for those who want to silence free speech, the majority of the public agrees with SCOTUS on the issue. 60+% of Democratics agree too. Read it for yourself:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0014 hrs
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
Ironic that both the robber baron and the moral busybody have united in modern times to form today’s Republican party.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 0030 hrs
Ironic that you could still delude yourself into believing that. Most of your countrymen are finding that it is the Democrat who seeks to steal the fruits of your labor and then use your own wealth to tell you how to live your life… from what type of light bulbs, to your automobile selection, even to who your doctor will be and how much speech you will be allowed.
Conservatives still side with less government and more individual freedom. I know I do. You’ll never see me asking for tax money from you, or telling you that you won’t be allowed to make political statements in your capacity as president of the code pink strike force.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0041 hrs
Thanks for trying Family Guy. But I choose to simply ignore Pat when he resorts to the name calling. At that point, you kind of know you have “won” the point because he never actually refutes any - you know - facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0054 hrs
What sucks is that this decision was not 9 - 0. You either believe in free speech or you believe in controlling free speech.
I do not how you can read the Constitution and not understand the word no. this is classic liberalism, Only a liberal will tell you how much free speech you can have and when you can use it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0109 hrs
??? “Conservatives still side with less government ... You’ll never see me asking for tax money from you…”
Yea, but conservatives have never sought to really understand the effects of executives spending money on politicians. It buys spending and the taxes they hate. And Liberals want the politicians responding to their needs and not the special interests and thus see this SCOTUS decision as a major step backward for the country. Liberals would rather overpay (in taxes) and conservatives would rather starve the beast. The battle is productive but frustrating. I prefer the middle.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 0554 hrs
“Thanks for trying Family Guy. But I choose to simply ignore Pat when he resorts to the name calling. At that point, you kind of know you have “won” the point because he never actually refutes any - you know - facts.”
What name did I call you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0854 hrs
Pat, you are dealing with a pretty sensitive group that defies the Wisconsin ethos of being able to take it if you dish it out.
I doubt if our founding fathers or our relatives fought and died so that over 13% of our businesses which are foreign owned companies would control our politics.
Let’s be pragmatic. The money has virtually gummed up the wheels of government. In our fast moving world other countries have chosen not to straight jacket their government over an abstract. They can do many things we can’t which benefit their societies.
Bitching about how much we spend on defense and other countries don’t? Ever think that the out of line influence of defense contractors have anything to do about it? Going to bull shit yourself that it doesn’t? Go ahead.
Summon up all the erudition you want and make yourself feel wonderful over your little coups. We are facing a horrendous problem of our own making that demands a fix. We can change the direction of the swirl around the toilet bowl.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0924 hrs
And FG, given the choices—being undertaxed and barefoot versus overtaxed and wasteful—I’d probably prefer the latter. We’ve seen what the former can do to us, and at least some of the waste helps grow the economy.
(Though I am generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal.)
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 0926 hrs
but conservatives have never sought to really understand the effects of executives spending money on politicians. It buys spending and the taxes they hate. And Liberals want the politicians responding to their needs and not the special interests
Yes - but Jack - the current administration is catering to the special interests as well. Which is why I find their outrage on this amusing.
Did anyone catch the attendees at the fundraiser Martha Coakley and the entire Mass. delegation had less than a week before the election? The list on the “Host” committee ($10K or more in contributions) included such idols of the liberals as: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health.
Considering that Martha was promising to be that 60th vote to pass ObamaCare - you know, the bill that all of our progressive commenters have been saying would bash all those big “special interests” in favor of the “the little guy”.... Me thinks you all have been drinking a wee bit too much.
The above is just one example of the “purity” of the Democrats on this issue.
See - after the disaster of GWB’s second term. A good chunk of the conservatives (of the fiscal hawk variety anyway which includes a sizable number of independents) are now looking at all the candidates in a different way. Which is why the class-warfare and identity politic “messages” aren’t working.
But please spin away as to why having Dems beholden to Healthcare and Pharma lobbyists make ObamaCare a great bill. And how the SCOTUS decision only helps those evil conservatives, because they are the only ones “owned” by all those special interests.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0955 hrs
Oh - and keep calling us stupid and the like. Its working fabulously!!
(giggle/giggle/snort)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0957 hrs
Mom, the corruption is bipartisan and the politicians count on the laziness and stupidity of the voters. The Dems are as bad as the R’s on this, and even worse today because of their power. Our political problem is political money, and that’s why I support public funding of campaigns.
And I couldn’t be happier with the MA results. I hope it sent a message to the Dems (the R’s have been immune to messages… sorry). And please get this: there are NO special interests that can buy their congressman that are interested in the little guy.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1009 hrs
Jack -
Ask yourself these question. Why are the Progressives so outraged with this decision, when it clearly benefits both of them? Could it possibly be that they have another agenda at play? Or that they already had a way around it? There is more to this story. While their “right hand” is screaming in outrage, what is their “left hand” doing?
A progressive aquaintance of mine is completely apopleptic on this decision because they, in her mind, “overturned precedent”. Personally, I believe that they feel that with the current SCOTUS make-up and the slate of cases, some of the former rulings and laws that were favorable to the progressive movement will be shot down or overturned.
Regarding the “Rs” being immune to the message. I agree that at the state and national levels, they continue to be largely tone-deaf. But we are seeing some progress at the local levels - at least in NC. We have a lot of fiscal hawks that have joined at the precinct level - you get a vote on platforms/policies/candidate nominations there. Which is fine, because true rebuilding will happen from the ground up anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1020 hrs
They are upset because it strengthens the corporation’s control over congress, but let me turn the question around… why are conservatives okay with that because when they rip off the public you guys are part of it?
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1031 hrs
I disagree. Progressives have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with corporate control and influence in Congress. Take a look at the last year for numerous examples of “rent seeking” by the uber-large corporations and the welcome arms by the administration and congressional Progressives. Corporatism - giving the large organizations a seat on the ruling committee - is part and parcel of Progressivism. As a matter of fact, K Street had a banner year in 2009 - hardly an indication of the Dems/Progressives worrying about Corporatism.
I despise lobbying efforts. I’m not willing to limit the 1st Amendment to curb it. Besides, McCain Feingold didn’t do ANYTHING to limit these special interests. The big guys gamed the system and worked around it. All it did was make it more difficult for smaller groups and individuals. Go back and read the ABC article and video I linked to earlier.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1042 hrs
Let’s be clear: progressive politicians love the moneyed system; progressive voters hate it. That’s why they voted in Brown in MA. And please call McCain-Feingold what it is: weak (as it was designed and gutted by McConnell-DeLay). That was NOT a Democratic win.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1122 hrs
Yes - let’s call McCain Feingold what it was - bad law, regardless of whether or not it was well-intentioned.
But if Progressive voter hate the moneyed system, why do they back the progressive politicians who love it?
Or do they simply buy the “we’ll work for the little guy” lie/shtick?
If they buy that, you guys need to rethink which voting block you think are a bunch of sheeple/rubes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1130 hrs
Progressives don’t have much choice; either corrupt Democrats or corrupt Republicans. But they are fighting to get money out of the system while the R’s seem content with the influence.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1140 hrs
Jack - if you truly believe that the Progressives/Democrats are trying to get the money out of the system, I have some lovely beach front property for you (since you seem to be willing to buy any line of crap).
The Dem/Progressives are just hiding it better.
Me? I prefer my wolves in wolves clothing. Not the wolves dressing up as the sheep.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1227 hrs
What congress needs to do now is enact a “Shareholders Protection Act”.
http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-actIt’s Time for a Shareholder Protection Act
Friday, January 22, 2010
Five members of the Supreme Court have defied logic by assuming that corporations are people. They are not. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements. They are owned by their shareholders.
So what do we do now, other than wait for another Supreme Court opening, and for the President to appoint another Justice who understands this?
Push Congress to enact the “Shareholder Protection Act.”
For many years, anti-union lobbyists have pushed what they call “pay-check protection” laws, supposedly designed to protect union members from being forced, through their dues, to support union political activities they oppose. Under such laws — already in effect in several states — no union dues can be spent for any political purpose unless union members agree.
The same principle should protect shareholders from being forced to spend their share of corporate earnings in favor of or against a particular candidate. Surely a First Amendment that protects corporate free speech protects individuals no less.
Under a shareholder protection law, shareholders would not have to spend their share of corporate earnings on candidates who they personally oppose. If a company dedicates, say, $100,000 to a particular campaign in a given year — directly, or indirectly through a front organization — shareholders who don’t want their money used this way would get a special dividend or additional shares representing their pro rata share of that campaign expenditure. (Mutual funds and pension plans would have to notify their shareholders of any such political activity among the companies they’ve invested on their shareholders’ behalf, and seek their shareholders’ permission.) This way, corporate money for or against a particular candidate would be paid for only by shareholders who wanted to spend their portion of company earnings on it.
