 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 11 May 10 - 01:44 AM Bobert Jun 27 2003 11:37PM - ......no one ever hears from McCain, who seems perfectly content to ride out his days as an co-sponser of a useless bill...... Bobert Jan 21 2010: ....What was left of democrarcy has now been dropped into the shreader... Seems the only out now is revolution... Seems like a strong, violent response to the over ruling of a useless bill. An extremist position. Do we need to buy guns now Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 06 May 10 - 10:22 PM Yeah, that's the story, all right... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 06 May 10 - 10:14 PM Casting Light On Corporate Influence (The Progress Report) In January, the Supreme Court struck down a 63-year old ban on corporate money in elections in the Citizens UnitedÊcase, clearing the way for corporations, unions, and advocacy groups to anonymously spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. The decision drew instant criticism from government transparency watchdogs, consumer advocates, legal scholars, Êand even some businesses which warned that the ruling would lead to a flood of corporate money into politics that would allow deep-pocketed organizations to "drown out any voices that disagree with them." President Obama called the decision a "huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence," and Democratic lawmakers set to work crafting legislation to limit corporate political influence. Meanwhile,ÊRepublicans and corporate lobby groups hailed the decision as victory for free speech, even while polls showed that "Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose" the ruling. After months of work, Senate Democrats, along withÊRep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Republican Reps. Mike Castle (DE) and Walter Jones (NC), unveiled a sweeping campaign finance reform bill Thursday to address the Citizens United ruling. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) aims to increase transparency and accountability in campaign finance, so voters will know who is behind political advertisements. Obama lauded the bill, calling it the "toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests...trying to buy representation in our government." The bill's lead sponsor in the Senate, Charles Schumer (D-NY), said the legislation was designed to affect this fall's election "in every way," andÊSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pledged to bring the bill to the floor before July 4. The House Administration Committee will hold the first hearing on the bill this Thursday. LET THE SUNSHINE IN: The bill has a number of provisions to limit and expose corporate, union, and activist groups' political spending. Foreign corporations and their domestic subsidiaries would be barred from any electoral spending, as would companies that received funds fromÊthe Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and have failed to pay them back. The bill also extends the electoral spending ban to government contractors with contracts worth more than $50,000. It cracks down on front groupsÊdesigned to conceal the source of political spending by mandating that an ad's top funderÊrecord a "stand-by-your-ad disclaimer" similar to current candidate ads and the top five donors "be listed on the screen at the end of the advertisement." Money transferred to front groups by corporations for the purpose of making campaign ads would now be considered campaign spending, and thus subject to stricter disclosure rules. The bill would also require the CEO or highest ranking officer of an organization to appear on camera to say he or she "approves this message," just as candidates are required to do now. Political expenditures would also have to be "disclosed to shareholders and members of the organization in any financial reports." Moreover, the bill helps level the playing field by requiring that "broadcast, cable and satellite outlets to provide candidates the lowest rates and adequate airtime should a corporation or union buy airtime to support or oppose that candidate." The Sunlight Foundation said the legislation would "shine a powerful light on...corporate political expenditures," while Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington heralded the bill as way to "ameliorate the most devastating effects of Citizens United." THE PUSHBACK: Not surprisingly, many corporations and their political front groups quickly mobilized to oppose the bill. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue immediately condemned the bill as an attempt to "silence constitutionally protected speech."ÊDonohue may feel threatened because the DISCLOSE Act undermines the very purpose of the Chamber: to attack progressive reforms while concealing the corporate money behind those attacks. "I'm not sure what their problem is with transparency, but clearly they are uncomfortable operating in sunlight," Van Hollen said of the Chamber. The Center for Competitive Politics, one of real estate tycoon Howie Rich's many anti-government advocacy groups, joined the assault,Êabsurdly arguing that the "stand by your ad" mandate "provide[s] no informational benefit and reduce[s] the amount of available political speech." Meanwhile, theÊCato Institute -- an anti-government think tank founded by oil magnate Charles Koch and funded by his brother David --Êdecried the bill as a "gambit to chill speech." All three groups spend huge amounts of money on various political activities without disclosing the true source of the funds, and notably, allÊfiled amicus briefs to the Supreme Court on behalf of Citizens United. The National Association of Broadcasters is also objecting to the provision that requires broadcasters give candidates less expensive ad rates, even while they stand to "reap enormous profits from an increase in political ads from companies and interest groups -- organizations that will be paying the full price for the air time," the Washington Independent's Mike Lillis points out. Schumer was unable to get a single Senate Republican to co-sponsor the bill -- though he said he is still courting Olympia Snowe (ME) -- and Republicans contacted by The Hill for comment were "reluctant to publicly support the bill." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasted the legislation as being about "election advantage plain and simple," not reform or good government, without providing more detail. McConnell strongly opposed the McCain-FeingoldÊAct, whichÊeventually led to the 2003 Supreme Court case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which challenged the constitutionality of the campaign finance law...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:46 AM Despite my criticism of Soros, he has done a lot of good and charitable things like programs to feed children and I always give credit where credit is due: "Soros has been active as a philanthropist since the 1970s, when he began providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa, and began funding dissident movements behind the iron curtain. Soros' philanthropic funding includes efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states. These efforts, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, occur primarily through the Open Society Institute (OSI) and national Soros Foundations, which sometimes go under other names (such as the Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland). As of 2003, PBS estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion. The OSI says it has spent about $400 million annually in recent years. Time magazine in 2007 cited two specific projects - $100 million toward Internet infrastructure for regional Russian universities; and $50 million for the Millennium Promise to eradicate extreme poverty in Africa while noting that Soros has given $742 million to projects in the U.S., and given away a total of more than $6 billion. Other notable projects have included aid to scientists and universities throughout Central and Eastern Europe, help to civilians during the siege of Sarajevo, and Transparency International. Soros also pledged an endowment of €420 million to the Central European University (CEU). The Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and his microfinance bank Grameen Bank received support from the OSI." However he has so much power that he has a "God Complex" and he admits it: From the book Do as I Say Not as I Do: "Like many other wealthy men, Soros fancies himself a philosopher and travels the world preaching his own eccentric gospel, based on the ideas developed by Karl Popper in The Open Society a society that would "maximize the freedom of individuals to live as they wish." He also touts an esoteric idea of "equilibrium" that even his friends and associates seem nor to understand. Soros speaks with such religious zeal that it prompted one journalist to suggest he be appointed pope. "Why?" he responded. "I'm the pope's boss now." Soros's God complex is a matter of public record. Indeed. while charging that Bush's religious faith makes him mentally unfit for office, Soros has himself admitted to messianic impulses. "I fancied myself as some kind of god." Soros once said. On other occasions he's noted, "If the truth be known. I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, Otherwise they might get me in trouble." But he has apparently come to terms with the problem. "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god. the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out." " A god complex is a non-clinical term generally used to describe an individual who consistently believes they can accomplish more than is humanly possible or that their opinion is automatically above those they may disagree with. The individual may believe he or she is above the rules of society and should be given special consideration. See also * Narcissistic personality disorder (also known as "God Complex") * Hubris * Megalomania * Messiah complex * Playing God (ethics) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Mar 10 - 01:12 AM "CBS reported that Cheney continues to benefit finacially from Halliburton" How much Bobert? $_____________ You're shuckin' off the proof of your propaganda again. How much of that money did Halliburton keep? $______________ You are the one that threw Halliburton and Cheney in to divert attention from Boss Hogg Soros. "What drove Halliburton's stocks down" Then the Boss Hogg Soros/Moveon campaign was innefective? The fact that Soros invested $62 before the Anti-Halliburton campaign does not tell you anything? If embezzlement is a crime, when is Dale Rathke going to jail? Philadelphia-Area Aerospace Workers President Sentenced in Credit Union Fraud/Kickback Scheme Chinook helicopterRunning a labor union and a credit union at the same time may be a bad combination. For Anthony Forte it was. Forte, formerly president of United Aerospace Workers Local 1069 and executive vice president of the Boeing Helicopters Credit Union (BHCU), was sentenced on February 22 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 28 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $1.25 million in restitution for organizing a massive loan fraud and kickback scam nearly a decade ago. His ailing younger brother, David, was sentenced to (and since has served) a day in prison and was ordered to pay $178,446 in restitution. Both men had pleaded guilty in November 2009 after being charged in September 2008. Six other defendants ranging in age from 33 to 40 also were prosecuted. Former Treasurer of Cleveland-Area Transit Union Charged with Embezzlement Transit bus On January 21, Lisa Wright, former treasurer of the Transit Employees Union, was charged in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio with one count of embezzling $71,470.50 from the Bedford (suburban Cleveland) union. The charge follows an investigation by the U.S. Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:29 AM CBS reported on Dec 12, 2003 that Halliburton's subsidary KBR overcharged $61,000,000... Then on March 14, 2005 auditors discovered another $108,000,000 bilked outtta the treasury by Halliburton's subsidary KBR... Google it up, Sawz, if you like... On Sept. 26, 2003, CBS reported that Cheney continues to benefit finacially from Halliburton... You can Google that one up, too, Sawz... As for your attempt to shift the subject away from yer guy to other crooks??? Normal for you... Has nothin' to do with the subject... Maybe another thread??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM "Why would this be any diffefrent than someone embezzeling money from their boss, which BTW, is a felony in most states???" Then Dale Rathke went to jail? As usual You do not have any facts to present and your beef was about Cheney getting money from Halliburton as per the Move on Media campaign sponsored and directed by Soros who profited by buying and selling Halliburton stock. How much did Cheney get and when? ________________________ Late 2006, Soros had made an estimated $40 million. "gettin' caught red-handed trying to steal tax dollars" How much did they steal and when? _________________________ All you know is the propaganda fed to you by Move on and Soros. Audit finds US census preparations wasted millions By HOPE YEN (AP) Feb 16, 2010 WASHINGTON The Census Bureau wasted millions of dollars in preparation for its 2010 population count, including thousands of temporary employees who picked up $300 checks without performing work and others who overbilled for travel costs. Federal investigators caution the excessive charges could multiply once the $15 billion headcount begins in earnest next month unless the agency imposes tighter spending controls, according to excerpts of a forthcoming audit obtained by The Associated Press. Union Contractor pleads guilty in Big Dig overbilling case - The Boston ... May 21, 2008 ... A major contractor for the $15 billion Big Dig project has pleaded guilty to defrauding the US government by overbilling for workers. .. Government: Taxpayers Overbilled For Chiropractic Work - Health ... WASHINGTON -- Data from 2001 shows that $2 out of every $3 that Medicare spent on chiropractic services that year may have been paid out erroneously. SICKENING SPENDING; MEDICAID OVERBILLED BY $96.7M: STATE AUDIT ... A statewide crackdown on Medicaid abuse has revealed $96.7 million in misspent funds, with New York City hospitals and health-care providers to blame for ... Bullock pleads guilty; Ex-teachers union chief admits to theft ... Former Washington Teachers Union President Barbara A. Bullock faces 10 years in ... the Washington Teachers' Union overbilled members...filed suit in U.S. ... Hospital Settles Charges of Overbilling - NYTimes.com Sep 16, 2008 ... Hospital Settles Charges of Overbilling ... to resolve civil charges that it knowingly overbilled the government for treatment costs. ... Local News | UW med school failed to address overbilling problems ... At one point, federal attorneys accused the UW of overbilling Medicare and Medicaid by $100 million, according to confidential government documents obtained ... Defense contractor to pay $8.9 million settlement in fraud lawsuit. Government Overbilling. Orlando, FL: (May-09-08) Alan Grayson, Orlando-based lawyer and congressional candidate, brought charges against IIF Data Solutions, ... But forgit all them facts Saws, just join Bobert's hate campaign against Cheney and Halliburton. Then the liberals will forget about their own sanctioned Fat Cat Boss Hogg Soros. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:05 PM Nah, Sawz... What drove Halliburton's stocks down is gettin' caught red-handed trying to steal tax dollars... George Soros had nothin' to do with that... Maybe his buying and selling of stocks had something to do with the prices but I'll double-damned-guarentee you that Soros had nothin to do with Halliburton getting caught over billing the US governement... BTW, back to folks being held accountable... Just who got fired over that??? I'll tell you... No one got fired... It was theft which was uncovered after the fact so there isn't this "conspiracy to commit"... Who was arrested??? Who was fired??? Why would this be any diffefrent than someone embezzeling money from their boss, which BTW, is a felony in most states??? Like I have said... If people do dumbass stuff they should be held accountable... I couldn't care less if they are Repubs, Dems, Libertarians or Whatevers... If Soros broke the law then arrest him... QAt least one person (and probably alot more) broke the law at Halliburton and no one ever was held responsible... What's that about, Sawz??? (Well, it was just a, yoou know, innocent accounting mistake, Boberdz...) Yeah, and I'm King Tut!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:55 PM Michael Moore may have owned Halliburton stock but he didn't make a killing on it in what amounts to insider trading, or worse, graft: Cheney used his office to make sure Halliburton got a no-bid contract in Iraq. That's a crime. Owning stock in Halliburton is not. In fact there's no reason to even bring it up. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM Support MoveOn.org Political Action Help Get Our Ad Exposing Halliburton on the Air While soldiers are dying in Iraq, Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton has overcharged the government millions and charged for meals for the troops which were never delivered. We need to raise $1.1 million to get a new ad exposing the Bush Administration's ties to Halliburton on the air. Please help by contributing below. If you'd like to donate via check, please use our check contributions system. You may make contributions of up to $5,000 per calendar year to MoveOn.org Political Action. Federal election law and tax law requires that we collect the following information. Please fill out the entire form -- otherwise, we can't process your donation. See bottom of page for privacy details. Starting soon after George W. Bush's inauguration as President in early 2001, Soros poured a reported $18 million into passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (Soros has continued to be a major donor to McCain's Reform Institute), which placed a cap on "soft money" donations to the political parties, but left open a loophole, allowing nominally independent groups, referred to as "527s," to take unlimited donations. Soros began buying up the first generation of 527s, including outfits like MoveOn, ACT (America Coming Together), and Media Matters. Soros also played a pivotal role in the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean, who bombed as a Presidential candidate, but was rewarded for his access to Soros loot with the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, after John Kerry's loss to George Bush in November 2004...... ....MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and other progressive groups on the Soros dole, targeted Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton, the giant oil and defense contractor that was profitting mightily off of Bush and Cheney's Iraq imperial misadventure. The barrage of attacks on Halliburton drove the company stock down, from a peak of $40 down to $26-at which point Soros began buying up Halliburton shares. Between the third quarter of 2005, and the fourth quarter of 2006, Soros bought 2 million shares of Halliburton, at an average price of just over $31. As the media attacks on Halliburton-in part, driven by Soros's anti-Bush/Cheney and anti-war zeal-died down by late 2006, Halliburton shares quickly rebounded. By early 2008, with Halliburton shares nearing $50, Soros had made an estimated $40 million in clear profit, making him one of the larger Bush-Cheney war profiteers.