The Shareholder Protection Act is something even Scott Brown should be able to get behind. As should a Supreme Court supremely sensitive to First Amendment rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1228 hrs
Me? I prefer my wolves in wolves clothing.
I’m so not buying that. If Democrats are overly invested in the marginal differences between their candidates and yours, you’re no better. If conservatives like yourselves really felt so ambivalent about their candidates they’d never win any elections at all. You’re all so ready to knock us around for foolishly investing in the differences between our respective candidates. You’d never fall for that! Heh.
Bush? Mistakes were made. Wasn’t a big fan of that Medicare expansion, you know. Voted for him twice, though.
Obama? Socialist, fascist, destroying America. Would rather gnaw off one of my own limbs and pack the bleeding stump with salt than vote for him.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1234 hrs
Robert Reich? You’ve got to be kidding right? The same uber-Progressive Robert Reich who was the Clinton lackey turned Obama economic advisor and Berkeley professor who stated in his Congressional testimony on the so-called “Stimulus”:
REICH: …”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers
Not only was the stimulus designed to pick the industry winners, it was designed to pick the demographic winners.
We should automatically do the exact opposite of anything Robert Reich thinks is an awesome idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1237 hrs
Mom, I said earlier that progressive POLITICIANS love the moneyed system; progressive VOTERS hate it. Of course you can find exceptions to that, but for the most part that is clear. Look at Citizen Action, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, and the many other left wing groups that are fighting for public funding of campaigns.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1237 hrs
Heh. Actually I really like Robert Reich. Almost as much as Paul Krugman. But what do I know, I’m a liberal elite. Or something.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1239 hrs
“Robert Reich? You’ve got to be kidding right?”
No, I’m not kidding. Instead of “name calling” and attacking something completely different than what he is proposing why not try arguing the points of his actual proposal.
And by the way, you still haven’t answered my question about what names I was calling you?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1246 hrs
scott - I actually only voted for Bush once. I thought his fiscal and domestic policy was a disaster (though probably for different reasons than you). So there goes that theory.
But you are correct, I would never vote for Obama. I voted Hillary in the primary. Why? McCain is a Progressive too. In fact, I would have a difficult time trying to find significant differences between the two. In fact, if on that Nov 5, I would have woke up to a President-Elect Clinton it would have been with a shrug. Instead I woke up with a “fasten your seatbelts, its gonna be a bumpy ride”.
Anybody that tried looking past that “blank screen” could see this coming. All the information was there for anyone that wanted to look for it. Instead, too many got sucked into the big-money, corporatist and wall street (gotta stick with the thread) funded nebulous and undefined hopeychangey as they reflected onto that screen their individual desires of that change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1250 hrs
Reich is right on letting shareholders opt out of political activities chosen by management, much as union members should be able to do the same. But shareholders should also have a binding vote on executive and board compensation.
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 24, 2010 at 1252 hrs
Oh - and scott - you are a liberal elite or something
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1252 hrs
In fact, if on that Nov 5, I would have woke up to a President-Elect Clinton it would have been with a shrug.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I find that utterly unbelievable. Not only for yourself, but for American conservatism in general. It would be yet another round of “worst X in history of Y!” session. Taking hyperbole to new and previously undreamed of heights, etc. Probably on par with what Obama is facing today. No, I don’t think there would have been much difference. On the fringe there would have been conspiracy theories to match the birthers (remember the ones they had about Bill?). There would have been an endless stream of right-wing media assassinations different from but just as vicious as the ones Obama faces daily right now.
Still, I wonder if she might not have made a more effective president in some ways. My chief criticism of Obama is that he’s like some martial artists I used to know. Great technique, but he hasn’t learned to really bring down the hammer on someone when necessary. I love his amazing icewater-in-his-veins cool. I love how he stays on message and has some discipline. I hate that he doesn’t judiciously use some muscle on congress.
And thought I’m certainly liberal, I don’t think I qualify for “elite.” Not with my income. And while it’s true that I"m educated, I’m hardly the pontificating professor type. The very fact that I have most of my political discussions here and not in academia should settle that point decisively.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1352 hrs
You can believe what you want, but it is true. I voted Hillary in the primary and yes, I believe she would be a much better and more effective President than Obama. Obama and his blank screen, cult of personality, paper thin resume, and those he associate(s/d) with did, and continue to, scare the bejeebers out of me.
There are quite a few that feel the same as me. Perhaps that should challenge your HuffPo, KOS and media-driven opinion of what a “conservative” is. As there is no cookie-cutter.
Me - fiscal hawk, somewhat socially conservative (i.e. - hate abortion, don’t really heavily care about gay marriage). Don’t believe in redistribution of wealth, think that the “Great Society” did far more damage than good. Hate what the Progressives have done to the Constitution in the 20th Century. There are a multitude of variants. But what you will find as a strong common threads in the Tea Party movement is the fiscal hawks, constitutionalists, and a deep distrust of both parties, though there are others.
If you notice the “wink” I was funning on your liberal elite thing. My guess is that you are as “elite” as I am. We just come at things from different directions. Though I do love a good joust.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1407 hrs
being undertaxed and barefoot
@Jack: So you believe all success and wealth comes from taxation? I certainly can’t imagine how a person could live in America and believe that only the government can keep him from being poor. How sad for you.
In fact, if on that Nov 5, I would have woke up to a President-Elect Clinton it would have been with a shrug.
We think along the same lines. I also voted for Clinton in the primary. While I am not a fan of some of her positions, at least we would know what we were getting. Perhaps domestically there would have been issues, but I suspect that I would have liked her foreign policy at least a little. McCain is a vacillating progressive who votes the way his political wind is blowing. I was energized at his choice of Sarah Palin, but I was disappointed that he was clearly going to muzzle her much as Obama did to Joe Biden (though who could blame him). There was not really any upside to McCain. Had it been a McCain-Clinton race, I’m not sure which way I’d have gone. McCain is no conservative at all, and I never had any interest in his campaign. Unfortunately, of those running, we got the worst possible result.
icewater-in-his-veins cool
That’s just his narcissistic lack of interest in the suffering that he has caused in the name of his own legacy.
I don’t think I qualify for “elite.” Not with my income.
You qualify. The elite in “liberal elite” comes more from the attitude that progressives know better how to live our lives and spend our earnings than we do. It the sub-surface belief that, without your help, people just can’t make it on their own… and shouldn’t have to. That’s what makes liberals elite.
And of course, liberals have more standards than conservatives do. We have one for everyone and you have two, one for you folks, and one for everyone else. That must make you better than us, eh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1508 hrs
A little history.
There would be no middle class to speak of is it wasn’t for Eisenhower, LBJ and others in the 50s passing programs such as the GI Bill, federal highway building programs, FHA loans (just about all of which was unavailable to minorities at the time) and protections for labor organizing that allowed people to climb out and into the suburbs.
Just love how you hear the braying from our surrounding suburbs about how they did it all themselves and how they cry bitter tears about holding onto “my money.”
Now their support of not just mean-spirited but stupid policies have lead to the fingers of economy crisis reaching into their enclaves and snatching away their good life, all because they allowed corporations in this country run hog wild.
Anyone who whines about “government does nothing write” is speaking in code for I am ignorant, short sighted and stupidly greedy.
Establishing this control is not a liberal value or a conservative value, but one that makes sense for all of us. The lack of self-preservation among the tea baggers and the like is mind blowing.
And yes, both parties but let’s not let blurred vision enter into this discussion. Liberals are trying to avoid taking corporate money.
The argument that they all do it is so specious. We are so awash in corporate campaign money that practically everyone has to take it to have a chance at winning. We can get mad a Bacchus, Lincoln, Nelson and others but hey, if they didn’t take the money someone else would.
We should just be grateful we have senators like Feingold who truly are not bought.
As for McCain-Feingold, of course it failed. Reform has to be revisited again and again and again. It is not a one off. Someone who feigns disappointment over this one time bill not working is either extremely naive or damned cynical or lying about their level of concern.
My original point apparently stands about how our campaigning financing system allows foreign influence into our affairs. Allowing this to happen borders on traitorous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1543 hrs
Liberals are trying to avoid taking corporate money…. We are so awash in corporate campaign money that practically everyone has to take it to have a chance at winning.
OMG - that is simply Laugh out Loud funny.
Keith, I used to think you were just a kool-aid drinker and willfully blind to the rampant corruption in the Dem party. With that, now I know you are simply…. delusional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1640 hrs
Like I said. if you can’t take it so don’t dish it out.
For someone who thinks so highly of herself the last few posts are tragic examples of extreme imprecision of thought poorly masked as coherency.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1724 hrs
Ah - the oh-so-expected typical Keith response ....
Nanner Nanner Boo Boo
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1734 hrs
“Keith, I used to think you were just a kool-aid drinker and willfully blind to the rampant corruption in the Dem party. With that, now I know you are simply…. delusional. “
Name calling Neomom??????????
As you can’t answer me with the names I called you I’ll have to pull a Joe Wilson and say, “You lie”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1758 hrs
Thanks Keith. It’s that type of rhetoric that we conservatives need in 2010 and 2012. Not only does it energize us to hear your plans for the fruits of our hard work, but it helps us to show people how the liberals look down upon the rest of us. Without their help, we’d all be nothing. ““It was government programs that saved the first settlers… handouts, giveaways, wealth redistribution schemes and welfare is what truly make America great.”” Yes, please drive that message home. It always helps for your opponents to clearly define themselves before an election. We all saw how well that turned out the vote in Massachusetts.
Drive on Keith, drive on… and by all means please DO get stuck on stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1759 hrs
Not having time to dig out my books and look back, or even wanting to dig through lexis nexus, I want to say that corporations have been granted “personhood” by The Court in the past…..
Anyone who wants to challenge that with language from a decision is welcome to, but I believe that I am right on this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1810 hrs
I think that’s what “incorporation” means, Doug.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1812 hrs
As usual, mom’s arrogance and ego have brought a fairly fine discussion to a crashing halt. Thanks for crapping up the place.
We can regard your smug attempt at erudition as entertainment since the premise of your points are crippled from the get go.
Again, never did answer my original point. Fail mom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1821 hrs
One last time because it is time to bail since mom has once again blown up the discussion.
People can believe what ever they want, but your comments mom in #220 reflect your total disrespect. Not for me because I could give a crap about that, but for the people in politics who are working for the good of the country.
But of course for those in the master race, nobody can quite measure up.
God you are so full of yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1828 hrs
OK Keith - fine, I’ll play along. Although you calling anyone else arrogant is pretty rich, as I’m quite sure you are an embodiment of ego and arrogance.
You claim your original point was to prevent foreign money from influencing elections. I would point you back to Exhibit A: William Jefferson Clinton to point your hypocrisy. You really couldn’t give a rat’s hiney on foreign influence as long as the outcome was to your personal liking… another typical Progressive trait.
Second. Fine. Propose something that doesn’t infringe on Constitutional rights and we’ll discuss it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1831 hrs
Keith in a nutshell…
Nobody is coming to my rescue against a little ol’ 41-year old middle class, state U educated mom of 2 because we all know that both parties are as corrupt as the day is long so I’m going to take my ball and go somewhere else where they will bask in the brilliance of all that is me because I’m a Progressive dammit! And we know better.
Buh-bye.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1837 hrs
Wow! Post # 230 speaks volumes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1840 hrs
And thought I’m certainly liberal, I don’t think I qualify for “elite.” Not with my income. And while it’s true that I"m educated, I’m hardly the pontificating professor type. The very fact that I have most of my political discussions here and not in academia should settle that point decisively.
The flaw in your argument is the assumption that elitism is tied to income. Academics are generally elitists, and they are also, generally, members of the middle class.
I would however also say that you generally do not exercise an elitist attitude.
As for McCain-Feingold, of course it failed. Reform has to be revisited again and again and again. It is not a one off. Someone who feigns disappointment over this one time bill not working is either extremely naive or damned cynical or lying about their level of concern.
Being that I am reading Atlas Shrugged right now, this comment strikes particularly close to home.
The fact of the matter is that if we were careful in the consideration of legislation to begin with, we would not need to keep on “reforming” it. This is operating under the assumption that the issue requires “reform” to begin with…. I personally don’t really believe that the first amendment requires any reform at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1843 hrs
I think that’s what “incorporation” means, Doug.
Yes, mine was a response to earlier comments that “corporations” should not be treated the same way as people with regard to the first amendment, when in fact they should. Owning a “corporation” myself, I will tell you that every dollar generated by my corporation is a result of work put in by me. I should be allowed to spend that money as I choose, and if the way I choose is to run a campaign ad, so be it. My corporation is just as much a part of my personhood as my brain, or my mouth, so who are you or anyone to say that I should not be allowed to speak through whichever entity I choose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1849 hrs
Being that I am reading Atlas Shrugged right now
Sweet jebus. *eyerolling*
I should be allowed to spend that money as I choose, and if the way I choose is to run a campaign ad, so be it.
No. You should be allowed to spend YOUR money any way you choose. Your corporation is not YOU. It has special “let’s pretend I’m a person other than Doug” privileges. Thus, your corporation can go hang itself. I don’t care that it doesn’t have first amendment rights.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1934 hrs
No. You should be allowed to spend YOUR money any way you choose. Your corporation is not YOU. It has special “let’s pretend I’m a person other than Doug” privileges. Thus, your corporation can go hang itself. I don’t care that it doesn’t have first amendment rights.
Whatever…
I won’t continue a circular argument.
How about this, I’ll pay myself a large bonus, and then use the money to put out a campaign ad. Really, can you describe the difference, other than the fact that by the second method I also have paid the salary of the person for whom I am running the ad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1943 hrs
It has special “let’s pretend I’m a person other than Doug” privileges. Thus, your corporation can go hang itself. I don’t care that it doesn’t have first amendment rights
.
Typical statist garbage.
“By our good grace we grant you certain privilege, therefore we are permitted to trim some of those pesky rights from around the edges. Production and job creation be damned, you’ll do as we tell you.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1947 hrs
“By our good grace we grant you certain privilege, therefore we are permitted to trim some of those pesky rights from around the edges. Production and job creation be damned, you’ll do as we tell you.”
Hey Doug, who said that? Or are you just speaking teabag??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2128 hrs
By our good grace we grant you certain privilege
Yes, the privilege is that the state allows you to protect your personal assets behind the veil of incorporation.
Corporations do not have “Freedom of Speech”. Freedom of speech derives from natural law. Only natural persons have the freedoms that are derived from natural law.
In order to “speak” one needs the ability to form thoughts and hold opinions. Please explain how a corporation can form the thoughts and opinions that it is expressing through its “speech” INDEPENDENTLY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION, WHO ALREADY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. If you can do that, then I will concede that a corporation should be able to spend money to express those thoughts and opinions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2210 hrs
Assets and incorporation have little to do with the argument… nor does the distaste for businesses so evident in the modern liberal movement. The argument here regarded the First Amendment and how it applies to McCain-Feingold’s gag rules.
This must have been the easiest decision of the year for SCOTUS. Read the amendment. It is quite clear.
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
It says “no law”. That means none. Not a single itty bitty McCain Feingold endorsed one either. Not a law baring you to speak, nor a girl scout troop, nor the code pink ninnies, nor a corporation… not even Barney Frank’s kitchen table (just imagine what IT would have to say if it could talk…hmp, maybe that SHOULD be banned).
That’s it in a nutshell. No law. Congress made one. It was over-turned. No law. Not even if you really really really want one. No law. How is that unclear to people?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2348 hrs
Nice job ignoring the argument. It seems you can’t read past the first 5 words of the amendment.
Let me help you out:
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
What is “the freedom of speech”? It is a Natural Right derived from Natural Law and corporations do not posses it, only “Natural Persons” do.
In order to have the ability to “speak”, one needs the ability to form thoughts and opinions. Please explain how a corporation, INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS MEMBERS, WHO ALREADY HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS INDIVIDUALS, can form the thoughts that its supposed “speech” would express.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0010 hrs
Seems like you might be reading a few words into it, eh? I don’t see the word “natural” in the Constitution saving as part of the term natural born citizen when referring to who can be President, nor could I find the definition that you have chosen to apply to freedom of speech.
Really, freedom of speech is far from a natural right. In fact, the majority of people on earth do not possess that right. Take a trip to China, or North Korea and explain to them how it is a natural right. They’ll drive a tank over you.
Even if you type it all in capitals, bold and underline… Congress shall make no law. No law at all. Not even prohibiting speech to people who lack the ability form thoughts. Last I heard, Joe Biden is still allowed to speak freely…. if you can find him, that is. In that vein, are you implying that political parties do not a right to free speech? They can’t form independent thoughts. Hm, now that would be a conundrum… the very people writing the Constitution were violating it as they sought to ratify it. Lucky you weren’t on the case back then. We might be called the Commonwealth of America. Cmon dj. It’s quite simple and straight forward, no matter how much you try and read into it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0051 hrs
It’s quite simple and straight forward, no matter how much you try and read into it.