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM That's my point, Sawz... If folks is doing dumbass stuff they are responsible fir it... Period... No dodgin'... Hey, I didn't know that Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton but if he does, shame on him... Like I says, crooks is crooks is crooks is crooks... Happens to be more on the Repub side but that don't excuse no one's crookedness... b~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM Amen Bobert. Wonder when You are going to get around to Michael Moore who owned Halliburton stock?? Wonder when you are going to realize that betting against a currency can cause that currency to fall?? Wonder when you are going to realize that it can be done against the US?? Why is the DOJ watching? "In 1997 the UK Treasury estimated the cost of Black Wednesday at £3.4 billion." Did that come out of rich people's pockets and go into poor people's pockets or was it tuther way around? Wonder when You are going to realize that Halliburton stock was worth $18.13 when Cheney took office and $17.06 when he left? When are you going to realize that he got deferred payments arranged 2 years before he took office, before ho even ran for office? But you just throw out your left wing propaganda that you can't back up with facts to deflect attention form licensed Boss Hoggs like Soros. Al Gore's reinventing-government panel singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work. 2007: Billionaire George Soros has quietly invested $62 million in the purchase of more than 2 million shares of Halliburton, the major government contractor criticized by his own Open Society Institute and the activist group he funds, MoveOn.org. The holdings were disclosed in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by Soros Fund Management LLC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM It's only okay for a wealthy fat cat to cheat when they are also Repub, Amos... That's the way it's sposed to be... Crook is a crook is a crook, as far as I can see... I don't care who they vote for, or give money to... Makes no difference... Wonder when Sawz is gonna get around to Dick Cheney, who collected money from Halliburton as a sitting VP??? (Was that the same Halliburton that got no-bid contracts in Iraq, Boberdz???) Sho nuff is... Wonder when Sawz is gonna get around to Bush and a bunch of other crooks crooked the heck outta Arlington, Texas??? Then crooked the IRS over the money that he crooked the Arlington folks outta??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM Interesting--so taking advantage of people's dull-wittedness in an open market is offensive? Not that I disagree, but this interrupts a long tradition of keen eyed, self-serving mercantile opportunism... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:16 PM Hang George Soros from a tall tree with the rest of the crooks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:08 AM DOJ asks Soros, other big hedge-fund firms, for euro-trading records, emails SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Trades used to bet on or hedge against sovereign-debt risks have triggered a swift backlash from regulators in the wake of a 9% swoon by the euro in recent months. The U.S. Justice Department recently asked hedge-fund firms Soros Fund Management, Paulson & Co., SAC Capital Advisors and Greenlight Capital to preserve documents related to trading in the euro, according to a person familiar with the situation. London Markets React to Greek Plan In addition, U.K. regulator Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, said Tuesday that restrictions on the use of credit default swaps should be considered after these derivatives were used to bet against the debt of euro-zone countries, including Greece. "Sovereign risk is typically thought of as the chance that the country won't repay creditors. To me, it's the risk of what the sovereign can do to you," said John Burbank, head of $2.7 billion hedge-fund firm Passport Capital, in a recent interview. "They have been doing anything they want and there's not been any market reaction. But we're starting to see the risk showing up now," Burbank added. "There's really no way for Japan or the U.S. or Europe to run deficits this way without huge fiscal adjustments, which are inherently deflationary. But because they are sovereigns, they can change rules and do anything they want." Passport isn't betting against the euro and has avoided using credit default swaps to bet against the debt of Greece and other nations in the euro zone. Sovereign CDS is "vulnerable to governments collectively not wanting these things to happen," according to Burbank. CDS, a common type of derivative that pays out in the event of a default, were used to bet on or hedge against troubled financial institutions in 2008. Burbank's Passport profited handsomely by using such derivatives to bet against subprime-mortgage securities. Such derivative investments are now being used by some hedge funds and other investors to capitalize on massive debts racked up by governments, which have spent trillions of dollars trying to cushion the impact of the financial crisis. [How long will it be before they do to America? Wake up Mr. Obama] This type of trading has focused on Greece and other indebted countries in the euro zone, including Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Taken together, the trade has become known by the acronym "PIIGS." This also has revived old concerns about a possible breakup of the euro zone. The common currency has dropped 9.4% against the U.S. dollar since sovereign-debt concerns were thrust into the spotlight in late November by Dubai World's financial troubles. Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros; SAC Capital, run by Steve Cohen; and Greenlight Capital, run by David Einhorn, were among hedge-fund firms that attended a recent "idea dinner" in New York, organized by boutique brokerage firm Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., The Wall Street Journal reported last week. Paulson & Co., run by John Paulson, didn't attend One trader at the dinner argued that the euro is likely to fall to parity against the U.S. dollar, the newspaper reported. That would be a big drop from current levels above $1.35. The DOJ sent document-preservation requests to Soros, SAC and Greenlight on the same day the report about the "idea dinner" was published, the Journal noted Wednesday. DOJ spokeswoman Gina Talamona declined to comment, as did a representative at Monness, Crespi, Hardt. Representatives for SAC, Greenlight and Paulson also would not comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:49 AM Wall Street Fat Cat, Boss Hogg George Soros is at it again. Now he's lickin' his lips over the financial troubles in Europe: Hedge Funds Try 'Career Trade' Against Euro WSJ Feb 26, 2010 Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis. The big bets are emerging amid gatherings such as an exclusive "idea dinner" earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC. During the dinner, hosted by a boutique investment bank at a private townhouse in Manhattan, a small group of all-star hedge-fund managers argued that the euro is likely to fall to "parity"—or equal on an exchange basis—with the dollar, people close to the situation say. The currency wagers signal that big financial players spot a rare trading opening driven by broader market gyrations. The euro, which traded at $1.51 in December, now trades around $1.35. With traders using leverage—often borrowing 20 times the size of their bet, accentuating gains and losses—a euro move to $1 could represent a career trade. If investors put up $5 million to make a $100 million trade, a 5% price move in the right direction doubles their initial investment. "This is an opportunity...to make a lot of money," says Hans Hufschmid, a former senior Salomon Brothers executive who now runs GlobeOp Financial Services SA, a hedge-fund administrator in London and New York. It is impossible to calculate the precise effect of the elite traders' bearish bets, but they have added to the selling pressure on the currency—and thus to the pressure on the European Union to stem the Greek debt crisis. There is nothing improper about hedge funds jumping on the same trade unless it is deemed by regulators to be collusion. Regulators haven't suggested that any trading has been improper. Through small gatherings, hedge funds can discuss similar trades that can feed on each other, in moves similar to those criticized by some investors and bankers in 2008. Then, big hedge-fund managers, such as Greenlight Capital Inc. President David Einhorn, who also was at this month's euro-dominated dinner, determined that the fortunes of Lehman Brothers Holdings and other firms were dim and bet heavily against their securities, accelerating their decline. An SAC manager, Aaron Cowen, who pitched the group on the bearish bet, said he viewed all possible outcomes relating to the Greek debt crisis as negative for the euro, people familiar with the matter say. SAC's trading position on the euro is unclear. George Soros, head of the $27-billion asset fund manager, warned publicly last weekend that if the European Union doesn't fix its finances, "the euro may fall apart." Through a spokesman for Soros Fund Management, he declined to comment for this article. A Greek finance ministry official declined comment. A European Commission spokeswoman said the Commission doesn't comment on market rumors, adding that the EU's executive arm is working toward developing rules to tighten regulation and risk. Few traders expect the value of the euro to totally collapse, the way the British pound did in 1992 amid a large bearish bet by Mr. Soros. In that famous trade—which traders say led to a $1 billion profit—selling led by Mr. Soros pushed the pound's value so low that Britain was forced to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, causing the pound to drop even more sharply. The euro is an extremely deep market, with at least $1.2 trillion in daily trading volume, dwarfing the British pound's daily trading volume in 1992. Again, derivatives, known as credit default swaps, are playing a part in the current trading. Some of the largest hedge funds, including Paulson & Co., which manages $32 billion, have bought such swaps, traders say, which act as insurance against a default by Greece on its sovereign debt. Traders view higher swaps prices as warning signs of potential default. Since December, the prices of such swaps have more than doubled, reflecting investors concerns about a default by Greece. Paulson had built a large bearish position on Europe, people familiar with the matter say, including swaps that will pay out if Greece defaults on its debt within five years. Paulson since has closed out that position and has taken the other side of the bet, leaving the firm with a bullish stance now, a person familiar with the matter says. In a statement, Paulson declined to comment "on individual positions," saying it "does not manipulate or seek to destabilize securities in any markets." Late last year, hedge funds bought swaps insuring the debt of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, and began making bearish euro bets. More recently, the hedge funds have sold these swaps to banks looking to "hedge," or protect, their holdings of European government bonds, traders say. In the past year, the overall value of swaps insuring against a Greek debt default has doubled, to $84.8 billion, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. But the net amount that sellers would actually pay in a default rose just modestly over the same period, up only 4% to $8.9 billion, the DTCC says. This suggests that banks and others have bought and sold roughly equal amounts of swaps to hedge their positions, traders say. The bigger bet against Europe these days is playing out in the vast foreign exchange markets, which offers a plethora of ways to trade. The focus on the euro began on Dec. 4, when the currency swooned 1.5% following a jobs report in the U.S. that buoyed the dollar. Between Dec. 9 and 11, some big European and U.S. banks made bearish calls on the euro by buying one-year euro "puts." Puts give the holder the right to sell an investment at a specified price by a set date. The pressure on the euro soon began building. The currency fell another 1.3% on Dec. 16 when Standard & Poor's downgraded Greek sovereign debt. At that point, some large investors including asset manager BlackRock Inc. had bearish bets on the euro, believing that it couldn't sustain the levels at which it was then trading and that Europe's financial recovery would lag that of the U.S., according to people familiar with their position. The concerns about Greece heightened on Jan. 20, when investors began to worry that the country would be unable to refinance its heavy debt load, causing the euro to fall another 1.3%. On Jan. 22 Greece said it planned a five-year 8 billion euro bond sale in the coming days. To stave off speculators, Greece and its investment-bank advisors limited what could be allocated to hedge funds, said a person familiar with the sale. By Jan. 28, the value of the new bond had fallen 3.5%, which left investors unhappy. On Jan. 28 and 29, analysts from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. took a group of investors on a field trip to meet with banks in Greece. The group included representatives from about a dozen different money managers, say attendees, including Chicago hedge-fund giant Citadel Investment Group, the New York hedge fund Eton Park Capital Management, and Paulson, which sent two employees, say people who were there. Eton Park declined to comment. During meetings with the Greek deputy finance minister and executives from the National Bank of Greece, among other banks, some investors raised tough questions about the state of the country's economy, according to these people. At the Feb. 8 "idea dinner" hosted by Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., a boutique research and brokerage firm, three portfolio managers spoke about investment themes related to the European debt crisis. During the dinner—featuring lemon-roasted chicken and filet mignon at a private townhouse in Manhattan—a Soros manager predicted that interest rates are going up, people close to the situation say. Donald Morgan, head of hedge-fund Brigade Capital, told the group he believed Greek debt is an early domino to fall in a contagion that eventually will hit U.S. companies, municipalities and Treasury securities. Mr. Einhorn, meanwhile, who was among the earliest and most vocal bears on Lehman, said he is bullish on gold because of inflation concerns. Mr. Einhorn declined to comment. By the week of the dinner, the size of the bearish bet against the euro had risen to record levels of 60,000 futures contracts—the most recently available data and the highest level since 1999, according to Morgan Stanley. The data represents the volume of futures contracts that will pay off if the euro sinks to specific levels in the future. Three days after the dinner, another wave of selling hit the euro, pushing the currency below $1.36. In a separate move last week, traders from Goldman, Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch unit, and Barclays Bank PLC were helping investors place a particularly bearish bet on the euro, traders say. The trade involved an inexpensive put option that will provide its holder a big payoff if the euro falls to the level of a single U.S. dollar within a year. Known as a "tail-risk" trade because its probability is low, the euro-dollar parity put is a cheap way of ensuring that if the euro sinks dramatically within a year, an investor will generate big returns. A going price for the bet is around 7% of the amount that a parity-trade would pay off. So, for an investor seeking a $1 million bet, the cost is $70,000. This means that the market currently assigns roughly 14-to-1 odds that parity will be reached. In November, the odds were around 33-to-1, said a person who has seen the trade's pricing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:56 PM Bobert's been asked where he got that "1% owns all the wealth" in Haiti Stat came from and so far he has refused to answer. Wonder why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:42 PM That;s not a stat, Sawz... That is the sad truth... (lol...)... No, not "lol" about the wealth but, yeah, I will on occasion throw out a stat... But I don't live for them like alot of folks we know... Actaully, given my long history here, I kinda see myself as a Stat-Lite kinda guy... BTW, Sawz... Unless you have gone back and read all of my posts that Haiti thing predates you here, right??? (No, BOberdz.... He was OldGuy then... No, maybe Dickey, No, maybe....) Man, you are hard to keep up with.... More lives than a shelter's worth of cats... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:45 PM Hey. Good Job there Amos. Looking at numbers is very helpful when trying to decide things. Now Bobert who readily admits stats are bullshit, relies on them all the time when trying to prove his Bobert "facts". You know like 1% owns all the wealth in Haiti. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:50 AM Amos, I wouldn't be too quick to admit error here... reality is, as have have pointed out elsewhere, is that when you listen to statistics that are provided by any group that has an axe to grind, especially when that group has unlimited money to pay full time salaries of the statisticans, you can get any result you want... I vividly remember the first day of Stats 201 in college and the professor, to make a point, said that a statistican coule prove ot diapprove just about anything ot everything on the planet... He then went to the chalk board and proved that 1 = 2!!! Hmmmmmm??? So be very mindfull of tables and graphs because behind them there is generally an agenda... And also be very mindfull that the righties represent the status quo and that's just what the corportists are all about... And the corportists have, ahhhhh, all the money and therefore most of the statisticans??? And that is the real world... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:19 AM Sawz: I went back and looked at those tables you linked to again. I was in error. They state that Dem/Liberal groups took in almost twice as much as Repub/Cons committees did between 2004-2010. I am not sure what your point is about this, but that's what those tables show. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 10 - 08:18 AM Ditto, Carol... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM I don't want Democrats getting a vast amount of money from special interests any more than I want Republicans getting it. The Democratic party is destroyed by that kind of special interest money flooding their coffers rather than being helped by it. Because the base of the Democratic party is not served by the agenda of the special interests that have the kind of resources to be able to do that sort of thing, and when the Democratic party base is turned off by the behavior of those they vote for, that spells the death of the Democratic party every bit as much as if large amounts of money go to the Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:43 PM "According to those graphs of Sawz' (he speciializes in out-of-date information, BTW) they both pulled in about 100 million, roughly." If Mr up to date Amos would scroll down a bit, He would see tables for 2004, 06, 08 and 10. And he would see that the Democrats have more money in all years. Unless you are referring to huge powerful labor unions, I think this renders your statement: "The issue is the disproportionate amount of cash resources in large entities compared to small" to be baloney. Amos specializes in no information, no facts. Just ad hominem attacks. Were the font sizes to your liking Amos? "Non-profits and labor unions don't have the kind of resources that large fat-cat corporations have"? "Labor unions can't trump the cash corporate America has to throw at the disinformation they will wage against consumers."? Top Contributors to 527 Organizations 2004 Election Cycle Service Employees International Union.....$53,315,273 2006 Election Cycle Service Employees International Union.....$32,929,734 2008 Election Cycle Service Employees International Union.....$36,672,225 SEIU is the #1 Fat Cat contributor every year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:33 PM You tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. "It's published in a book and it confirms what we want to believe. It must be true." O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 10 - 07:58 PM Let's not forget the "Swift Boat Liars for Truth"... Rememeber them??? The guys who weren't even there when Kerry saved one of his men and took out an enemy that was firing on his boat... That is the account of the guy who he saved and several of the guys on his boat but the well funded (T-Bone Pickens) 527 made up "The Big Lie" and got a bunch of folks who hated Dems to say that it never happened... Problem is that none of these guys were there??? Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 10 - 05:55 PM According to those graphs of Sawz' (he speciializes in out-of-date information, BTW) they both pulled in about 100 million, roughly. So? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:33 PM 2004? Guys, come on. The world has moved on. You move, too. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: pdq Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:01 PM AIM Report | September 28, 2004 It could be "Chinagate" all over again. The major media are desperate to avoid scrutiny of how or where leftist billionaire George Soros is getting the tens of millions of dollars that he is using to finance anti-Bush advertising campaigns and pro-Democratic Party political efforts before the November 2 election. The reluctance is partly explained by Soros' media ties. He has been an investor in the Times Mirror Company, which merged with the Tribune Company. This media conglomerate today publishes 13 daily newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and Newsday. The company's broadcasting group includes 26 television stations. But Soros is linked to literally dozens of other businesses and corporations, some of them off-shore and beyond the reach of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal agency that subjects American companies to disclosure and oversight. On the face of it, Soros has acted in a deceptive manner. He promoted passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, supposedly to restrict the ability of special interest groups to influence the race for the White House. But he then took advantage of a notorious loophole in the law through which he has provided massive funding of controversial "527" organizations, designated as such under the Internal Revenue Code. These groups can receive and spend unlimited amounts of money on the presidential contest. They are required to report their expenditures but their funders, such as Soros, are under no obligation to identify where their money is coming from. This opens the door to foreign money and foreign manipulation of the U.S. presidential election. It could be "Chinagate" all over again. The Republicans, supposedly the party of "fat cats" and Big Business, are being vastly outspent in this area. Much of the background and history of Soros, who emigrated to the U.S., is not known. His fortune was made through manipulation of international financial markets and foreign currencies, a field that is still largely unregulated. He has controversial investments in places like Colombia, where the banks have been penetrated by drug cartels eager to launder their drug money. {shortened by me for Mudcat space limits} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:38 PM 527GATE: Click these two links and tell me which party has the most 527 money. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=R http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=D On December 9, 2004, a month after Kerry's Election Day defeat, Eli Pariser declared that MoveOn had effectively taken control of the Democratic Party. "For years," he said, "the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers. In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups. In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issuesm, gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups dubbed stealth PACs, by the media of that time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Feb 10 - 12:38 AM Before Knighting Soros, Read this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:01 PM He manages multiple hedge funds, slam him all the harder! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:39 PM Before slamming Soros, maybe read this. About half-way down the page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:27 PM Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC - PM Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM If the current--quickly fleeting--Democratic majorities mean anything Clearly they don't, or they wouldn't be having so much trouble getting their bills passed in the Senate. This is simplistic, defeatist--and for some posters on Mudcat, a fairly typical attitude... ...1) The Senate has in fact passed its own health care bill. So it involves compromise--and horsetrading (if only among Democrats.) This is not new--ever heard of "logrolling"? The poster's attitude sounds like a wonderful example of the problem cited in the "Friends Like This" thread. Compromise may well be necessary--it's called politics--and accomplishing something. Doesn't seem to be a main goal here below the line. Like I said, only an idiot could possibly think that putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them is a legitimate form of argumentation. If the resident troll can find any post of mine in which I have expressed opposition to the passage of the Senate bill, I will retract my comment about putting words in my mouth. As I said before, troll, put up or shut up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM "Ya' ever hear of 527s... No flip flop here" 527GATE:
Ahhhhhhhhhhh thats $122 million from the top Boss Hogg alone. And $46 million from Boss Hogg #2, Soros |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:37 PM "Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party..." They didn't have long to live anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Stephen Smith Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:45 AM Yes, the court decision did also apply to labor unions and nonprofits, as well as corporations. But DO NOT BE FOOLED: Corporations can raise billions. The fund raising and candidate support abilities of unions are far, far less. Non-profits and unions can NEVER match the funds a big corporation can provide to the table. Corporate fascism is alive and well: Watch it destroy the United States from within. Corporate fascism is alive and well |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:43 PM I thought Obama was going to stop this immediately. Jaysus, Sawz, get a brain or something. Why would you think that? He never said he was planning on stopping lobbyist spending. What are yu on about? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:04 PM Amos: Are you AFRAID to post the whole thing or at least give us a summary, unbiased of course. Or are you afraid that someone who disagrees with you will attack you claiming you left something out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:00 PM What a surprise. They've been doing that faithfully since 1980. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Feb 10 - 10:37 PM Actually, it's beginning to look like the Democratic Party killed itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Feb 10 - 10:17 PM Here is a real Zinger Pop: Total Lobbying Spending 1998 $1.43 Billion 1999 $1.43 Billion 2000 $1.55 Billion 2001 $1.63 Billion 2002 $1.81 Billion 2003 $2.04 Billion 2004 $2.17 Billion 2005 $2.42 Billion 2006 $2.61 Billion 2007 $2.86 Billion 2008 $3.30 Billion 2009 $3.47 Billion I thought Obama was going to stop this immediately. Over that period Lobbyists donated $90,953,602 to Democrats and $79,446,317 to Republicans. Another and Another |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:38 PM which ones of these are the righteous Democrat 527s and which are the evil Republican 527s? Hmmmm SEIU #1 on the list with $28,212,510 Ahhhh America Votes #2 with $14,106,236 EMILY's List with $11,776,201 Now Amos, I want you to tell me where I say I hate anything? I love both my mudcat daddys. I love the way they keep switching their standards to desperately prove something. First McCain Feingold was smoke and mirrors, a cheap trick and then it was the only thing keeping Democracy together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:48 PM Sawz' typical persiflage is drawn from the May 2004 edition of the Washington Monthly but he leaves out a whole chunk of data in the same piece about Republican abuse of the 501-c-3 dodge. This tells me he must spend an AWFUL lot of time running after his spurious persiflage bombs and spewing his hate stuff upon the world. If he spent that much time researching to learn instead of for self-dramatization, he'd a got a lot smarter. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:39 PM Yeah Pops, I heard of those 527's invented by the Democrats. Hurry and figure out which standard you are going to use the judge this by: Until recently, the Democrats could even the scales somewhat by raising "soft" money, the unlimited contributions from rich individuals, corporations, and labor unions that flowed to both parties in roughly equal amounts during the 1990s. But two years ago, the McCain-Feingold Act prohibited parties from raising soft money, a goal long sought by liberal newspaper editorialists and good-government activists. Ever since, the Democratic Party's fundraising has lagged even farther behind the GOP's than usual. But last summer, a coterie of labor campaign operatives, liberal advocacy-group leaders, and old Clinton hands began exploiting one of McCain-Feingold's loopholes. They organized several groups under Section 527 of the tax code to raise and spend the soft money which the Democratic Party no longer could. Scores of wealthy liberals, among them George Soros, have together given tens of millions of dollars to these "527s," which have generic names like Americans Coming Together and Voices for Working Families. And in March and April, these groups spent a chunk of the money on issue ads attacking Bush" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:02 PM Oh, and... ...300... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:26 PM Give the boy a break, Amos... He obviously thinks he doesn't need those pills anymore... I think he needs to come clean with his head-doc, myself, but, hey, he goes thru these cycles... I mean, he had the same problem when he was, what was it, Old Guy and again when he was, ahhhhh, Dickey... Hey, it's job security for his shrink... *grin*... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:12 PM Sawz, Man, your sarcasm is pretty hate-y in itself, innit? 'Sides, there's nothing specific that Bobert said that you have identified as disagreeing with. 'S up wid dat, Sawzer? Say huh? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM Yo Sawz... You need to talk with yer shrink about recent relapse into Bobert-obsession... You were doing well for quite awhile but you are backslidin', son... Time to get a grip... As for Fiengold/McCain, I said it was smoke and mirrors... I didn't say it was unconstitutional... I said it wouldn't work and it hasn't... Ya' ever hear of 527s... No flip flop here... Lotta flip-flop on you takin' yer anti-Bobert-obsession meds... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:03 PM Well Well Well Sounds like Bobert, God love him, has done flip floped again. He has once more changed from the standard he uses to judge Democrats with to the different standard he uses to judge Republicans by: "From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 06 - 07:44 PM ***real*** campaign finace reform rather that smoke and mirrors(McCain-Feingold) reform that wasn't reform at all as it left the corporation a direct pieline to the folks in power" Now that the previously discredited non-reform has been done away with, it was essential. Now it's Bush v. Gore all over again... Republican rule... majority being appointed by Republican presidents.... unlimited spending by corpoarte Fat Cats ... Boss Hog is gonna bully politicans... Republicans packed the FCC.. the game is rigged... TV wrestling looks real... 2010 a bloodbath... Now the righties are going to do this and that... Democrarcy in the shreader... Now is revolution... Just more hate hate hate. Has the THC worn off or is it just taking effect? I have never seen such a conflicted human being in my life but he has the right to be conflicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: kendall Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:23 PM It's a long road that has no turns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM Yes, you're probably right, Bobert. They made it sound significant when they reported it, but it probably won't help much in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:14 PM That ain't nuthin', Rigs... They kinda have to do that now, don't they... Reportin' to the publ.ic just means that some report gets filed, sent in and stuffed in a filing cabinet and only folks with trust funds have the time and money to use "Freedom of Information Act" to get the stuff, if they are lucky... Rememeber that Bush all but killed off that act with it's obstinance... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:30 PM When the media broke the decision about the supremes wanting to treat corporations as people, the story line was that they clarified that element in the law that required candidates to report to the public where their campaign money was coming from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM Sorry, Rigs, but I re and reread what you just posted and I'm not at all sure what it is you are saying... Could you elaborate just a little... por favor... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:11 PM It was my understanding that the recent Supreme Court opinion actually strengthened the requirement to provide sources of funding, to the the extent that helps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:10 PM The defeatism and sloppy thinking which is rife below the line--and certainly evident on this thread--does not help improve the world. Of course brilliant crusades like trying to take the 10 Commandments out of courthouses, remove "In God We Trust" from coins, etc., and in general railing helplessly against religion--or capitalism--or both--squander an untold amount of energy, which could be better used--used for instance in contacting your Representatives to try to get them to ensure transparency in corporate contributions to political campaigns. Since this is the topic of the thread. But in general: a willingness to do research and think clearly before hitting "send" would help. Obviously this is not aimed at all posters. But there are clearly enough it does fit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:01 PM Haven't had a chance to check Mudcat for a while---life--and other claims on the computer--get in the way. "putting words in my mouth". Right. I quoted the poster directly. Sorry she doesn't like her words quoted to her. It's not the first time. All she has to do is think before hitting "send." and I'd have no issue. But in fact my observation is not petty point-scoring--the defeatism and simplistic approach found in the post in question is symptomatic of a deeper problem on Mudcat below the line. Of course many here take the "us vs them" approach. That's fine--it's clearly the birthright of every folkie to be a stalwart class warrior, keeping a monopoly on virtue, while of course having no obligation to do any research on a given topic. See Tom Lehrer: We are the folk song army/ Every one of us cares/ We all hate poverty, war and injustice/ Unlike the rest of you squares. However, not only do many folkies see themselves as the the champions of the downtrodden, but they also seem to feel that the dice are always stacked against us. The $ystem means we can't win--evil monied interests control the world, no matter who we pick as leaders. Or there's some other amorphous all-powerful villain. If folkies really believed this, they would not even try to work through the political system--which, of course is by definition hopelessly corrupt. Even Obama's election has not put much of a dent in this fashionable despair--or nudged many toward the realization that compromise is essential in getting things done. And sometimes this attitude is spiced with a pinch of anti-Semitism--which should be anathema to any thinking person--but is not always, it seems. To be continued |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:14 PM That's a matter of context and whose bull is getting gored. That shit is seldom a one-way street. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM Cyber bullying is about as funny as poisoning the doorknobs and silver ware of a stranger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM And I might add, Ron, that you are putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them. Only an idiot could possibly think that this is a legitimate form of argumentation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:29 PM Ron Davies, just leave me alone. That's not so difficult to comprehend, even for you. Just bugger off and leave me alone. I'm not going to play your childish little games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:18 PM Oh, what a pleasant world it'd be How smoothly we'd step through it If all the fools who mean no harm Could manage not to do it. Francis Ledwidge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:07 PM Those days are gone, Q... That's what makes this ruling even worse if there could be worse... No, bottom line is that the Repubs see this as their opportunity to get power back... For what, God only knows seein' as they ahve a purdy screwed up track record on governing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM The "workings of the people, and corporations" do not part ways at the bottom line. Forty years with Humble, Imperial and Exxon. No problems in supporting politicians I favored. The company bottom line contributed to my bottom line. We agreed with and supported most of the views expressed by the boards and CEOs. Otherwise we would not have joined them as employees or stayed with them for our productive lives. Periodic meetings were held between CEOs, boards and employees. The union members in the production and service arm determined holidays and many of the rules for both professional and union members. Ample opportunity for advancement; both professional and administrative ladders which could be crossed. Digression- I vividly remember the Trudeau years in Canada. His administration provided money for research, and for exploration in the Arctic and East Coast offshore, and unconventional sources such as oilsands and oil shales that led to later developments that are benefitting Canada now. Energy companies were bitterly divided over Trudeau's program; those without research arms received no money for that purpose; only the majors had the cadres of trained professional scientists that could do the research into methods or expand into exploratory areas. Petro-Canada, the government company he initiated, was able to provide the 15% or so of exploration money needed before the petroleum company economists and accountants would agree to the risks of wildcat exploration of unknown areas. I remember those years as ones of cooperation; many personnel interchanges to share data occurred between Petro-Canada and major energy companies. The smaller, local companies, "independants," however, did not benefit, and they continue to denigrate Trudeau to this day. The combined joint exploration efforts of the government company and the major energy companies led to discoveries and technical developments that contribute to Canadian well-being today. And I am quite happy with the "bottom line" that both the corporation and I achieved while working for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:41 PM Exactky, Amos... Union folk get together and voice their opinions... Corporations couldn't care less about anyone's opionions but the CEO and sometimes the Board of Directors yet they use money that was earned by people who may work in the corporation but have no say what so ever... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:36 PM Try working for a corporation, then speak about your freedom of speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:18 PM Q: The workings of people and corporations part ways at the bottom line, which you must know full well. An individual will always represent his own point of view, more or less. A corporation does not represent its employees politically. It often does not in fact represent its shareholders politically. This disconnect in voices is multiplied by the power multiplier of the profits brought about by many, fueling a voice which speaks for the few. It is not the group-ness per se which is the fatal flaw in Alito's reaosning, but the misrepresentation in political matters, especially elections. The equivalency of money and speech, or speech fueld by money as distinguished by speech fueld by individual thought, is the great lie in the SCOTUS rationalization. Once having slipped this lie into the works the entire facade of the First Amendment argument becomes a shambly hollow pretense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM Corporations are composed of and supported by people- I see nothing wrong with defining organizations of any kind as people under the Constitution. Are corporations and trade unions and pension funds too big? If they are limited in their efforts to spread their opinions, where should the cut-off be placed? Individual? Family? Local society? Organizations with 50 or more employees? Those with 50,000 employees? The idea of selective limitations, individual(s) vs. their organizations, is ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:27 PM Well, Carol... The folks who support the decision will be the first to tell you that they are strickly interpreting the Constitution... But, yeah, activism is activism is activism is........