That is true. Corporations cannot speak, so granting them “freedom of speech” is silly. So if you restrict the money that a corporation uses to pay for political advertising, you are not restricting its “freedom of speech”. The members of a corporation do have the freedom of speech, but
the members of a corporation != the corporation
//
Really, freedom of speech is far from a natural right. In fact, the majority of people on earth do not possess that right. Take a trip to China, or North Korea and explain to them how it is a natural right. They’ll drive a tank over you.
Quite a hoot listening to a conservative talk about how our rights are derived from the government. Let me explain it for you - All humans have the “Freedom of Speech”. Unfortunately, that right is being violated in many cases. But just because someone violates your rights by preventing you from exercising them does not mean that you don’t still have those rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0105 hrs
That is true. Corporations cannot speak, so granting them “freedom of speech” is silly.
The Constitution simply says that it is illegal to deny freedom of speech by law. It does not in any way make a case for any restrictions in any way, shape, or form…. on what page did you read that? Unless you can show some legal justification, in the actual words of our founding document, every else that you propose is hogwash. No law can be made that restricts ANY freedom of speech. None.
Quite a hoot listening to a conservative talk about how our rights are derived from the government.
The protection of our rights are derived from the Constitution. It was our government that sought to curtail them… and continues to do so under the current Voldemort administration. Our rights do not come from our government… the Bill of Rights instead PROTECTS our rights from the governments interference.
All humans have the “Freedom of Speech
All humans have the ability to speak. The freedom to do so is not in any way natural, and it has never been so. That freedom must be constantly fought for, both physically and legally. We are only free and with rights as long as we stand vigilant against tyranny, which seems to the entropic natural state of human governance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0154 hrs
Oh, and by the way dj, you never answered me. Do political parties have a right to free speech as a party? How about organizations like unions? How about move-on.org. Do they have free speech as a group? How about Barack’s very own ACORN?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0158 hrs
In order to have the ability to “speak”, one needs the ability to form thoughts and opinions. Please explain how a corporation, INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS MEMBERS, WHO ALREADY HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS INDIVIDUALS, can form the thoughts that its supposed “speech” would express.
Beyond the fact that I agree 100% with The Family Guy, I asked earlier dj for language from a Supreme Court decision which gives grounds to the words you are so eloquently parsing. I ask this, because I am almost certain that SCOTUS has in fact granted “personhood” to corporations.To answer your implied question, I am my corporation, it is me. It speaks the way I speak, it is represented by my thought, and to suggest otherwise is to deny its very existence. Through the creation of a corporation, I do protect my personal assets from bankruptcy and liability, but that doesn’t mean that if my corporation faced severe financial hardship that I would not also. I have poured major portions of my personal assets into keeping my business/corporation alive, and as it goes financially so do I. These are things you would understand if you did it yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0723 hrs
Wow! Post # 230 speaks volumes.
Posted by Fair and Balanced Pat on January 24, 2010 at 1840 hrs
Hey Doug, who said that? Or are you just speaking teabag??
Posted by Fair and Balanced Pat on January 24, 2010 at 2128 hrs
Within three hours on the same evening you managed to admonish one persons childish speech, and embarrass yourself with your own, that my friend, speaks volumes.
Would you care to enlighten me to exactly what “speaking teabag” is “Fair and Balanced” Pat? Or are you too busy getting todays talking points off of the DailyKos and Huffpo. Do you have the mental fortitude to attack the idea behind my post, do you have the depth of thought to extract that point, or are you resigned to slinging insults formulated by high school children?
I was going to ignore your astoundingly sophomoric post, but I think that this is likely to be the ammunition I will use against you any time you try to address any post I ever make on this site again. I am tired of the tactics used by people of your mentality (or lack thereof).... Insult, evade, insult, evade, insult, evade…. eventually the conservative gets tired of the argument and you win by default.
Sorry man, you can watch as we “teabaggers” continue to get Scott Browns elected all over the country, and put a stop to what has become the most institutionally corrupt government in the history of the United States.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0737 hrs
Doug, what is really frightening about the Teabaggers is Haiti. It started out under French rule and then some sharp guy talked the locals into his form of government and then they had a coup and elected him president. Then the elite population grew and so did the low end. Most of the middle went to the low end and there is no more middle. What do you conservatives have planned for us?
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 25, 2010 at 0803 hrs
“Would you care to enlighten me to exactly what “speaking teabag” is”
I’ll give you an example Doug of what talking teabag is, and I quote, “By our good grace we grant you certain privilege, therefore we are permitted to trim some of those pesky rights from around the edges. Production and job creation be damned, you’ll do as we tell you.”
This evidently is not a direct quote made that wasn’t made by anyone. This is a direct quote that came out of your mouth and is attributed to no one but yourself. It is make believe talk. That is what talking teabag is. Make believe talk. Some folks would consider it jiberish or the ramblings of a fool. Here is another example of talking teabag. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCqQRflUWd4
“Do you have the mental fortitude to attack the idea behind my post”
I didn’t think that there was any idea, as usual, behind your post.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1302 hrs
Doug,
I recommend taking the posts of the radical lefties on this issue at face value, ie., nothing more than childish temper tantrums as a result of a law that, according to the SCOTUS, infringed on the first ammendment.
Whine all they want, this one is over and done.
Last week:
- Gitmo remained open with hundreds of detainees
- BHO will be keeping approx. fifty detainees w/o trials (i.e. where is the outcry by the hypocritical left?).
- Scott Brown won in effing Mass. with a platform opposed to miranda rights for terrorists and health care…
- Nancy Pelosi admitted she doesn’t have the votes to even attempt to pass the Senate bill. Health care is dead.
- SCOTUS overturned reedick campaign finance because it clearly violated first amendment
- on a side note, gasoline is up 50% since BHO took office, once again debunking the radical lefties and their ‘blood for oil’ strawman- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments by the radical left is just gravy at this point. Dip your bread in it, soak it up, and digest it slowly. It’s very enjoyable. What makes it even better is that we have months and months of this ahead of us.
- - - - - - - - -
@ dj, scott, bush-hating Pat:... by all means, continue… I’ll get more bread
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1325 hrs
“By our good grace we grant you certain privilege, therefore we are permitted to trim some of those pesky rights from around the edges. Production and job creation be damned, you’ll do as we tell you.”
Well Doug, did you make that up or was it a direct quote made by someone??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1333 hrs
That was Doug’s quote? Hm, I thought it sounded like a line from Nancy, or Harry, or Barack, or even Rahm.
Fair and Balanced Pat is starting to sound like Imbalanced Pat. Speaking teabag….what a ridiculous remark to make. If you want to hear people speaking “tea party”, well then I direct you to Boston, home of the original Tea Party. They spoke tea party loud and clear… could you hear them? Well, soon we will ALL hear them at the polling places. Voting to hire a clean up crew to sweep up and rebuild after Hurricane Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1348 hrs
“Speaking teabag….what a ridiculous remark to make.”
Only to a teabagger.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1352 hrs
Pat, I took his original quote to be mocking the other side. Not a direct quote by either of them. Fair conversation. But beyond that why don’t you people act like decent grown-ups rather than children?
Posted by Jack Lohman on January 25, 2010 at 1354 hrs
Okay Jack
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1401 hrs
Doug, what is really frightening about the Teabaggers is Haiti. It started out under French rule and then some sharp guy talked the locals into his form of government and then they had a coup and elected him president. Then the elite population grew and so did the low end. Most of the middle went to the low end and there is no more middle. What do you conservatives have planned for us?
Right, American Libertarians went to haiti and overthrew their government in order to implement policies that destroyed their middle class.
I run a business that pays several people (including myself) middle class wages, what interest would I have in anything but doing everything I can to grow my business and hire more people so that I can make myself and my employees more money?
Well Doug, did you make that up or was it a direct quote made by someone??
I said it. If you look back, you would clearly see that it was a paraphrase of the idea behind the comments that Scott made about my business. That I have to explain to you is a very nice illustration of the problem with the depth of thought behind liberal ideology.
Pat, I will no longer respond to your commentary. Until you can at least approach my comments on a plane even remotely resembling a debate, I have no use for your trolling.
Pat, I took his original quote to be mocking the other side. Not a direct quote by either of them. Fair conversation. But beyond that why don’t you people act like decent grown-ups rather than children?
Thank you, agreed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1600 hrs
I run a business that pays several people (including myself) middle class wages
Correction:
I run a business that provides a living for several people, including two employees in the middle class (including myself).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1800 hrs
Doug - I took Keith’s bait - I shouldn’t have. My mistake.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1833 hrs
More on Jonah Goldberg. Okay, I know it won’t convince righties here but at least know thy enemy, right? Familiarize yourself with the reasons that people like myself think he’s full of shit.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html
Note the links at the bottom for further reading.
This is just an FYI. I have no desire to argue about him anymore. Just providing this as some context for us lefty’s position. Read or not. Whatever.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2010 at 2127 hrs
It has become quite nauseating to be bombarded with Hitler comparisons… from the right and the left. I’m sure the scott and pats of the world will use their selective memories to deny that the Democrats spent 8 years comparing President Bush with Hitler…. I won’t even bother reading any argument along those lines. I don’t much care for the Obama Hitler argument either. The very idea that we can compare American politicians to the mid 20th century fascist movements tells me that we need a lot more history classes in our high schools…. and maybe we should stop skipping from reconstruction to the civil rights movement. If you want to know what real Nazis are like, go watch Schindler’s list…I’ll wait…...done? Ok, now multiply that by 1000. That’s what Nazis are. If you compared President Bush to Hitler or stood by and chuckled while others did, you are an idiot and have no right to complain when it happens to you or your president. If you do it to Obama, well…see my last comment.
Scott, to use a guy who essentially compares conservatives to mind numbed hate robots with secret SS fantasies as evidence that progressives (what a misnomer) are not fascists is just plain stupid too. The man who wrote the book you linked is an off the deep end pin head. If you buy into that crap, then so are you.
There are no Hitlers in US politics right now. There have been none in the past either. There are socialists in power right now, I’ll agree…. they are not from the NSDAP (they are not national socialists… two different animals). Good lord. There are progressives out there too. They hate business, and free market capitalism. They want cradle to grave nanny states, yes… you can convince me easily on those points. They are not fascists or related to Hitler. Let’s move on and discuss what they really are. That is bad enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 2250 hrs
’m sure the scott and pats of the world will use their selective memories to deny that the Democrats spent 8 years comparing President Bush with Hitler
I don’t deny that some lefties made this comparison. Nobody could deny it. Anti-war protesters, kooks and fringe elements, mostly. What I do deny is that it ever reached the high frequency, mainstream levels that Obama-Hitler rhetoric has done. We did not have nightly barrages of Bush=some-scary-murderer-of-the-past by well-known media figures or leaders of the opposition party. We do have that now with Obama. If Cindy Sheehan had been given her own TV show we might have a decent comparison there.
They are not fascists or related to Hitler.
Someone should tell Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the entire tea party movement.
No, there are no Hitlers in Washington that I’m aware of. But when you and others say “socialist,” you’re dog-whistling to people that the target of such rhetoric is damned near as scary and certainly un-American. The idea that the United States of America is teetering on the brink of “socialism” is absurd. We’re so far from that it’s stupid. Look at the world around you for some perspective. I’ll wait. Okay? Yeah. We probably have the most laissez faire economy in the developed world, with the thinnest social safety net. Those among us who timidly suggest that perhaps we might take a shuffle to the left are instantly branded as enemies of the frickin’ state, a stone’s throw from Mao Zedong or something. It’s absurd and it’s frustrating in the extreme. It’s like discussing the local weather with people who live on mars.
As far as the guy and whatever book he wrote, I don’t know what your’e talking about. All I know is he wrote the introduction to the History News Network’s essays in response to Goldberg. Which seemed to echo what I’ve been hearing about it all along. Just thought I’d provide it as an insight as to what people like myself think when they hear someone bring up Goldberg’s book: poorly researched, faulty conclusions, no respect in academic circles.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2010 at 2306 hrs
couple of points…
First - The Obama-as-Hitler posters at the Tea Partys that everyone gets the vapors over (ignoring all the BusHitler crap for the moment) were created - and even notated - as being from the LaRouche crew. Which I suspect, the left wants about as much as they want Arlen Specter, but LaRouche is all yours.
We, unfortunately get to keep Pat Robertson… but I digress
Second - Its not terribly surprising that academia would not “respect” Goldberg’s book….
72% of professors self-identify as liberals - 87% at “elite” universities
Just sayin’
And third, for the record, again, fascism and Nazism are not the same thing. Fascism was the Italian, National Socialism/Nazism was the German variety. But that goes back to that public school history lesson thing that TFG mentioned above.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 2340 hrs
but LaRouche is all yours.
Come on. You don’t watch Glenn Beck? You haven’t seen this ridiculous rhetoric on TV? No. You don’t get to dismiss the Obama-Hitler thing that easily by saying it’s really the left that’s doing it. Sorry, not buying it.
Its not terribly surprising that academia would not “respect” Goldberg’s book
And with that, academic historians are dismissed.
Posted by scott on January 25, 2010 at 2351 hrs
What I do deny is that it ever reached the high frequency, mainstream levels that Obama-Hitler rhetoric has done.
You are such a homer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0011 hrs
What I am is right.
Posted by scott on January 26, 2010 at 0024 hrs
Yes, I stand corrected neomom. Italy and Germany had different brands of totalitarianism, and different levels of venom. I get on a rant about that and muddle the two. While I am too young, my family had very direct and intimate contact with real fascists so I think the comparison waters down the ultimate horror that tyranny, powerful government and central control can lead to.
I’m not a fan of comparing the modern nanny state movement with those folks. Hitler and Mussolini were both megalomaniacs and narcissists. The governmental policies they made had only personal aggrandizement as the ultimate goal. I think our modern liberal/progressive/socialist/nanny movement is more based on the elitist idea that other people simply can not live properly without being told exactly what to do and when to do it. The Obama supporters are the political equivalent of helicopter parents.
@Scott. Like I said… if you can’t be honest enough to admit that Bush=Hitler was a mainstream thing that you guys happily ignored, then I won’t waste my time on your revisionist thoughts.
when you and others say “socialist,” you’re dog-whistling to people that the target of such rhetoric is damned near as scary and certainly un-American. The idea that the United States of America is teetering on the brink of “socialism” is absurd.
Socialism is un-American. That part was true. We should fight against it, also true. Are we teetering? Well
US GDP is 14 trillion… of that the US budget is over 25% at 3.55 trillion. Roughly 6.5 trillion dollars will be spent by Big Government in the US for 2009 (state local and federal). that is 46% of GDP The federal government is the nations largest employer, not counting military and post office. Roughly 25 million people work in government nationwide out of a total worker pool of 118 million.. about 1 in 5. Barack Obama has partially nationalize the banking system and the automotive industry. Cap and Tax attempts direct control over energy production and distribution and he is also attempting to place all health care under federal control. All totaled, those systems and the current total level of government would have placed over 70% of our economy under direct governmental control.
Yes, I’d call that socialism at 46%... even more so at the Obama proposed 70+% ... you might call it paradise though. It does not require the presence of Chairman Mao for it to be socialism. It does not require that we become Sweden before we can call it Socialism. Just because you don’t like the “S"word does not mean it won’t be used to accurately describe the current direction of our government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0030 hrs
Ok, I admit I did not discover this myself, so I can’t take credit. i will post it and take the blame though. i have broad shoulders. I’m sure this will elicit much complaint from the usual suspects, but guess who wrote this, or take credit if you know:
Remember when you were in school and you learned about World War II? I do. I remember when I learned that Adolf Hitler didn’t seize power in some bloody coup d’eta; indeed he was the legitimate leader of a free people and many Germans supported him in spite of his invasions of several countries and his genocidal tendencies. I remember wanting to know how this could be. How could so many people like this guy enough to support him as a leader? My teacher mumbled something about his being “charismatic” and then made mention of the “national mood” after World War One. But this never really felt like a real answer. I just couldn’t really believe it. How could one’s personal characteristics – no matter how magnetic and no matter what the “mood” of the country – ever lead people to accept such a horrible man?
President bush isn’t Hitlter, let me be clear about that. He has only invaded two countries and shows no sign of a third. (I can’t recall how many countries Hitler invaded but I think it was at least three.) And I do not even for a moment suggest that he is capable of systematic genocide. Still, there are interesting parallels between the two men. Both men’s policies are absurdly detrimental to their respective countries yet they’re both popular enough to wield power legitimately. I believe the reasons are similar, too.
...
So I beleive I now have a small measure of understanding now. I see what the process looks like. The popularity of George W. Bush in post-9-11 America have helped me to understand Hitler in 1930’s Germany. I see now how a leader with certain personal qualities can ride a wave of a national mood regardless of his terrible empirical record.So, Bush isn’t Hitler… just almost. Fine work indeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0049 hrs
What I am is right.