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM I said: If the --quickly fleeting--Democratic majorities mean anything, Congress ought to be able to pass legislation to at least partly counter this decision. Poster in question said: " Clearly they don't, or they wouldn't be having so much trouble getting their bills passed in the Senate". Clear implication: the Democratic majority means nothing--so legislation to at least partly counter this decision is impossible. I pointed out that this attitude is defeatist and simplistic--and that a parallel between the health care snafu and this issue is false. Poster went ballistic--but has not come up with any facts as to why legislation to at least partly counter this decision is impossible---except that she says so. Unsurprising. Now we can all await her next calm, well-reasoned posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:32 AM That's the problem when idealogues strictly interpret the Constitution. But that's the problem, Bobert. The people who support this ruling are not strictly interpreting the constitution. They are stretching it to conform to their own agendas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 10 - 10:51 AM What seems to be lost on those who support the Roberts/Alito activist ruling is the "preamble" begins "We the people" and continues, "...and secure to ourselves and our posterity..."... The implication in the wording is that the rights later defined in the document were pretaining to "the people"... That's the problem when idealogues strictly interpret the Constitution... They don't take the entire document into account but look very narrowly for ways to justify whatever dumbass policies they are trying to support... BTW, for those of you who are not familiar with the term "preamble" I would suggest a careful reading in any dictionary... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:47 PM Whatever, we can always to back to the Whigs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:02 PM It didn't load. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:43 PM Boss Hogg at work |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:34 PM Oh, my, mousethief, you are so easily influenced? What a vapid response. Tell me where what I said was wrong, or go suck your thumb in your own corner, away from where the big boys dispute. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:03 PM Leemeesee here. Libs say Evil Republicans never compromise but A Republican and a Democrat got together and wrote a campaign finance reform bill. No credit given by the Libs for that happening. Then Constitution thumping liberals whine when the bill is declared unconstitutional. Bias? Double standard? Does Pinocchio have a hickory dick? I am absolutely against Corporations having the rights of citizens. And associations, trade groups, ACLU etc. Any pressure group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:12 PM Whenever people use a document from an older historical period and interpret it now on the basis of completely different things that are occurring now...their interpretations can go far astray...and can be used to do strange and terrible things. I give you 3 examples of this sort of thing: 1. the Bible 2. the Q'ran 3. the Consitution of the United States of America Interpreted on the basis of the social realities at the time they were written one can usually see what was intended by what they said in those documents...how it was intended AT THAT TIME. To take their literal words, however, and move them into the present reality and then use them to justify something totally different that someone is doing now is a travesty. And that is what keeps happening. We are tied to old documents that weren't designed for present realities. We need to do some new thinking...or be honest about what was intended in those old documents, not just use them like a clever lawyer to pull off some self-aggrandizing legal trickery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:04 PM Oh, my, mousethief, you are so easily influenced? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:51 PM What they did was pervert and misdirect the original intentions OF the First Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM The first amendment says nothing about corporations being granted all the same rights as natural citizens. The Supreme Court did not "JUST" uphold the First Amendment. And if you think changing the way money can be spent in a political election has "little effect" on the political process you are living in a fantasy. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:45 PM The Supreme Court has just upheld the First Amendment. It will have little effect on the political process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:41 PM And look where it got you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:40 PM It took a revolution for the US to cast off the authority of the Westminster Parliament and the UK courts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:33 PM Yeah, come on Q-zer... Yer on a dead-end road here... Pick another one... Afganistan Circle is just that... Plus, this thread is about the Supreme Court's decision to sell off the government... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:28 PM You don't like it <> Promise not kept. You're REALLY working it now. Just amazing. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:21 PM Trying to keep up with you apologists has me in a whirl. "perceived as good"- more people dead for no reason, more dollars wasted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM I don't see that as breaking a campaign promise. Going further than you promised in a direction perceived as good isn't exactly breaking a promise. You're spinning like a hydroelectric dynamo after a rainstorm. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM mousethief, he said he would send two brigades to Afghanistan as brigades were removed from Iraq. That he did, but he has added another 30,000 on top to a campaign that can't be won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:41 PM Actually, pols are just a relection of who has had the most microphone time... 90% of all elections are won by the person who spent the most money... The point is that right has dominated the media for the last year... Between the Obama hatin' crowds that got lots of media time, Sarah Plain who got lots of media time, the screamers at the town halls who got lots of media time, the Tea Partiers who have gotten lots of media time, the Republican obstructionist who have gotten lots of medai time and the corporations (especially the Chamber of Commerace and Health Insurers) which have purchased gobs and gobs of media time it is a ***complete wonder*** that with the 20 seconds a day that thr Dems get that Obama's numbers are as strong as they are???? I mean, let's get real here.... This has been a very good media year for the right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:31 PM The Afghan situation has got out of hand, eating up money to no realizable purpose. He should have been firm on his campaign promises. He promised to put more troops into Afghanistan. Which other promise should he have kept better? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:47 PM According to CNN, those who approve of Obama's efforts stand at 50% and those who don't are at 49%. More telling is the rating on independents, who strongly disapprove. Obama isn't wholly to blame, of course, he inherited a mess, headed by the banking bust and the Iraq-Afghan fiasco. He has returned the banking sector to life, but since jobs haven't been restored and won't be for some time, he is blamed. The Senate Health bill is a mess, and he certainly should take part of the blame. The Afghan situation has got out of hand, eating up money to no realizable purpose. He should have been firm on his campaign promises. The Democrats have killed their own party, not some minor adjustment to campaign spending regulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:52 AM I agree with your interpretations of the Repub response, Donuel... They wouldn't have used those p[articular words had they been talkin' about Clinton which does bring us to a subtle campaign of disguised and codifies racism... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:53 PM more common euphemisms "Grow up" ie. you are a child I am the adult, shut up and obey! "IN REALITY" ie. You are delusional and everything you just said is delusional, "get a grip" ie. you are having a psychotic episode, get treatment. "Grow some cahones" ie. you are impotent, effiminent and cowardly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM I have condensed the common remarks made by Republican Congressmen and Senators today after the speech and they were all remarkably similar as if the same memo was sent to all of them. The remarks they made when condensed is this; "The stuff that arrogant cocky punk said, did not contain a shred of truth... all he can do is whine and BIOB, blame it on Bush. He will be surprised come election time" That was it, not much of an intelligent response there. All the words like arrogant cocky punk and BIOB were all actual quotes made by leading Republicans. If this was 40 years ago all these euphemisms and code words for what Republicans really mean, would simply look and SOUND LIKE THIS; "That uppity nigger doesn't know his place and if he thinks he can slander a white man like that, he's got it comin." Catters, that is the essence of white power sentiment sounds like, although they use different words today. Ya know its bad enough having remote Republican "leaders" use language like that (arrogant cocky) to veil thier feelings of white superiority, but when a particular person writes to good friends here, who normally seek to merelly make a clever remark or educate and explain issues and policy, and then have a thug here slander them and invent cruel distortions about these good people and their motives, its time to decide if any response to such an individual will ever be helpful or wise in the years to come. We here are not the poiticians, or the willing targets of your attacks. Hello Ron Adhominum. Hello Adhom-alikes Goodbye Ron. Goodbye Adhomalikes That is until or unless you can be, or at least resemble a potentially civil human being. I use human being in the small sense and not the larger more meaningful "Human Being", as expressed in Little Big Man. "Human Being" is an achievment that proves to be extremely challenging and too much to ask of certain people. How can you tell the difference? Among many differences this one comes to mind; Shame or conscience only works on "Human Beings". "its time to decide if any response to such an individual will ever be helpful or wise in the years to come." I am serious simply because of wonderful souls that I have talked to recently who no longer will join us or post due to the obvious hateful jag off who hurt them to this day. We need not be elder Statesmen or Stateswomen but we are too old to be flaming trolls or let them follow us home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:37 PM Ron, if you don't agree with something I say, you don't have to be so bloody insulting. It really is possible to disagree with people without doing that. That said, I would still characterize the post I referred to as defeatist and simplistic--and for the reasons I cited. When the poster is finished venting, perhaps she could tell us exactly why this is an inaccurate description. I shouldn't have to defend myself against personal attacks. However, I was accurately stating the current reality. It is a fact that the majority in the Senate doesn't mean anything, because if it did, the Democrats in the Senate would have been able to pass a hell of a lot more legislation than they have. That's just a simple fact. But you chose to read a lot of defeatist bullshit into what I said that just wasn't there. Because there is nothing in this world that you enjoy more than beating up on people. Had I said that the majorities don't mean anything, so the Democrats in the Senate should just give up, that would have been defeatist. But I didn't, even though you just couldn't resist putting those words in my mouth just so you could hurl insults at me. As it happens, I think it's incredibly important to recognize that the current majority in the Senate (and even the majority they had before Brown was elected) is meaningless, because if they don't, they'll keep beating their heads against the same wall they've been beating their heads against for the past year. They need to recognize that they will have to come up with some new strategies if they're going to get anything done. But you just couldn't bring yourself to bother to find out whether this was my meaning or if I was being defeatist. Because it's so much more fun attacking people and insulting them. Just don't talk to me any more, Ron. I'm sick and tired of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:14 PM And Don T, as you point out, you are 3,000 miles away. I'm concerned with actually getting good legislation passed--and painfully aware that politics is the art of the possible. There seem to be many ideological warriors on Mudcat--especially on the Left. "My way or the highway" is not really a good approach to getting a program through Congress. I'm not concerned with whether the behavior of one group or the other is "fair." You may be aware that is not the way politics works. By the way, I have never pushed for including any Republicans in a negotiation unless that person has indicated a desire to come halfway. It happens that Olympia Snowe came more than halfway--and should have been treated better--from a purely pragmatic stance. Her "trigger" idea was excellent--and deserved more consideration. Especially since it very likely would have resulted in the "public option" so devoutly wished by large numbers of people--including me, by the way. It's also true that with the Democrats in the "big tent" situation, many--sometimes painful--compromises have to be made just within the Democratic party. Those who refuse to compromise are, I believe, responsible in large part for the current impasse. It's also true that not all political figures have the same amount of power. The "Blue Dog" Democrats seem to have outsize clout in the current Congress. But that means the rest need to adjust to them--if they actually want to pass legislation. Main point however at this stage is that the Senate has passed a health-care bill. To avoid sending the bill back to the Senate, the House must pass it exactly as is. Somehow I think we are now off the track of the thread. But I said in the other post what I thought Americans ought to do to counter the recent Supreme Court decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:55 PM Time to simmer down, Carol. As I mentioned elsewhere, we all know you and Jack broke your backs working for Obama, and all Obama supporters should be eternally grateful to you. I'm sure we are. That said, I would still characterize the post I referred to as defeatist and simplistic--and for the reasons I cited. When the poster is finished venting, perhaps she could tell us exactly why this is an inaccurate description. And my posts are not a case of "pursuing" anybody. It's just a case of pointing out what I see as simplistic and/or unsupported statements. As the old New York Times motto had it: "without fear or favor". You may have noticed I criticize across the political spectrum--as Teribus and BB, among others, can attest. If it pushes people to use more logic, provide sources, and steer away from conspiracy theories, so much the better. Rather than make erroneous statements that the Senate cannot pass bills, I would prefer actual suggestions on how we can fight back against the recent Supreme Court decision which is the subject of the thread. My own suggestion would be that we push Congress to require all political contributions over $1,000 to be listed on the Net--with full name of each contributor, and any corporate position the person might hold. It seems to me that transparency is a good goal here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:55 PM You can only be annoyed by a bird with mass. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:43 PM Well, mousethief, I can and hereby do attest that he has no use for either. He does however have the knack of getting the bird of paradise to fly up one's nose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:37 PM GfS HAS maintained that neither party is worth much. People just get pissed off at GfS when the Dems get theirs. I've been back on the cat for about a month and haven't seen him say anything negative about the GOP or conservative topics. I'm just sayin', is all. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:21 PM Okay, Amos... I just went out and emptied the cat box which hadn't been emptied in two months and it looked better than Alito... That enough??? If not, let me know and I'll work on it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM GfS HAS maintained that neither party is worth much. People just get pissed off at GfS when the Dems get theirs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:59 PM Bobes: Will you stop pussyfooting around and tell us what you really think? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:54 PM Hey, didja'll see Alito mouthin' off during Obama putting the blast on him and the other rightie Repub justices on handin' over our democraccy to the highest bidder??? Too much... Alito is a prick... Just like the other pricks he votes with... But unlike Roberts, Alito ain't even a decent lookin' prick... He is an ugly prick... You know, the kind that no girls would go out with... I was lookin' at the replays tonight and that man is so ugly he'd make a freight train jump tracks and take a dirt road.... Now that is one ugly prick... Sho nuff butt ugly... Must have had compromising piccures of his professors to get thru his law classes... Prime example that shit floats... Hey, I knew that Roberts was liein' at the confirmation hearings but, hey... ...Alito??? He'sumber than Clarence Thomas and, if I didn't mention it, butt ugly to boot... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:27 PM More from PEN: "This the second in a series of action alerts about the fundamental willful and pernicious errors underlying the decision by 5 agenda driven right wing judges on the Supreme Court to gut all restraints on corporate meddling in our elections. Each of these successive alerts will analyze additional derelict aspects of this shameful and truly dangerous decision, to further demonstrate why we the people must speak out and act to reverse it. In the first alert we made the triable case (which no attorney has written us to dispute) that failing to even bother to distinguish between domestic and foreign owned corporations, and knowingly leaving America vulnerable to the latter BY their ruling, was de facto an act of treason by The Supreme Court 5. This alert will focus on the abandonment of every prudent rule of judicial review, in favor of haste and the most extreme form of judicial activism, again with specific page number references to the opinion itself. There are TWO critical action pages related to this, which we are asking each of our participants to submit and also pass on to everyone you know, which will send your message by fax to all your own members of Congress, and President Obama too. You do not need your own fax machine to participate, the action pages do all this for you automatically in real time. Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5 http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php The most bedrock principle of appellate review is that first an appellant must have PRESERVED the issue for appeal, by arguing and getting a ruling on the point of law from the court below, necessitating fact finding by the lower court to create a "record". Innumerable appellants since the beginning of time have had the door to review slammed in their face with the admonition that if they HAD preserved the issue then and only then could a higher court review it. And in particular, appellate courts have traditionally been loathe to making their own findings of fact (and only in a corrective way) absent very clear error by the Court below, which is as it should be. The role of a higher court is to apply the law to the facts, and make rulings of what the LAW is, not make their own findings of fact. And this is supremely true of the Supreme Court. So even beyond the outrageousness of the result, it is at least outrageous the way it was reached, and how that reach was justified. As justification, The Supreme Court 5 asserted that some legal emergency existed requiring a broader inquiry in this case, resurrecting a claim already ABANDONED by the appellant in the court below (opinion p. 12). Why directly overturning precedents at least 20 years old would suddenly be such an emergency they do not explain. And when you actually read the opinion, the only pressure really on the Supreme Court was because so-called Citizens United was bound to LOSE on the case they did preserve (opinion pp. 10-11). The Supreme Court 5 wanted that party to win. This was in itself an over the top act of judicial activism. But even beyond that they were hell bent on undoing as much as 100 years of campaign finance regulation (Stevens' dissent p. 3). Even the most conservative commentators agree this is what they have in fact done. Appellate courts have been known on occasion to comment (in no binding way) that if an appellant HAD made a particular argument they might have been receptive to it, a kind of higher court invitation for someone to bring an actual case, an actual "controversy". And then there would be a factual record in some subsequent case. But here there was no controversy on the issue on which the ruling was based, for it had already been WAIVED a priori, thereby denying the Supreme Court any jurisdiction to rule on it (Consitution Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). But even further assuming that the Supreme Court was justified in reopening a can of worms already discarded, the appropriate procedure would have been to return the case to the lower court with instructions, what is called a "remand", and which is done all the time after a ruling of LAW, for the court below to make findings of fact and conduct further proceedings, so that there would be a factual record for them to review, should the appellant wish to appeal to the higher court again in the case of an unfavorable ruling by the lower court. All these prudent judicial things are exactly what the Supreme Court 5 did NOT do. Instead, they called for hurry up further briefing on the new question of law THEY wanted to rule on (Stevens' dissent p. 4), in a vacuum of insufficient facts to make those arguments of law. Instead, they set a scary new purported standard of review that says they basically can make rulings on any point of law THEY want to raise, whether developed in a lower court by an appellant or not. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:47 PM I don't like the Rebubs or Democraps Yes of course you don't. And the bile you spill here at Mudcat is 99.99% right-leaning. So don't give any bullshit about bullshit. We know which cheek you're leaning on as you press the mess. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:43 PM Bobert, You gotta' be kiddin' me! I don't like the Rebubs or Democraps, but regardless, that speech was just so much bullshit!..I was hoping he'd at least acknowledge some goof ups, but he sat there and bullshat every other line!..But I do admit, that it was a great 'rallying' speech...it was just too full of false information....virtually every topic he bought up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM What mouse said, GfS... Yer colors are showin' thru again... Reminiscent of the campaign days... Not too sure what it is you believe but it don't smelll nuthin' like left of center... Closet rightie stuff, me thinks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:34 PM Ultraconservative thinks Obama was lying through his teeth. In other hard-to-believe news, Ursine defecation reported in sylvan setting; Pontiff declared member of Roman Catholic church; and US Supreme Court shills for international business interests. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:15 PM Don T: "No, I didn't think so. Good, bad, or indifferent, makes no nevermind to the GOP. They just strangle it, the way they've strangled the economy, and the truth." The Republicans didn't give the 'state of the union' speech....and you're blaming them for strangling the truth???????? Tell me..just tell me you believed the content of that speech! You and I, and about every political commentator, on both sides, know that he was lying through his teeth...REPEATEDLY! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:08 PM ""So it involves compromise--and horsetrading (if only among Democrats.) This is not new--ever heard of "logrolling"? The poster's attitude sounds like a wonderful example of the problem cited in the "Friends Like This" thread. Compromise may well be necessary--it's called politics--and accomplishing something. Doesn't seem to be a main goal here below the line."" You might not be aware of this Ron, but compromise is supposed to be a two way street. You know! Each side gives a little and you get to where both are reasonably happy. Tell me Ron, can you show any single example of the repubs compromising on this, or any, Democrat initiative? No, I didn't think so. Good, bad, or indifferent, makes no nevermind to the GOP. They just strangle it, the way they've strangled the economy, and the truth. I can see it from 3000 miles away. Why can't you, when the smell is right under your nose? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:48 PM I was gonna post a clever editorial cartoon about the Supreme Court, but it hardly seems worth injecting into this love-fest... Oh, well... for those who might like a little giggle Danziger on the Roberts Court there... now we return you to the snarling already in progress. (who, me? cynical?... nawwwwww..) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM I like Ron and Carol... So there... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM I wonder if the Democrats object to the union contributions..all $64,000,000 of them??????..just for Obama!!!??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM Handing a billion dollars to the guy/gal on your left at the board room table is NOT redistribution of wealth. As for Ron, I think he's a reasonable guy darned near all the time. IMO, which may not be your O. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:39 PM Amos, I was not conversing or debating with Ron at all. He just lit into me with a gratuitous personal attack. Or rather, a long series of them. Just because you have never been the target of his viciousness does not mean that he is not vicious. It just means that you have never been the target of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:36 PM Can Wal-Mart be banned from making campaign contributions because they are simply a shill for China? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:29 PM I have never had the difficulties you describe conversing with Ron Davies, and do not find him to be vicious OR little. Perhaps more dialogue and less invective would produce better progress...from both your houses. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:18 PM That's true. Redistribution of wealth always seems to work just fine when it's going from the bottom to the top. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: dick greenhaus Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:55 PM "Where has any "attempt to redistribute the wealth" succeeded?" Well, the Bush tax cuts certainly redistributed a good deal of wealth--from the middle class up to the wealthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:53 AM Amen, LH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:24 AM You have described perfectly the problem in (and the futility of) having internet conversations with Ron Davies, Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:06 AM There is no need or help derived from being angry with hypnotized subjects. While they chose to acquiese to repeated exposure to media designed to shape thier mental pictures and word choices regarding desired corporate messages, they are not expressing a true personally held response or opinion. Learning for themselves or learning from experience is all that is needed to break the programing. Lets hope they do not need to learn from tragic personal experience. No one here really wishes for cruelty, pain and suffering to befall the misinformed, just to prove a point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:45 AM "Clearly they don't--or they wouldn't be having so much trouble getting their bills passed in the Senate." This is simplistic, defeatist--and for some posters on Mudcat, a fairly typical attitude. You're a vicious little man, Ron Davies. You don't give a crap about getting health care to those who need it. You only care about feeding your insatiable appetite for abusing people and making personal attacks. I did not say the Democrats should stop trying. That fiction only exists in your little mind. 1) The Senate has in fact passed its own health care bill. So it involves compromise--and horsetrading (if only among Democrats.) This is not new--ever heard of "logrolling"? The poster's attitude sounds like a wonderful example of the problem cited in the "Friends Like This" thread. Compromise may well be necessary--it's called politics--and accomplishing something. Doesn't seem to be a main goal here below the line. As it happens, Ron, and you would know this had you actually ever bothered to read what I have said on the subject, I have been supporting the passage of the Senate bill, in the absence of a better alternative. Since I am one of the fifty million people without access to health care, even the Senate bill is an improvement over what I have now. It's not all theoretical for me, unlike you. MY life depends on it, so it is a very real issue for me. But you haven't bothered to notice my stance on this issue, because you are much too busy compulsively hurling insults at and bullying as many people as you possibly can, as often as you possibly can. Get a life, Mr. Davies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:09 PM On topic but not. I think there isn't a trustable, credible OR worthwhile political party left in the US. Screw the Democrats--who did it to themselves, and the Republicans who did it to everybody else. It's the fabric of American democracy that is getting f$$$$d now. When you lose that you'll have lost it all, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:05 PM Boss Hogg's Redistribution of wealth ain't workin': Morgan Stanley forecasts the devaluation will push inflation to a 14-year high of 45 percent this year from 27 percent in 2009, the fastest pace among 78 economies tracked by Bloomberg. Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is selling dollars from central bank reserves for the first time in six years in what Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Barclays Plc say is a futile bid to shore up the bolivar in unregulated trading. The central bank, under orders from Chavez to "burn the hands" of speculators betting against the bolivar, said it sold $179 million since Jan. 13, the first dollar auctions since trading restrictions imposed in 2003 spawned the unofficial market. Chavez said on Jan. 15 he wanted to strengthen the bolivar more than 30 percent in unregulated trading, where it fetches 6.2 per dollar, to contain inflation after he devalued the official rate as much as 50 percent to 4.3. The plan will fail because Chavez's nationalizations and land seizures are prompting Venezuelans to pull money from the country, said Alberto Ramos, a Goldman Sachs economist. More than $93 billion has left the South American nation since 2005, according to the central bank's capital account data. "You have a problem that can't be resolved by throwing reserves at it, "Ramos said in a phone interview from New York. Venezuelans "pay a huge premium to get their assets out of the country, out of the reach of the government, so that they can't confiscate them," he said. "Under that situation, $20 billion, $50 billion or $100 billion is not enough. The entire capital stock of the economy could leave." Phone calls to the Finance Ministry seeking comment weren't returned. A central bank spokeswoman said no one was available to comment when contacted by Bloomberg News. Cargill, Exxon, Cemex The 55-year-old former Army lieutenant colonel has nationalized the oil, cement, steel, and utilities industries while seizing rice plants from Cargill Inc. and retail stores this month from French-Colombian run Hipermercado Exito in a bid to transform the country into a state-run socialist economy. Venezuela faces international arbitration hearings from Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest U.S. energy company, and Cemex SAB, the biggest cement maker in the Americas, over nationalized assets. Companies and individuals in Venezuela, the fourth-biggest supplier of oil to the U.S., turn to the unregulated market to buy dollars when they can't get authorization from the government to make the purchases at the official rate. Devaluation Demand in the unofficial market swelled last year as the government said it cut the amount of dollars provided at the fixed exchange rate by 38 percent to preserve foreign reserves after crude tumbled 54 percent in 2008. Private companies bought about 30 percent of their imports in 2009 with dollars acquired in the unregulated market, according to Asdrubal Oliveros, an economist at Caracas-based Ecoanalitica. On Jan. 8, Chavez devalued the bolivar for the first time since 2005, saying he aimed to shore up a slumping economy by stimulating exports and cutting imports. He weakened the official exchange rate by 17 percent to 2.6 per dollar for "essential" imports and by 50 percent to 4.3 for "nonessential" items. Morgan Stanley forecasts the devaluation will push inflation to a 14-year high of 45 percent this year from 27 percent in 2009, the fastest pace among 78 economies tracked by Bloomberg. The central bank began selling dollars in the unregulated market on Jan. 13, driving the bolivar up 10 percent to 5.87 per dollar in the first week after the devaluation. Those gains prompted Chavez to say on Jan. 15 that he was "revaluing" the bolivar, not devaluing it, and that he planned to drive the unofficial rate to 4.3 per dollar. 'Un-nameable' Chavez picked up a copy of local newspaper El Mundo during the speech to point out a headline that highlighted the bolivar's rally, a sign he's backing off the 2007 law he signed that prohibited the media from publishing the unregulated rate or mentioning it on the radio. The rate, known as the "un- nameable" among Venezuelans, has begun appearing in other newspapers since the speech. Read more |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:39 PM Where has any "attempt to redistribute the wealth" succeeded? LH: You forgot to mention Bobert's Boss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:12 PM "Clearly they don't--or they wouldn't be having so much trouble getting their bills passed in the Senate." This is simplistic, defeatist--and for some posters on Mudcat, a fairly typical attitude. 1) The Senate has in fact passed its own health care bill. So it involves compromise--and horsetrading (if only among Democrats.) This is not new--ever heard of "logrolling"? The poster's attitude sounds like a wonderful example of the problem cited in the "Friends Like This" thread. Compromise may well be necessary--it's called politics--and accomplishing something. Doesn't seem to be a main goal here below the line. 2) Also, the parallel of curbs on large corporate contributions on one hand with the health care problem on the other is a false one. Various factors in the health care bill, in addition to "Tea Party" sentiment, include unions against taxation of their benefits, women's groups opposing curbs on abortion financing and liberals who insist on a "public option" to support the bill. In addition, the opposition to the health care bill has claimed the "populist" mantle--(though it should be obvious this is a hijacking.) But in the case of corporate financing the populist label clearly fits the proponents of restricting such financing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:01 PM Funny you should mention Amos's ilk. It's a terribly spoiled pet, that ilk, and it follows him about everywhere, sits panting and drooling and hanging on his every word, and that spurs him on to further bloviation. It's a vicious circle. If the ilk, disgusting little thing that is, had been given proper ilk training when it was young, it would behave much more sensibly, and so would Amos. A poorly trained ilk is nothing but a nuisance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:30 PM Amos: Fortunately for your ilk, you know everything and no one else's opinion is valid in the shadow of your superior intellect. But who is the one crying the blues? Percentages, stats, numbers, wasn't it Bobert who said none of that means anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:19 PM Q, who said ANYTHING about income tax? The fact is the wealth is being wrung out of the system and is hiding in the far right, more and more. Normal people lose good jobs and replace them, if at all, with inferior jobs. While the rich get richer. Working wage jobs fly across the borders. While the rich get richer. Families find it harder and harder to remain in their homes and maintain their standard of living. While the rich get richer. And when this gets pointed out, the response is, "Why can't you little people pay more income tax?" It boggles the mind. The next revolution is coming. Maybe not in my lifetime. But in my kids'. And will it be well-deserved. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM Wikipedia, Distribution_of_wealth: 2001 year end, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. In 2003, the top 1% paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest income paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue. (Looks like the sad sacks of the lower 50% could pay more.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:33 PM In 1982 the upper 5% controlled 59% of the wealth... Today the upper 5% controls 79% of the wealth... That's what all this is about, Sawz... Every attempt to redistribute the wealth is headed off by a bunch of ignorant puppets that Boss Hog has a PHD in manipulating to blame "liberals" for their plight??? Ignorance is bliss... Well, if one can enjoy bliss while seein' their own quality of life being chizzeled away by who else but Boss Hog hisself... That's the real deal here be it health care reform, rights to vote to join unions without being intimidated or supportin' candidates who are routinely dismissed as elitists by Boss Hog... But not to fear... This is history repeating itself... There is a tippin' pint where the Boss Hogs of the world can't come up with a new and improved believable lie... We're gettin' there rapidly... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jan 10 - 06:45 PM "Republicans to offer a reasonable alternative" And pigs might fly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:52 PM Amos, you rhetoricly sully the antique richness of Sepia tones. But thats OK, it makes a point. LH Suppose if all the resources spent on all of our "little" (wars be they direct wars or indirect) had been spent constructively by building up the people whose interests we wanted to align with ours. We still would have won but with much less death and revenge. Vikings were the nomads of the sea and rivers. Some of their gangs were, how should I say, too invested in a self interest for anyone's good. Dear folks who are right of Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who is an attentive student in the bipartisan approach that the Health care reform bill was begun can see it started in the middle and went so far right that the current reform serves Insurance companies to make many more billions of dollars than they make today. But thats not good enough if Obama were allowed to get any credit for it. Remember its more important to make this issue his Watterloo than help sick people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM So why work on changing anything? The world has already ended. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:33 PM For people in Third World countries which have been invaded by the USA the sky fell a long time ago...courtesy of both the Democrats and the Republicans, because they serve the same ma$ter$. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jan 10 - 02:52 PM look for the Republicans to offer a reasonable alternative in 2012. You mean look for the Republicans to kill off any current attempt at providing decent health care, and to do bugger-all about it in 2012, don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM The 'sky is falling' mentality will reach its apogee when Scott Brown is elected president in 2012, and no doubt will continue in the decades to come. It is unfortunate that Hilary Clinton was defeated in her bid for the nomination; her ability to mediate differences is sadly lacking in the present occupant. The Democratic health bill is dead unless it is modified to attract opponents in Congress; look for the Republicans to offer a reasonable alternative in 2012. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:40 PM Sawz: I greatly admire the philosophical principle you pretend to be speaking from. Unfortunately this two-tone, wide and shallow view of existence is inadequate to the issues. In case you hadn't noticed, industrialization, urbanization, the rise of corporate power, and the intensity of connection across the coutnry and planet, has generated a series of situations which tend to fight against the individual in ways that make the staunch self-reliance which you preach an insufficient solution. Your answer to health care, for example, is "Don't get sick. Don't grow old, or you might get sick. If you do get sick, please die quietly." Unfortunately for your ilk, the breadth of human experience is deeper and broader than this cheap sepia world view. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:16 PM Bobert in the true spirit of the victim mentality, is already building a cover for the loss of Democratic seats in the next election. No, it wasn't anything the Dems did, They can do no wrong. It was the supreme court, packed by Republican presidents. Therefore it is the evil Republicans that might possibly take power illegally. People can decide if they want to be a winner or not. Just drop the "I'm a victim" mentality and get a life of your own. Don't let your perceived enemies control your life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:04 AM Speaking of the Times, their editorial on the SCOTUS parody includes this dry, sharp remark: "In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but "will, I fear, do damage to this institution." History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court's conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections. Congress and members of the public who care about fair elections and clean government need to mobilize right away, a cause President Obama has said he would join. Congress should repair the presidential public finance system and create another one for Congressional elections to help ordinary Americans contribute to campaigns. It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns. These would be important steps, but they would not be enough. The real solution lies in getting the court's ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy. " A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:01 AM I commend anyone who reads the NYT. It shows a thirst to learn. When learning about capitalism it is important to know there is a spectrum of capitalism. To be truly knowledgable regarding the current practice of capitalism, one needs to read NYT contributor Robert Reich's book 'Super Capitalism'. There is a difference between capitalism in the 17 and 1800's and today. apples and oranges ladies and gentlemen apples and oranges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:45 AM That's right... A dollar never produced one danged thing... ...and 200!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 27 Jan 10 - 02:26 AM Amen, Greg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:25 PM Yesiree, that old free-market capitalist Abe Lincoln who said: Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never had existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - first annual message to Congress, 3 Dec 1861 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:13 PM I don't have anything against the Vikings, Donuel. ;-) They've given us some pretty neat movies, after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:07 PM Q : [[I'll trust the NY Times (which I quoted) before I'll put any faith ins statements by the usual left wing crowd posting here. The US and Canada were built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln, who rejected the idea that class lines divided the national economy. They championed banks and traders and entrepreneurs, because a strong capitalist economy creates jobs. ]] There is a difference between "capitalism" and "the free enterprise system." Unregulated capitalism, in fact, almost inevitably leads to monopolies, which drive small businesses out of the market -- and not by continuing to provide the best products & services for the best price. Capitalism has more to do with 'earning' your living by holding & trading stock in other businesses than with starting and running your own business and creating jobs. In fact, a lot of the "growth" in our capitalist system over the past couple of decades has been achieved by "downsizing" and/or by shipping jobs to countries that exploit and abuse both workers and the environment. A big problem with "banks" today in the US is that the investment (i.e., "gambling") banks have been able to merge with ordinary banks (that make money by managing people's checking and savings accounts, rather than market speculation). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:52 PM What have you got against Vikings. Those arrogant raping restless pillaging bastards happen to be my dear ancestors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:41 PM Yes, you're right. I just mean that its earliest beginnings were about 500 years ago, when the first European explorers (other than the Vikings) began to arrive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:36 PM Little Hawk it took about 150 years, 200 years, 300 years...regarding extinction of the passenger pidgeon Loss of the Buffalo Herd And last but not least THE DUST BOWL All I am saying is that it took consideralby less than 500 years to exploit the land into oblivion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:17 PM That's a valid point, Little Hawk. I think you also made it in an earlier thread. I think it was the combination with the exponential growth of capitalism. The concept of manifest destiny, and conquest of northern Mexico and the Louisiana and Alaska purchases also factor in. But the capitalist mindset, borrowed from its European origins, I place at the top of the list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 10 - 06:34 PM Q - I think that what made both Canada and the USA very prosperous was the availability of a simply vast amount of unspoiled land rich in national resources of every kind and populated by relatively few Native people who were quickly displaced by the mainly European influx of people who set out to exploit this land we live on. They could not HELP but prosper! It has taken about 500 years for the rapidly expanding population of North America to reach the point where their furious exploitation of those fortunately positioned natural resources has reached the point where the natural systems around them are now breaking down. It's a spectacular example of not being able to see any farther than the end of your own nose while busily expanding "the economy" and making lots of money. It can't continue much longer in that fashion...and this planet no longer provides an unspoiled "New World" to invade and exploit in that manner. I hardly see it as the justification of the brilliance of capitalism! I see it rather as the end conclusion of a now bankrupt philosophy which pitted man against Nature by trying to put him outside it and above it, instead of placing him sensibly within it as just one creature who is a small part of Nature and who must follow Nature's ways to find himself a secure longterm future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jan 10 - 06:18 PM I'll trust the NY Times (which I quoted) before I'll put any faith ins statements by the usual left wing crowd posting here. The US and Canada were built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln, who rejected the idea that class lines divided the national economy. They championed banks and traders and entrepreneurs, because a strong capitalist economy creates jobs. The financial markets channeled jobs to the poor, the immigrant, and made America the prosperous land that it is. (I don't watch Genie; not getting any kicks out of being a stalker. And her posts show a lack of understanding of the modern global society.). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:43 PM watch and learn Q qoute "Will the fat cats (unions and corporations and large pension funds, etc.) be able to give money to candidates or political parties? NO. Bans were not overturned by the decision noCan corporate money be spent directly with candidates or political parties?NO Monies spent in collaboration with candidates or parties are treated as contributions and are banned.Can the corporate and union spending be secret?NO Corporate and union spenders must file with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of spending anything." ALL THE ABOVE ARE UNTRUE unbelievable even for Q Simply remember that Corporations are not corporations anymmore THEY ARE PEOPLE ! just because Rush Limbaugh spews something dosn't make it true q |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:32 PM What channel, Donuel??? Yeah, dick... Yer right... I don't think that Robert's and Company thought about Ceazer Chavez... Boy, I would have loved to have seen some of his ads in the 2004 election on Bush!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: dick greenhaus Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:27 PM AS I read the bill. it opens the door for political advertising by such staunch Americans interests as Venezuela (Citgo), China (Walmart), Russia (whatever the hell their oil comapny's name is). Talk about One- Worldism |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM In a Q world where nothing matters and nothing can be done, I wonder how Q finds the time to post when there are re-runs of 'I Dream of Genie' that he should be watching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:53 PM Actaully, I read an interesting op-ed in the Post today by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers entitled, "A Hatch Act replay to the High Court"... Their premise is that the only law that Congress would have to enact would be one where corporations that are also governemtn contractors could not spend money on campaigns at all... Hmmmmmmm??? That makes sense... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM "I fear that many have become "brainwashed" into trusting specific people or news sources . . .". In most cases that's overkill. A light rinse would do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM So much talk about a decision that changes little. Will the fat cats (unions and corporations and large pension funds, etc.) be able to give money to candidates or political parties? NO. Bans were not overturned by the decision. Can corporate money be spent directly with candidates or political parties? NO Monies spent in collaboration with candidates or parties are treated as contributions and are banned. Can the corporate and union spending be secret? NO Corporate and union spenders must file with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of spending anything. Will there be a sudden, large increase in funds? Doubtful. FEC receives reports on the monies spent. Twenty-six - 26 - states and D. C. already permit independent spending by corporations, unions, etc. Nothing is done by the decision that is contrary to the First Amendment. The NY Times has a good column today on the ruling. Jan Witold Baran, "Stampede Toward Democracy," NT Times, Jan. 26, 2010. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Arkie Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM I live among people who are intelligent and extremely kind hearted but they have a variety of "fears" that are easily exploited. I fear that many have become "brainwashed" into trusting specific people or news sources and they support wholeheartedly people who do not have their best interest in mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:18 PM Actually, I think that most people are not stupid...and that's true everywhere...but if they simply don't have adequate information or if they are provided with a steady flow of misleading or false information...then they become ignorant. "Ignorant" does not mean "stupid". It just means you don't know something you need to know, that's all. The American public is kept ignorant by their politicians and their mass media, and that's all that is required in order to effectively control a people. Just keep them ignorant, control the flow of information to maintain that degree of ignorance, and you can shape public opinion any way you want to shape it. You can get a majority of the people to enthusiastically support policies that are directly opposed to their own real interests...if they don't understand the situation, due to ignorance of what is actually going on and ignorance of the possible alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:18 AM So it wouldn't matter whether they were stupid or not. They would simply be without adequate information. And then there are those- a frighteningly large number - that are both uninformed AND stupid- like someone we all know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:57 AM Carol C: I guess I have greater confidence in the American voter than you do. Were China, or Russia, or Iran, or any other country purchase or establish a company solely to control our elections it would not remain secret very long. The American people aren't stupid. As things stand right now, DougR, there wouldn't be any way for them to know who was pumping that money into the elections. So it wouldn't matter whether they were stupid or not. They would simply be without adequate information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:01 PM The ol' sayin' "garbage in, garbage out" is a fair assessment of the American voter, Dougie... They ain't stupid people but they is sho nuff eat up ignorant... And that's what I don't understand about you conservatives... You keep thinkin' that the American electorate is all that capable but there's never a "Bigass Lie" that yer side tells that all of ya' don't get behind in pushin'... How the Hell do you expect the voters to make the correct choices when ya'll try to feed 'um such a steady diet of bullshit??? Jus' curious on that one... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:02 PM The American people aren't stupid. They don't all have to be. Just enough. Two words: Teabaggers. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:56 PM Carol C: I guess I have greater confidence in the American voter than you do. Were China, or Russia, or Iran, or any other country purchase or establish a company solely to control our elections it would not remain secret very long. The American people aren't stupid. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:32 PM It's way past time for another revolution, Capt'n... But I think that until Southern man figures out just who hand it is in his pocket that that ain't gonna happen... But being a Southern I will say that Southerners are alot like big tankers... Real slow to turn around but once ya' get 'um turned around they are equally slow to be turned back around... But if the Repubs continue on their present course they are going to get that tanker turned around on them... Then the fun will begin... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:33 PM DougR, I posted that satire alert just for people like you who have no capacity to recognize irony or satire. My point is that the Supreme Court decision can benefit people like Chavez just as much as it can benefit the big fat cats who live here in the US. And as was pointed out by Donuel earlier, it can also give communist countries like China a large say in our elections. All they have to do is incorporate some kind of business here in the US and they can pump as much money into our elections as they want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:21 PM Carol C.: "Hugo Chavez for president," huh? Well, it looks like your hero may be out of a job pretty soon so maybe you should try to convince him to throw his hat into the ring as a "left-leaning" liberal in 2012. Of course he would have to doctor up some fake documents making it possible for him to run, but that should be no difficult for a fine upstanding man like him. I think you may enjoy reading an article by the deputy editor of the Washington Post in today's edition. The header for the story is, "How Hugo Chavez's revolution crumbled." The second paragraph states, "Hugo Chavez.s socialism for the 21'st century has been defeated and is on it's way to collapse." He could advertise that he runs slightly to the left of Obama. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: pdq Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:44 PM "...in the American Congress he would be chopped up and served in antipasto!" Or perhaps served in a Cesar salad? Oops, wrong Chavez... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM *satire alert* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:31 PM Hugo- shut down the opposition and full steam ahead- a man after my own heart. But in the American Congress he would be chopped up and served in antipasto! (But at least he wouldn't end up being half-baked) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:18 PM Hugo Chavez for president! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: kendall Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:56 PM Is it time for another revolution? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 09:54 PM NEW slip opinion by Scalia and Stevens (slip opinions are added days later) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:03 PM Carol C: Touche. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:01 PM Carol C: Is that how assassins work? Phone rings: ring, ring, ring, (intended victim picks up) "Hello?" Assassin says, "Where you? I'm gonna kill you!" Victim:"I'm right here but I think you have the wrong number." Assassin:"You DougR, conservative?" Victim: "That's me alright." Assassin:"Well I'm just calling to tell you I'm gonna kill you." Victim:"How you gonna do it?" Assassin:"I'm gonna talk you to death!" I doubt it's done that way Carol. You didn't say assassination, Doug. You said "assignation". An assignation is either the act of assigning something, or it is an appointment for a meeting. Most commonly, and appointment to meet with a lover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:53 PM Grayson is a nut. If he's going to get anything done, he better do it fast because I think he is definitely heading back to Florida next November. It will be interesting, though, to see how many Democrats sign on to his bill(s). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:47 PM As long as America has silly rules like elections, the ruling class of corporate America needs more votes than they actually represent so this latest ruling will insure they stay in the game. This ruling is the greatest game changer since the Bush Administration, 9-11, and market collapse. The only way it could be worse is if the Constitution were changed so that there would be no direct elections of Congress or President. Instead the Governors of each State would appoint Senators and representatives. Then only Congress would elect a President. That way Corporations could spend even less to buy Govenors and they in turn would appoint corporate shills to office. I have now written 100 posts from from serious and comical vantage points on this matter. I have expressed all that I forsee as a result of this SCOTUS ruling and even one from my late father on this matter. I now take my leave and wish you all good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM Funny, a post of mine vanished. It said "Greg, Greg, Al Qaeeda or the Taliban" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM AMERICANS All of you, Please move one seat down! OK Corporations you sit here...You are now offically and legally FIRST Class citizens. Republicans over here...thats right you are now 1.5 class citizens... and the Demoncrats way over there...you are SECOND Class citizens..."Yes Mr Speilburg you too" Now please stay in your seats...except for the Corporate folks, you may now attend the Goverment banquet. Later a cold cut buffet will be available to the Republicans. Thank you for your obedience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:00 PM The US troops have a bit of a love hate relationship with the blackwater type mercenaries who make 10 - 50 times more money and can never be court marshalled. But the private army for hire guys usually come from ex US military. ITs the classic love of country vs. love of corporation divide going on. So... Maybe the US troops will invade rolleyes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM Who's gonna invade? Switzerland? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 03:31 PM Alas since I am not US resident I cannot sign. But, hey, since the US people are being denied fair elections, would a regime change invasion be justifiable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 03:26 PM [Hill Billy Response] I jus heered that Corpoorashuns are now offishully human beans Wuts good fer the goose is good fer the gander. Nother wurds, Iffn Copoorashuns are people, then I am a Corpoorashun!! That means iffn I git drug to court I kin tie people up in court 2. That means I kin git welfare an be proud ofit. That means I kin now be tax free with a post office box in ma headqarters in Barbados. That means I git propurty tax breaks fer providin jobs, hey Missy slop them hogs. That means I git to go to Vegas and gamble with other peepoles muney, an iffn I lose the gubmint pays me back! That means Sinators are gonna hafta do whut I say. I git to lie cheat an steel an iffn I git caught I git a slap on the rist. Key Riist ona craker!! That means Me & God are like stink on sheeit. That means I kin never die, I am a immortal. but hmmm it mite also mean I got no soul ;( D Hakman 1 20 2010 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:53 PM sign the petition here to reverse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM Amos, those proposals fly in the face of the New World Order. The Multinationals will not take this lyng down. First the proposals will be ignored. This is not the stuff FOX or CNN would normally cover. IF that does not work... the people behind these proposals will be marginalized and derided as insane fringe conspiracy nuts who deserve nothing but our laughter. Then the leftist group will be sanctioned by court order and harrassed or dealt with extreme predjudice. Do not count on any right wing support since tea baggers are funded by Dick Army's Lobbying firm and FOX news while most Republicans get thier bacon from Insurance and DDrug companies. They both want huge corporate contributions. As for impeaching 5 Supreme Court Justices for treason, besides being unprecedented, I do not know of any means to impeach a judge constitutionally. They are the ones who normally preside over impeachments. Remember Rhenquist in his custom Impeachment robe with 5 stripes on the shoulders symbolizing a power above all generals and commanders in chief? (he was a sick loon) All I know is that a decision is subject to review and possibly a reversal. I would need to research when and how this has been done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:06 PM There is one more act needed and that is to repeal the Insurance Cabal Act which allows Insurance companies to monopolize and price fix among participating Insurance Cabal members Can you imagine any laws more horrific to Mega Corp Inc. than these 5 or 6 proposals? THese are doable however... These laws have to be included in a Budget proposal or they could never get passed. Of course Republicans would seek to shut down the Goverment but Democrats could grow some balls and say "If you don't pass the budget -YOU DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS-" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM The following strongly worded exception to the SCOTUS ruling is from a left-wing group: ..."Because of the gravity of the crime against the Constitution committed by a gang of 5 right wing judicial outlaws on our Supreme Court yesterday, we are launching two critical action pages at once Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5 http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php By any fair legal definition, the decision yesterday by The Supreme Court 5 constitutes nothing less than an act of TREASON against the people of the United States. Having read and analyzed the entire 183 page decision and all of its concurring and dissenting opinions ourselves, we are fully prepared to support this accusatory conclusion. Having so grossly abused its jurisdiction by presuming to decide a question expressly WAIVED by the petitioner in the Court below (p 12), this rogue Supreme Court ruled for the FIRST time that NO corporation can be constrained from unlimited influence over our elections. And even assuming that the Court intended the decision to only apply to American corporations, the Court expressly DECLINED (pp 46-47) to reach the question of whether foreign ownership stakes in American corporations should likewise be given carte blanche to put their thumbs on the scales of our democracy. Thus, until Congress FURTHER acts (and it must, though it could not have escaped the attention of The Supreme Court 5 that the current Republican minority has vowed to obstruct ANYTHING of consequence that Congress might try to pass), there is now nothing to constrain foreign nationals, even our most sworn enemies, from usurping what even the most die hard Tea Bagger takes as an article of faith, that the rights of citizenship of this country are ONLY for Americans. This must be construed, within the four corners of our Constitution, as deliberately and knowingly exposing the United States of America to harm in the interim, by giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies (Constitution Article 3, section 3), should our enemies now wish to take advantage of this unprecedented and rash decision. In simple Constitutional terms . . . treason!! The fact is that we now live in a world of giant transnational corporations, with allegiance to NO sovereign government, let alone our own, sworn only to exploit the most vulnerable and desperate workers they can find in any country of the world. How does The Supreme Court 5 propose parsing which of these extra-national legal artificialities should be allowed to corrupt our democratic election process? Apparently in their minds, all of them. Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php So what is it that we can and MUST do? The first and most prominent proposal we heard yesterday, and which we of course support, was to amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations have no such rights as people (which is to say U.S. citizens). While this certainly could not hurt, and would obviously help (assuming such a proposed amendment could garner 67 votes in a Senate already stalemated by obstructionism, let alone be ratified by 3/4 of the states, including many "red" ones), what we must first assert is that there is nothing WRONG with our Constitution, and demand that Congress do whatever it can to protect it. Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5 http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php Because just as importantly, we are on ominous and clear notice that there is no further outrage these 5 gangsters in black robes are not gleefully and arrogantly capable of. Indeed, in his dissenting opinion (that the majority did not go far ENOUGH), Clarence Thomas characterized the decision as only a "first step" (Thomas opinion p. 1). It is worth noting that the authorship of the majority opinion is claimed by Anthony M. Kennedy, heretofore generally considered the LEAST wing nutty of the 5. Therefore, the immediate and unavoidably necessary recourse must be impeachment for all five, treason already being a high crime, otherwise the horrors yet to issue from their treacherous minds is too terrible to contemplate. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:53 PM "The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder." Congressman Grayson said. Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish: 1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges. 3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute. 4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services. 5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission legalizes the use of corporate funds in political campaigns, striking down campaign finance laws that date back more than a century. Congressman Grayson introduced the bills on January 13th, in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling. Each of the five Grayson bills is clear and concise; none is longer than four pages. "By gutting the 100-year-old Tillman Act ban on corporate contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door to political bribery and corruption on the largest scale imaginable. As Teddy Roosevelt said at the time, 'property belongs to man, and not man to property.' That's why we have federal election laws, and that's why we need them, both then and now," Congressman Grayson said. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:42 PM Remember those green plastic toy soldiers. They had US and Germans, cowboys and Indians, even McDonalds briefly had Muslim terrorists and US super Marines, I even have a collection of HO figures of Romans and Barbarians and many more varieties....but as Mousetheif points out, we have overlooked the abortion wars. Introducing... culture war toys. . teabaggers and liberals. Militia men and Mexicans. Evangelicals and Athiests. Conservatives and gynocologists and last but not least, Multinational Corporate Lawyers and poor Americans. The big money is in the accessory packs ;-} I even have a PM patent on these. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:28 PM I like the cut of Grayson's jib! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM Carol C: Is that how assassins work? Phone rings: ring, ring, ring, (intended victim picks up) "Hello?" Assassin says, "Where you? I'm gonna kill you!" Victim:"I'm right here but I think you have the wrong number." Assassin:"You DougR, conservative?" Victim: "That's me alright." Assassin:"Well I'm just calling to tell you I'm gonna kill you." Victim:"How you gonna do it?" Assassin:"I'm gonna talk you to death!" I doubt it's done that way Carol. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 10 - 12:49 PM The Grayson Bobert Act |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:43 AM BTW, ya'll... Remember the Congressman from Florida who stood up and said that the Republican Health Care Plan was for folks to "Die"??? Well, that guy is Alan Grayson (D-Fl) and he has introduced... ...the "Save Our Democracy Reform Package" (HR 4431-4435) which has 5 sensible obstickles that Congres could do that would hold the corporations (and foriegn nations) at bay... Maybe someone who does them blue-clickys could go to his web site and put up one of them things fir all to read... Purdy good ideas... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:33 AM I think the new ruling did strengthen the directive ordering donations to be linked to the ads. I don't know if corporations can launder that somehow by setting up PACs and foundations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 12:06 AM [[Are political donations, and expenditures tax deductible? That could be cured. Indeed they could be tax add-backs.]] I think at least the law could specify that political contributions -- beyond some minimal level such as $200 -- could not be counted as either business expense or deductions. [[And it would presumably not be difficult to require all television advertisements and broadcasts, and films to carry the identity of the maker and broadcaster or distributor so that the Revenue could check the costs.]] The most effective policy would be for the FCC to require that the sponsors of political ads must be identified prominently and clearly (no "Citizens For Freedom," etc.) at the BEGINNING of the ad -- pretty much like infomercials are introduced as "The following is a paid promotional program." But I like Thom Hartmann's idea even better: All office holders & candidates would have to wear patches showing the logos of their corporate sponsors, the way NASCAR drivers do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:36 PM Hugo is small beans Think in terms of Red China and WALMART !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM Yes Doug you are so important that the progressive underground sees you as an untenable threat to the world. But seriously if you are psychologicly fragile right now, allow me to show you the context from which you extracted 4 words, to dispel your anxiety of being murdered. Note how Doug has learned to edit just like Fox news. Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel - PM Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:19 PM DougR question "So, are you going to lead the charge to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution?" My answer; Not merely lead but indeed I would pull the lead charge wire First if that is your Ammendment. In other words I will gladly pull your plug when the time comes. Only a true friend would do that for you. Now you haven't answered my equally inane thread drift question. When would you like me to pull your plug? --------------------------------------------------------- note how I included the words lead charge First Ammendment It seems I left out the word repeal...oooo could that have a dark sinister meaning....only the shadow knows. Should we be worried about you? if so PM me. If not, get back to being a marvelous foil to insightful discussions and consider this the attention you needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:12 PM I think all of the people who support this decision ought to ask themselves how they would feel about Hugo Chavez being able to put as much money as he wants into our election process, which he is now able to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:08 PM Threatened with assignation ? Somebody threatened to make an appointment to meet with you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM Well, Dougie, I don't wish you no harm... I hope you live long enough to see that the Reagan Revolution was no revolution at all but a bigass money grab by the rich... And I don't think that you need to worry much about Donuel either 'cause he'd have to make it thru Flagstaff to get ya' and it's buried in snow... As for Roe v. Wade??? It's amazing how few folks even remember the realities of those days... Middle class and rich wWhite women were going to Mexico for those little vacations (wink, wink) and poor and black women were dieing in makeshift abortion shops set up in dirty rooms behind gas stations... America became disgusted by the deaths and the hypocrisy... Oh sure, we can return to those days... Heck, why not just return to the days of lynchin's while we are at it??? Or slavery??? Sure, folks clammor for the good old days but when you dust off the revisionism the good ol' days weren't all that good... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Neil D Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:57 PM The reason this wrongheaded theory of corporate personhood was made law in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company was because in 1886 railroads were the most powerful political force in America. I recommend Frank Norris's groundbreaking 1901 novel "The Octopus" for a contemporary look at the insidious nature of their influence. If corporations are persons with the rights of citizens then why don't they vote in our elections. Some have argued in this thread that to say this ruling gives corporations undue influence on our political system is to say that the American people are stupid. I won't comment on the relative intelligence of Americans but I will pass along David Ogilvie's first rule of advertising: IT WORKS. Did you ever wonder how a company (MacDonald's) can be the absolutely most successful in their industry while offering the most inferior product. It's simple. They sell the most "food" because they buy the most advertising and this applies to every commercial endeavor in the world. To say this ruling equally abets corporations and unions is a canard when corporations can outspend unions, or any other activists, hundreds to one, a point brilliantly made by Bill D's bridge example. Saying this ruling restores free speech to the USA is saying that no other nation in the world has freedom of speech because no other nation would even dream of giving corporations such overwhelming power to influence their political process. Would anyone have wanted the anti-semitic, fascist sympathizer Henry Ford to have had even more influence on our body politic in 1941. I have heard more than one commentator say this is the worst court ruling since Dred Scott. I say we are on our way to a "Brave New World". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:50 PM Just as us conservatives must live with Roe V Wade You mean we can shoot doctors that try to carry out this court ruling? Cooool! What? That's the way you conservatives live with Roe V Wade. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:26 PM I wonder, am I the only person on this forum that has been threatened with assignation for expressing a point of view? Should I be flattered? Frightened? Donuel's post dated January 22, 2010 at 05:19 PM: "When would you like me to pull your plug?" I rarely take his posts seriously, and frankly the first time I read this particular one, I just skimmed over it but today I got to thinking about it and re-read it. I have to think that not many others take his posts seriously either else I'm sure that some of my friends would have PM'd me or spoken out against such brazen stupidity but alas, I have received no words of support, nor have I noted any such posts to such effect. And to think that the forum has a very heavy population of liberals (the folks with a heart). Sigh. I hope, though this forum is populated with a lot of people with differing points of view, that we have not reached a point where outlandish offers/threats to take a life occur because somebody gets pissed off at a person for expressing an opinion. This particular thread, started by my good friend, Bobert, can only serve to allow those who are distressed by the Supreme Court decision to vent their disappointment. No problem with that. If it makes them feel better, so be it. But it IS a decision of the highest court in the land. No amount of "wishing" will undo it. The only thing one can do is live with it. Just as us conservatives must live with Roe V Wade. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM Party reform name changes Recorplican Democorpic Indicorpic Fringe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:22 PM sapper, yes, I agree...there needs to be a level playing field vis a vis finance for campaigns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:37 PM Weird, to say the least. As someone else (you?) said, Can we put them in jail? If we cannot, they are not persons. |
|