Sure…. homer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0249 hrs
Its not terribly surprising that academia would not “respect” Goldberg’s book
And with that, academic historians are dismissed.
um, no. Just understand the bias, that’s all.
TFG - I pointed out the difference between Fascism with National Socialism simply to correct the popular conclusion that is constantly jumped to that as soon as “Fascism” is mentioned, everybody immediately thinks “Hitler/Nazi”.Both ended totatlitarian and evil. But started differently. Same as Communism.
I still find it interesting that those getting the vapors from the LaRouche Obama as Hitler posters have absolutely no issues with the mainstream popularization of mass murderers like Che Guevara (everywhere on any college campus and even in the Houston Obama office). Or how the President’s communication director could say at a high school graduation ceremony that Mao (made Hitler look like a piker in the mass murder category) was one of her favorite political philosophers. Or that the same folks that go apopleptic at the thought of a nativity scene anywhere in the vacinity of a public building are just fine and dandy with an ornament adorned with Mao on the White House Christmas tree.
Interesting dichotomy no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0703 hrs
Come on. You don’t watch Glenn Beck? You haven’t seen this ridiculous rhetoric on TV? No. You don’t get to dismiss the Obama-Hitler thing that easily by saying it’s really the left that’s doing it. Sorry, not buying it.
I have seen a couple pictures of people holding up signs comparing Obama to Hitler. Nobody knows who those people were, and I have never seen any of those signs in person (having actually attended a couple “tea parties”). Am I suggesting Left wing conspiracy? No, it’s certainly possible, but there are also some nuts out there, and I will denounce them as I see them. Largely, however, it is not a problem amongst Beck fans, or conservatives, or libertarians to call Barack Obama - Adolf Hitler. I have never heard Glenn Beck compare Obama to Hitler, with the exception of descriptions in regards to his national youth service ideas, which was a valid comparison whether you accept it or not. We can all see that for the last fifty years, liberals have used education and indoctrination of youth to spread their ideology, a tactic used by the most maligned historic figures.
If it’s worthy of dismissal, I will dismiss it, I don’t need your permission, Scott.
What I am is right.
I am sure you have dreams to that effect, but in reality… Everyone here sees you for what you are. An extreme leftist with an agenda to spread extremist rhetoric, spewed by extremist bloggers and extremist national propaganda ministers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0738 hrs
No, there are no Hitlers in Washington that I’m aware of. But when you and others say “socialist,” you’re dog-whistling to people that the target of such rhetoric is damned near as scary and certainly un-American.
Of all people, you, using the “Bush-Cheney question their patriotism” tactic?Well then I guess I’ll invoke Hillary Clinton….
I have every right, and it is a badge of patriotism to question my government. You see Scott, the United States is not its government, it is an ideal that underlies it. The United States is best defined by its constitution, and when the government ignores the constitution in order to achieve its own ends, the true patriots will recognize it and condemn it. Just like you did for eight years of Bush, you should now do for four years of Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0745 hrs
Largely, however, it is not a problem amongst Beck fans, or conservatives, or libertarians to call Barack Obama - Adolf Hitler.
Correction, I was in a hurry when I typed this. It should read:
Largely, referring to Obama as Hitler is not something that I hear from Beck fans, conservatives, or libertarians.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 0934 hrs
I have seen a couple pictures of people holding up signs comparing Obama to Hitler. Nobody knows who those people were,
One of them is named Glenn Beck. He’s on TV every night.
Largely, referring to Obama as Hitler is not something that I hear from Beck fans, conservatives, or libertarians.
But you do hear it from the man himself.
TFG, I’m not the least bit embarrassed by what I wrote in that blog post. I very nearly cited it myself in my earlier comment.
All totaled, those systems and the current total level of government would have placed over 70% of our economy under direct governmental control.
I’m sorry, I think you need to double up on your medication if you think anything being proposed by the president would leave “over 70% of our economy under government control.” Else you have very different definitions of several of these words.
Posted by scott on January 26, 2010 at 1046 hrs
TFG, I’m not the least bit embarrassed by what I wrote in that blog post. I very nearly cited it myself in my earlier comment.
““I don’t deny that some lefties made this comparison. Nobody could deny it. Anti-war protesters, kooks and fringe elements, mostly.”“
So, which of those are you?
Really Scott, rather than admit that the left mainstreamed “Bush is Hitler” and that you happily bought into it, you are arguing in circles… and with yourself no less.
Everyone here remembers the eight years of Bush. No matter how you deny it, the left embraced “Bush is Hitler” and to now complain that a few cranks at some protests did the same may be the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever seen. Just admit it to yourself and move on to some other argument. You’ll get no mileage from whining that you don’t care for your own medicine as delivered by some LaRouche nut jobs and a cable TV host.
And yes, I did engage this ridiculous revisionist argument when I said I would ignore it. I dislike that sort of false indignance… and I just felt like pointing it out yet again.
I’m sorry, I think you need to double up on your medication if you think anything being proposed by the president would leave “over 70% of our economy under government control.
Was there some mistake in any of the facts I presented to you? I did the math for you. We are already nearing 50% of GDP as government spending. If you want to accuse me of inaccuracy, then please show me how any of my numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are false? You just deny it, but you really have nothing but your own emotion and little jabs about drug use to back that up. Very weak argument, though not wholly unexpected.
Facts are facts…. even if they don’t fit into your manufactured reality. If you’d like to present some of your own facts in opposition, feel free.
btw, my definition of government control is government ownership, government distribution, governmental appointed leadership, government set wages, government boards making decisions, and government price setting. That’s what we have in banking and in the auto industry as well as in any group that took TARP poison or Stimulus money. It’s what was proposed for health care, and it is what is proposed for the Cap and Tax scheme.
The truth is out there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1232 hrs
“Everyone here sees you for what you are. An extreme leftist with an agenda to spread extremist rhetoric, spewed by extremist bloggers and extremist national propaganda ministers.”
Boy, am I glad I didn’t say that. I’d certainly be chastised.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1256 hrs
One of them is named Glenn Beck. He’s on TV every night.
... and he typically has 6-8 times the viewership of the hacks on MSNBC.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I’m not on board with comparing Obama to Hitler; obviously similarities and differences can be made comparing any two leaders…
... Comparing Obama to Chavez would be closer to reality ...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1323 hrs
US GDP is 14 trillion… of that the US budget is over 25% at 3.55 trillion. Roughly 6.5 trillion dollars will be spent by Big Government in the US for 2009 (state local and federal). that is 46% of GDP
So how is the Fed govt responsible for the 21% of GDP that is state and local?
If you want to accuse me of inaccuracy,
I would like to know where the BLS presents data that reflects or projects govt spending reaching 70% of GDP.
Oh, and while you are at it how are you going to produce 9 million $50k per year jobs for 2 years with $900 million.
That would be a good trick.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1325 hrs
So how is the Fed govt responsible for the 21% of GDP that is state and local?
Depends what we are discussing. If we are discussing Americas slide to socialism, then we are not just discussing the Federal government… we are discussing our whole system. Government spending is government spending… no matter it’s source.
If I simply answer the question you asked, then the Federal government is responsible for the parts of state spending that it mandates by law, or coerces by taxing the state and then threatening to deny benefits unless certain conditions are met… like for roads and medicare payments. While I have no percentage handy, just from the areas I know of, that number is enormous… probably in the 30-50% range.
I would like to know where the BLS presents data ...
I believe I shown that government spending accounts for 46% of the GDP already. Are you implying that the automobile industry, the energy production and distribution industry, and the health care industry account for less than 24% of our economy? Health care alone is almost 20%, though some of that percentage is already under government control. Yes, I’ll stand by 70%. Barack and Harry and Nancy have proposed schemes that would result in their control of about 70%. But even at 46%, I’d hardly call one of every two dollars being spent to be anything less that socialism. Would you?
As for your anemic figure of $900 million, that is hardly the cost of the Generational Theft Act of 2009. The CBO made a table at the request of Congressman Paul Ryan that plots the total outlay for stimulus over the next 10 years. That number is $2.527 trillion dollars. That gives me $280,000 per member of my 9 million strong job force. Actually, I could afford to employ them, with benefits for closer to 4 years. Instead, our bungler in chief has managed to actually increase unemployment. Quite a trick, even for an Obamateur.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cboa.JPG
Need any more math lessons?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1419 hrs
then please show me how any of my numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are false?
Which numbers are from the BLS?
I believe I shown that government spending accounts for 46% of the GDP already.
Yep, you have said that, how about a little proof.
Are you implying that the automobile industry, the energy production and distribution industry, and the health care industry account for less than 24% of our economy?
Are you implying that the govt controls these sectors?
As for your anemic figure of $900 million,
I see your memory doesn’t match your arrogance.
For the $900 million that we spent on “stimulus” I could have created 9 million jobs paying $50k a year for two years.
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/road_building_jobs_dont_stimulate/
total outlay for stimulus over the next 10 years. That number is $2.527 trillion dollars. That gives me $280,000 per member of my 9 million strong job force. Actually, I could afford to employ them, with benefits for closer to 4 years.
You don’t see any problem w/taking a 10 year cost projection and squeezing it into a 4 year benefit promise?
Are you channeling Peter or Chris today? Or are you a politician?
As far as the math lesson goes, I think I’ll pass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1718 hrs
Are you implying that the govt controls these sectors?
Yes, I believe he is. A proposition that would be greeted with universal eye rolling and snickers in any venue except this one. And maybe Fox News.
Posted by scott on January 26, 2010 at 1721 hrs
I see your memory doesn’t match your arrogance.
Ok, If I wrote 900 million, then clearly I meant $900 billion… though even that winds up being a low ball number. Please tell me that your entire understanding of the stimulus package does not come from my using million in place of billion, and that instead you were just being a pinhead. I also do not fathom how my semantic mistake was arrogance. I suppose when you are arguing on behalf of the Obama presidency, you must exploit any weakness you can find for lack of real evidence of your own.
You don’t see any problem w/taking a 10 year cost projection and squeezing it into a 4 year benefit promise?
No, I more see a problem with selling a stimulus package with the promise that it would have unemployment down to 7.2% by now. It would be nice if it had any benefit at all… even over one year. Apparently, even the Obama administration can’t agree on what it has and hasn’t done. It used to create jobs, but having failed that we now opt for the more nebulous and less verifiable “saved” jobs. Obama declared that if we did not pass stimulus immediately… no debate… out the door by tuesday… if we did not do that, then we would see unemployment sky rocket to 9%. With stimulus, no more than 8% and then down to 7% by 2010. Boy, I sure would be happy with 9% now.
If you don’t like my 4 years of jobs, let’s try this. I could have given every American worker and retiree a check for $1500 every year for the next ten years… or one for $15,000 today… all 175 million of them. That might have had some economic impact instead of Pffftt! nada. Well, at least we have that nice tunnel they built for the turtles to cross the highway.
Are you channeling Peter or Chris today? Or are you a politician?
I have no idea what you are talking about… but apparently, neither do you.
how about a little proof.
http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/
Feel free to crunch the numbers for yourself if you don’t like mine. If the only contrary argument you have is that you don’t believe me, then go forth and prove me wrong. As I rather doubt you are in a position to offer me an academic degree, I’ll refrain from wasting any more time on proofs then that (I’ve found that most liberals are generally impervious to facts when they conflict with feelings). Crunch the numbers and tell me where I am wrong… though I can save you the time. I’m not wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1806 hrs
I also do not fathom how my semantic mistake was arrogance.
Here’s a hint.
Need any more math lessons?
Unless of course you meant “Thanks for the math lesson”
Then I ask you which numbers are from the BLS and you give me a census bureau link w/2007 data that does not even address the GDP claims you were making in your comments. And would certainly reveal nothing about our current situation.
Do you even know where to find GDP data?
And then finally you reveal the true depth of your analysis and rebuttal.
No new data, no new pertinent facts.
Just a display of bad temper if I challenge your opinions that I must be a liberal and a supporter of all things Obama.
Who’s the pinhead here?
God help us if you are a bellwether of conservative thought and analysis.
I have no idea what you are talking about… but apparently, neither do you.
Your welcome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1843 hrs
Pass the popcorn please….......
:zpopcorn:Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 1855 hrs
“If you want to hear people speaking “tea party”, well then I direct you to Boston, home of the original Tea Party. They spoke tea party loud and clear… could you hear them?”
Yes, you’re right. They spoke loudly and I heard them. Here is what the some on right is saying about Brown now:
From savior to heretic in one week—well, that was fast.Some conservative activists are already taking aim at Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown by calling him a RINO, or Republican in Name Only.
With Martha Coakley out of the way, they’ve belatedly discovered that Brown is (gasp) pro-choice. It’s an accusation that was always hiding in plain sight. A glance at his campaign Web site revealed that Brown believed “this decision should ultimately be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor.” It’s not that he was ever going to be on NARAL’s Christmas card list; he opposes partial-birth abortion and supports parental notification. But like a libertarian, or a centrist Republican, he believes that government shouldn’t ultimately make this most difficult personal decision for a woman outside reasonable restrictions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-26/new-wingnut-target-rino-scott-brown/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsR1Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2010 at 2242 hrs
Just a display of bad temper if I challenge your opinions
You challenged them? Pointing out a text error is hardly a challenge. If you feel that my 6.5 trillion figure on total government spending is inaccurate, please feel free to show me your contradictory evidence. I’ll wait right here.
Unless of course you meant “Thanks for the math lesson”
Oh absolutely thanks for the syntax correction. I’d hate to make it unclear what an epic waste of resources this administration has been. In fact, your correction spurred me to quote numbers that more accurately described the extent of the man caused financial disaster that Obama has perpetrated.
Then I ask you which numbers are from the BLS and you give me a census bureau link w/2007 data that does not even address the GDP claims you were making in your comments.
Are you unfamiliar with the internet and the way search engines work? If so, then I’m afraid I won’t have time to run through hours of research for you and provide you every link that has figured into my numbers. It would be a waste of time in any case. Liberal arguments are generally created through emotion… and you can’t reason a man out of things that he did not reason himself into in the first place. I’ve tried. It’s a non-starter for me.
If you think you can work the internet on your own, then I’d go to both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US Census site and look around. I’m sure that a sharp fella like you can find what he wants, if he is willing to look for it. Maybe you’ll surprise me…. or yourself.
I do love the snappy “conservatives are all stupid” fallback position. Don’t you folks ever get tired of that? Now, if you have something to present that calls any of my numbers into question, feel free to show me. If you’d like to tell me how the government has not exerted control over banks, auto manufacturers, student loans, and mortgages, I’d love to see that too. Perhaps you can tell me more about how Obamacare does not seek to control the health care industry and how cap and tax will not seize much of our energy industry and control it’s pricing and distribution.
Your welcome.
What? You mean they named a cartoon after me? Who would have guessed?
I still have no clue what you meant there. Was it some sort of heretofor undiscovered type of humor? Some sort of strange attempt at insult? The world may never know…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 0140 hrs
Some conservative activists are already taking aim at Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown by calling him a RINO
@Pat: I Read the blog post, hardly anything condemning in it… I’m not sure why you threw it out there like some sort of gotcha moment. Of course he is a socially liberal Republican. The real point of his win was that it repudiates Obamacare directly, and Obama’s fiscal socialism indirectly. Massachustts elected the more fiscally conservative candidate across party lines. No one expects a Massachsetts Republican to be Ronald Reagan.
If people don’t like that he disagrees with them on abortion, that is their right…. though Brown, is VERY conservative on abortion among the pro-abortion types. If they took a hard look at it, abortion foes would see him as a valuable move toward a better abortion policy. He’s hardly one of the rabid “chuck it in the rubbish bin anytime prior to it’s first birthday” abortion zealots. Brown supports waiting periods and is against partial birth baby killing. All in all, for Massachsetts, the man is a great choice… and look how frightened he has made the Obamateur. Suddenly, New Barack is Mister Fiscal Responsibility and the budget freezer. Remember when he called budget freezing using a hatchet where you need a scalpel? I guess he’s decided to go with the hatchet before the voters did. What a self serving liar…. but that’s the stuff of another Owen blogpost.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 0858 hrs
Lee Iacocca Says:
‘Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We’ve got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers’ money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, ‘trust me the economy is getting better..’
Better? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, ‘Titanic’. I’ll give you a sound bite: ‘Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!’
You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we’re fiddling in Afghanistan , Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving ‘pom-poms’ instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of the ’ America ’ my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for… I’ve had enough. How about you?
I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have. The Biggest ‘C’ is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C’s of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It’s easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else’s kids off to war when you’ve never seen a battlefield yourself. It’s another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here’s where we stand.
We’re immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily.
We’re running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it’s getting worse every day!
We’ve lost the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are going to skyrock again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.
Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers union.
Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare.
The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you’ve got to ask: ‘Where have all the leaders gone?’ Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We’ve spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Everyone’s hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that’s just crazy.. Deal with life.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when ‘The Big Three’ referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving theenergy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn’t elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don’t you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I’m not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I’m trying to light a fire. I’m speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I’ve had the privilege of living through some of America ‘s greatest moments. I’ve also experienced some of our worst crises: The ‘Great Depression,’ ‘World War II,’ the ‘Korean War,’ the ‘Kennedy Assassination,’ the ‘Vietnam War,’ the 1970’s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It’s our country, folks, and it’s our future. Our future is at stake!! “
Posted by Iron Brigade Warrior on January 27, 2010 at 1359 hrs
”‘Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!’”
And replace them with what?? The same old stuff we had for the previous 8 years before. I don’t see that being any better of a solution. Granted, I’d like to see a number of the Dem leaders go. I have little respect for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But I have little respect also for the majority of the party of just say no. You can’t have bi-partisan dialog when neither party wants to be bi-partisan.
This political system has become a joke and nothing more than gamesmanship between two parties. No one is benefiting in anyway from it. Most definitely not the middle class.
Corporations have outsourced our competitive advantage. A change in leadership is not going to change that. Or if it is, I’d like to know how.
A solution would be for corporations to stop outsourcing and employ Americans.The middle class average real weekly wages have essentially remained flat since 1980. What this means is that the U.S. has lost it’s competitive edge and the economy has been unable to provide a rising standard of living for the majority in this country. This is a reason that citizens borrowed their way into prosperity. And look where that’s gotten us now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1452 hrs
I pretty much agree with you, Pat.
What baffles me is that, given all you’ve said, there are still so many people who view the recent supreme court decision as beneficial. This is one of the chief causes of the problems you’re describing.
Posted by scott on January 27, 2010 at 1458 hrs
You can’t have bi-partisan dialog when neither party wants to be bi-partisan.
When you have two diametrically opposed concepts of governance, how can things be bipartisan? What exactly does that mean… bi-partisan. It’s the kind of gibberish I always hear going along with “throw the bums out”. To replace them with what? People who just want to agree on something…anything? Have you ever been part of a large committee in which everyone just wanted to find agreement? No working ideas ever get produced in that atmosphere.
We either tax more, or we tax less. Doing a little of both has no real effect on anything. Can we spend more and spend less, both at the same time? Increase and decrease the military? Socialize the economy and allow free markets? Free speech or regulated speech. Abortions, or not. That’s the problem here… there is a war of ideology going on that will decide the future direction of our nation and we have no choice but to choose sides…. yet some insist that we just all get along and avoid the “hard” issues. Governing is just too divisive… let’s go to the mall.
What exactly is the alternative that you propose Pat? The thing that we can all agree on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1517 hrs
People who do not know what is going on really are the biggest problem in the country. A huge reason we have the one-party rule problem today is because enough swing voters in 2008 (the clueless) voted with emotion and not with understanding.
I know I am communicating with a clueless individual when they blame Bush for the spending of the last two years of his presidency. The citation below rebuts that error as well as I have heard it put.
Richard Mango wrote in the WSJ Online, commenting on Congressman Paul Ryan’s article, ‘A GOP Road Map for America:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025080017959478.html#articleTabs=comments
“Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009, as well
as Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly
got tough on spending increases. For Fiscal Year 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by passed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the Fiscal Year 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress
that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete Fiscal Year 2009.”Posted by Iron Brigade Warrior on January 27, 2010 at 1555 hrs
“Have you ever been part of a large committee in which everyone just wanted to find agreement?”
Yup, all the time. And we make differences everyday because of the process and tools we use during these meetings. It just depends on how you go about it. It works pretty good, and have had significant cost savings with reduction of time and waste.
The problem with you, and others like you, is that everything in life is either/or, black/white, my way or no way. I don’t expect you to understand because your incapable of any larger understanding other than what your narrow limited focus will allow. That’s why your an uber-conservative, and it’s what conservatives do best. You’ll never be able to break the paradigm you’re trapped in and have any sense of understanding of anything other than your wants. Nothing that I, or anyone else, say will make a difference because you’ll argue the opposite. And you’ll do it with this. So don’t let me down, please.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1639 hrs
I don’t expect you to understand because your incapable of any larger understanding other than what your narrow limited focus will allow
What, pray tell oh wise cut-the-baby-in-halfer, is my limited focus? Give us your larger understanding of how we can have everything both ways.
btw… nice tactic there. Bloviate and then insist that any argument with your statement proves that it is true. Very worthy of high school debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1647 hrs
TFG—Hah…I can always count on you. You didn’t let me down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1654 hrs
you’ll argue the opposite. And you’ll do it with this. So don’t let me down, please.
Hm, perhaps you could point to the argument I made? Actually, I asked a question and pointed out one of your standard tactics. Really, in that whole big post you made, there is little substance. Lots of name calling and implications that you possess some moderate wisdom that is hidden from people who live based on a rigid set of values rather than situational values…. but no substance at all.
Bloviation but no real answers to my questions. As I expected. The lights are on, but…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1704 hrs
TFG—
“Lots of name calling and implications that you possess some moderate wisdom that is hidden from people who live based on a rigid set of values rather than situational values…. but no substance at all.”Point me to the specific name I called you in the post please.
Hah…You didn’t let me down, again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1719 hrs
Still dodging? Yeah… you have to do that when you can’t come through with anything to support yourself.
Did I say you called me a name? I suppose by implicating a group that I am a member of, you sort of did. No, but you still engaged in name calling. Apparently you are such a moderate agreeable let’s all meed in the middle guy that you don’t even know when you are engaging in partisan name calling. lolPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1726 hrs
No…...I’m not going to do it. I was going to ask what name calling I was doing to “your group”. But I read my post a number of times and know that I didn’t, and that’s good enough for me. So in other words, I don’t give a shit.
I didn’t really think you had a serious question there. Sounded more like it was more of a retorical question.
From your reaction it looks like it really sucks when someone gives you back what you dish out to others. Too bad. But I ain’t dancing with you beyond this. You know, don’t want to turn this into a high school debate.
You still didn’t let me down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1745 hrs
To Fairly and UNBALANCED Pat: You seem to be an anti-Christian bigot, do I err or have you not thus identified yourself?
Posted by Iron Brigade Warrior on January 27, 2010 at 1832 hrs
“To Fairly and UNBALANCED Pat: You seem to be an anti-Christian bigot, do I err or have you not thus identified yourself? “
And this is based on what??????????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 1901 hrs
From your reaction it looks like it really sucks when someone gives you back what you dish out to others.
You were giving something back? I’m sorry, I missed it.
I was just picking apart your weak high-schoolish manifesto because I knew that you had no substance to back it up… and your proved me right. You couldn’t defend it, because the whole idea is based on a foolish premise that somehow bipartisanship is a legitimate method of running a government. The only way to achieve it is for both parties to give up the things that are important to them, and you wind up with a watered down mish-mash that makes no one happy at all. Besides, the very idea that people with situational values would be in power is frightening. Those people, in other realms, are called loose cannons.
@Iron Brigade (a fine unit… though I was 2/11 ACR) While I have not found Pat to be any more anti-Christian than he is anti-everythingelse, he is certainly NOT fair and balanced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2038 hrs
To The Family Guy:
I did not like Pat’s tone. I concluded that he was dishing out something other than fair and balanced treatment to you. Did the where were you stationed with the 2/11 ACR? I spent 4 years in Bamberg, FRG. I was just thinking tonight how different it would be to go back and visit the area and cross the border areas that used to be communist countries of East Germany and Czechoslavkia.
Posted by Iron Brigade Warrior on January 27, 2010 at 2329 hrs
I never like Pat’s tone… though it grows on you…. much like a wart.
I was in Fulda and Wildflecken 85-89. I left just before the wall came down…my only regret. I wish I could have been in Germany for THAT party.
I have been back. My old post is now in the hands of the Bundeswehr, and with the loss of the American base, Wildflecken has rather dried up and blown away. My family lives near where the wall was and some actually lived on the other side in the DDR. We traveled through the areas that I had been often deployed in. Very different, and the scar left behind by socialism and it’s wall has almost healed. The old Soviet artillery park was still there though…. empty and devoid of fencing… just a crumbling expanse of concrete.
Did you ride with the black horse when you were over there? Or another unit?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0035 hrs
Gads, 302 comments. Is that a record for you or have you gone higher? The comments just keep flowing into my in-box, way beyond the couple things I said. Amazing exchange.
Posted by Soapbox Jill on January 28, 2010 at 1807 hrs
The new Wisconsin Conservative Digest is in and is really hot. Inside are special articles about the Tea Party movement, where they are going, what they want, plus many other articles in it’s 24 pages.
Help us distribute them or give a $100 for some more Digests. Give a hundred to buy a thousand or distribute a hundred.Bob Dohnal, Publisher
11324 W. Potter Rd.
Wauwatosa, Wi. 414-258-1719
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1609 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134053
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:48 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:04 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).