Subject: BS: John Roberts has destroyed democracy. From: Stringsinger Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:36 PM The newest ruling by the Supreme Court headed by John Roberts has effectively made legal that Corporations are "persons" and can finance political campaigns without limits on advertising and subsidizing congressional and senatorial representatives. They can literally buy votes. Welcome to the United Corporate States of America. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:27 PM The wealthy are also the few, usually and certainly in this case. A loose association of millionaires and billionaires. This is a long distance call... Don't cry, don't cry, don't cry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:25 PM Here's a very interesting segment on this subject on Olbermann. Definitely worth a listen... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#35024429 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM The wealthy are also the few, usually and certainly in this case. A loose association of millionaires and billionaires. This is a long distance call... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:14 PM On the subject of whether or not the US government is an oligarchy, I think a more accurate term would be 'plutocracy' - government by the wealthy. And for those who don't believe it already is, this Supreme Court decision will definitely make it so. Our government is a plutocratic cronyistic kleptocratic corporatocracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:03 PM Me thinks that Mr. Olson should be named "Facist of the Year" for twice setting the US back decades... Maybe centuries... What's next on his list??? Ironically, Bobert, what's next on his list is trying to make it legal for gays to marry. Sounds hard to believe, I know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:06 PM Oligarchy = governemnt by the few Well, yeah... That's what we've had for a long time... It's just now gotten better and better for that few in leaps and bounds... I agree, Donuel... The movies that corporatists could make in name of free speech is absolutely mind-boggling... They could demonize Jesus Christ, Budda and Ghandi with their money and still have spare change left in case God got in their way and needed demonizing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:51 PM It is tragic. It has happened. The Oligarchy wins even when they lose. The US treasury belongs to them, at least they think they deserve it first last and always. But now you confuse me. Are you saying there is no oligarchy with extraordinary power in the USA? If so, I say there is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:46 PM James Baker senior partner Ted Olson Jr. partner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:43 PM So, Don, please tell us why "corporate oligarchy" is not a highly charged phrase. This should be interesting. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM In the thread about this case that I started 3 months ago I had examples of the titles and kind of movies that will come pouring out on October 15th from now on. Oct 15th because its long enough before the 1st Tuesday in Nov. but soon enough to not be debunked in time. We have already seen some of the upcoming "theatrical trailers" for these election blockbusters on Glen Beck's Show but it could go far beyond even that kind of hysteria designed for optimal fear and hate ratings. 'Take Back America' -- the true life story of how terrorists plant plant Democrat politicians in Congress. 'MO ney FO und' - the true life story of the 4 trillion dollars found in off shore accounts and Swiss Banks under the name Barak Hussein Obama! 'Master Against Disease?' (MAD) How Joe Biden engineered the release of Swine FLu to enrich his Vaccine Drug Company holdings. 'Hate Gone Wild' The dramatic reinactment of the assination plots against Sarah Palin by Hillary and Barak. Goverment Fat Cats a documentary by Rush Limbaugh exposing the holdings, drug taking and lavish lifestyles of so called populists. "A Man for all Reasons" The road to Fasism in America. A Glen Beck Production. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:20 PM LH I don't know the ancestors of Scalia, Roberts or creep boy but you could be right. THIS is what really happened.... These guys on the court felt desperate that Obama actually had more campaign money than a Republican for the first time in 50 years. How could this happen!!, they said. We have to do somthing to make sure no Democrat will every have more election money than any Republican anywhere ever again !!!!!!!!!!!!!! so....they got the job done this week. it didn't have to be correct or legal since they are the law. shhh we should get Red Green's nephew to intervene and level the playing field once again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:32 PM BTW, while reading more about this case I discovered that the analogy that I used in my opening post here in regards to the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore was alot closer than I thought at the time... Remember the attorney who argued for Bush before the Court??? Same guy here... Ted Olson... Me thinks that Mr. Olson should be named "Facist of the Year" for twice setting the US back decades... Maybe centuries... What's next on his list??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Midchuck Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:28 PM Look. If the people are smart enough to ignore corporate advertising, there's no problem. If the people are dumb enough to blindly obey it, the US SHOULDN'T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:11 PM "Mute (sic!)point, the Supreme Court has just ruled there is not. ...and if the Supreme Court rules that Texans are not entitled to vote, because they are fools? Some points are "mooter" than others. I think I rather see a few more 'mute' points... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM Lies = Truth Corporations = Persons Money = Speach Didn't realize Dopuggie-Boy was such devotee of Orwell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:43 AM "First they came for the communists and I did not speak because I was not a communist Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak because I was not a Jew Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out..." I don't think it is too melodramitic here to suggest that the shot has been fired accross the bow... These facists on the Supreme CDourth are the sons and grandsons of the people who fought so hard against the New Deal... They are the part of the Republican Party that welcomed the fascists (Heritage Council) in the late 40's and early 50's... These are the people who are intent on contolling not only the United Staes but the world... I hate it that at this point in life that I'm going to have to be part of a revolution... I wasn't hoping it wold turn out so badly but it has and now I'd invite all of my brothers andf sisters to pledge to do something---anything--- to stand in the way of the facists... Hey, I'm not talking Che Guevera here but I am talking writing letters, putting up signs, organizing, demonstrating, stuffing envolpes, taking to the streets... Whatver you can do today, do it... No matter how little you think it is, just do it... The alternatives are not pretty... Think not being able to Google stuff that is any way political... That can and will happen in a facist state... Think agbout not being able to express yourself... Or being with friends who think like you... Think about what you today can say here in Mudville... That can and will all go away if the Roberts and Alitos of the world finish the job they have started... Do something today... Viva la revolution... Peace thru resistence... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:42 AM Donuel: "Ask any person if there is any difference between a corporation and a person." Mute point, the Supreme Court has just ruled there is not. Clearly there is a large difference between a corporation and a person, even in US law. Corporations are allowed to get away with things that people are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM If the current--quickly fleeting--Democratic majorities mean anything Clearly they don't, or they wouldn't be having so much trouble getting their bills passed in the Senate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:26 AM It's ridiculous, in my opinion, to legally treat either a corporation or a union as if it were a living human being. Unlike a living human being it has no mind of its own, no body of its own, no soul of its own, no moral sense of its own, and no purpose of its own...other than whatever purpose its management decides to turn it to. It's also potentially immortal! It's just an idea that someone made up, for God's sake. The laws have been shaped the way they are so that the bosses of these corporations and unions can engage in various forms of unscrupulous behaviour and graft without facing personal legal consequences...and they do it to pad their own wallets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:09 AM It looks like the ACLU is the first group to take advantage of the Supreme Court ruling: The Citizens' Voice: Noting Thursday's decision by the Supreme Court that allows corporations and unions to buy political advertising, Barletta, a Republican, said the ACLU might have released the video to influence his campaign for Congress against long-time incumbent Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke. "I find it interesting that just one day after the Supreme Court makes a ruling that allows third parties to be more active in federal elections, the ACLU has decided to spend their resources to prop up Paul Kanjorski's campaign by attacking me," Barletta wrote. Hazleton's law never took effect because of the court challenges. While the ACLU's video calls it unconstitutional, an Arizona law that penalized employers for hiring illegal aliens withstood a challenge from the ACLU in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Kobach said. Both sides in the Hazleton case await a ruling from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard an appeal of the case in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:09 AM "Corporate oligarchy" is exactly the right term, headed up by bankers. They have common interests. They work to protect those common interests. Those common interests are a direct threat to the public, the environment, small business of every kind, a properly functioning democracy, and peace. And what's it all about? Money. Money, of course, is power. If you have more money, you have more power. The one takes care of the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:51 AM In the light of day, I notice that Ron Davies still finds the term corporate oligarchy to be a highly charged exaggeration. Now I wonder why. Since what Wall street banks have done in concert is the classic definition of oligarchy it is the correct word. IF the term is somehow offensive, yet accurate, are you suggesting a stand in phrase might be more acceptable? Perhaps Bogeymen? Organized Banksters? I thought oligarchy was polite and pc. To paint a true image of the current oligarchy in power despite the recent addition of a populist President, one has to include, investment banksters, Congress, the Pentagon, the CIA, soldiers of fortune contractors, and a handfull of industrial weapon manufacturers. It would look like an octopus with a seperate head for each arm all joined at the treasury - not the president. To protect itself the first defensive move the oligarchy uses is DELAY. If for thier benefit they can delay something one year they can delay it 5 years. A remedy delayed is a remedy denied. Picture a 747 in the factory being assembled. If production stops at some point and a year later another team comes in they do not really know what is done and where to resume. The airplane has to bedisassembled befor it can go forward again. Delay usually works. We know the other tricks in thier bag but delay is the best first response that usually works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:31 AM One thing about it, corporations don't need health insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: sapper82 Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM A view from t'other side of the pond; Isn't it about time the spending on election campaigns was severely restricted? On both sides of the pond there is an ever increasing spiral of spending that leaves the parties so desperate for funding that they have, time and time again, sold their souls to rich pressure groups in a way that can only have tragic implications for democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:47 AM Are political donations, and expenditures tax deductible? That could be cured. Indeed they could be tax add-backs. And it would presumably not be difficult to require all television advertisements and broadcasts, and films to carry the identity of the maker and broadcaster or distributor so that the Revenue could check the costs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democracy? From: Genie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:25 AM I agree, Ron, that Congress needs to act as quickly as possible to enact whatever curbs they can on corporations' ability to flood political campaigns with money. (And there probably are some ways they could disincentivize excessive contributions, e.g., denying government contracts to companies that don't abide by previously set limits and using the FCC to restrict campaign ads on radio and TV.) But as David Brooks suggested this evening on The News Hour on PBS, it may be small businesses, not the Democratic Party, that will be most harmed or even destroyed by allowing the huge corporations to pour unlimited funds into political campaigns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:28 AM yeah I guess so, rules are rules. Interest group litigation is sponsored by organizations whose attorneys typically are less interested in specific legal claims than in the constitutional principles that a litigation represents. In contrast, most court cases are pursued for the benefit of the parties directly involved. In seeking their clients' immediate interests private attorneys sometimes invoke constitutional arguments, but these are incidental to the specific claims of the parties. A sponsored case, however, is often pursued in the name of a litigant even though it is initiated, financed, and supported by an organization seeking its own constitutional goals. INTEREST GROUPS are particularly attracted to cases involving constitutional principles because the judicial decisions emerging from such cases are relatively insulated from subsequent attacks by legislators and other public officials. It is arguable, of course, that group-supported litigation has always been in existence. For example, following the WAGNER (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS) ACT and other NEW DEAL legislation, litigation was managed, or otherwise assisted, by LABOR unions, trade associations, stockholder groups, and other business interests. However, the social and economic ferment of the 1960s and 1970s brought interest group litigation into sharper focus. The CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT and the VIETNAM conflict not only produced federal legislation but also stimulated new constitutional demands by litigious organizations representing women, welfare recipients, consumers, and persons resisting military service. The strategies and tactics of interest group litigants are heavily influenced by SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE and LEGAL REALISM. These philosophies hold that judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, decide controversial cases by choosing among conflicting goals and policies. Such judges do not reach results or write opinions merely by construing statutes, analogizing cases, or analyzing DOCTRINES. Instead, inquiries into judicial decision making have focused on the ways litigation is influenced by the timing of cases and the quality of the constitutional arguments reaching the appellate courts. Prototypes of interest group litigation are the cases managed by the United States Department of Justice and similar state agencies. Their attorneys select the appropriate government cases to be appealed, and by confessing error or by compromising cases brought against the government, they seek to inhibit the establishment of unfavorable precedents. Also, a federal Legal Service Corporation, independent of the Department of Justice, has become one of the principal sources for funding and supporting litigation aimed at social and economic reform. Consumers, poor people, prisoners, and other low-resource persons have been represented by government-subsidized attorneys in suits against federal and state agencies and private organizations. Besides managing their own cases, government agencies promote private interest group litigation by reimbursing attorneys who participate and intervene for them in administrative proceedings and in court cases involving ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Although strategically less favorably situated than government attorneys, those representing private interest groups are also in a position to choose cases for APPEAL and to control the flow of argument in the higher courts. Unlike government litigation, however, the legal requirements for participation in private law suits sometimes prevent an organization from suing on its own, in behalf of its members, or for a similarly situated class of people. This problem has been partially alleviated by Supreme Court decisions liberalizing rules of legal STANDING to permit lawsuits by environmentalists, taxpayers, and other special interests. Litigation activity by interest groups is visible in constitutional civil cases as well as in the criminal cause célèbre. In some of these cases attorneys representing factions of social movements vie for litigation sponsorship. The extensive publicity often connected with such cases, the constitutional issues perceived to be intertwined in the conflict, and the opportunities for fund-raising sometimes result in interest group controversies. For example, in several church-state cases attorneys representing different organizations have quarreled over the management of litigation. In the "Scottsboro" case, involving blacks accused of rape, attorneys representing civil rights organizations and those representing a communist-sponsored legal defense organization disagreed about the use of trial publicity. Ideological differences among lawyers are occasionally reflected in varying conceptions of litigation strategy. Some attorneys emphasize the importance of a complete trial record raising all possible legal issues while others concentrate on the constitutional issues. An alternative approach to a single TEST CASE is a litigation program aimed at accumulating a series of favorable decisions changing constitutional law. An incremental approach emphasizes narrow factual issues and specific claims, and groups with large legal staffs and cooperating attorneys are strategically positioned to conduct litigation in this way. Litigation programs of this kind have achieved changes in the constitutional doctrine governing racial CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, selective service, religion, and employment. In politically tinged criminal cases the less provident and unpopular groups are not likely to use incremental litigation; they usually face immediate problems of securing relief for organization leaders and raising money for their causes. For example, in the 1950s when large numbers of cases involving congressional investigations of communism reached the Supreme Court, the lion's share was controlled by lawyers who depended on individual financial contributions to sustain their legal work. When litigation is controlled by interest groups, constitutional issues are likely to be advanced and developed at the trial level. The "perfecting of a trial record" also gives the adversaries an opportunity to debate broader issues that are likely to be considered on appeal. The development of a "good" trial record facilitates the preparation of appellate briefs interlaced with statistical and authoritative bibliographical references to social and economic facts supporting particular constitutional arguments. This technique was first used in the early-twentieth-century social legislation cases, and it has been used to illuminate fields ranging from racial equality to abortion. Similar forms of extralegal argument are found in complex court cases involving PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION and other economic matters. (See BRANDEIS BRIEF.) Besides expanding the scope of their arguments, interest group attorneys have become increasingly adept at coordinating litigation by discouraging the appeal of inconsistent cases or those with less developed records. They have also been successful in getting publication of sympathetic views in legal, scholarly, and popular journals. Networks of attorneys and other observers have also emerged to monitor court decisions and keep central clearinghouses informed about promising court cases. Sometimes the immediate concerns of the litigants may conflict with those of the sponsoring interest group. A litigant's claim may be compromised or settled. Legal issues advanced by the parties may be formulated so as to avoid the constitutional issues raised by the sponsor. Also, the trial and appellate preparation may be a labor of love, or the work-product of an attorney who jealously guards his professional prerogatives. A failure to control a litigation does not necessarily mean that an interest group lacks influence. When the issues defined in court are narrow, or the litigant's attorney has failed to develop the case's constitutional implications, an interest group attorney can still participate as AMICUS CURIAE (friend of the court). Nowhere has this phenomenon been more visible than in the medical school admission case, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE (1978). In this case fifty-seven organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court. Although some interest group attorneys will refrain from submitting such briefs when a client's attorney adequately has argued the constitutional issues, the filing of such a brief does serve the political function of announcing the group's support for a constitutional argument. Amicus curiae participation usually requires the consent of both parties or the approval of the court, and the influence of either briefs or ORAL ARGUMENTS as amicus remains debatable. Even though interest group litigation is growing, part of the increase is attributable to government legal services and private foundation philanthropy. If government support is curtailed and private foundations are subjected to closer tax scrutiny, individual contributions and voluntary legal services will be called upon to fill the gap. Such a decline in government support seems likely since some judges and political leaders have expressed concern about government-sponsored litigation directed against public officials. They also criticize lawyers who represent causes rather than clients and overburden the judicial process. Other factors affecting the growth of interest group litigation are the strictness of enforcement of traditional restrictions on the scope of law suits (see INSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION) and the rules governing the award of attorneys' fees to interest group attorneys. Finally, no description of interest group litigation would be complete without noting that many highly publicized civil cases and "showcase" criminal trials as well as ordinary law cases are financed and carried forward without the participation of organized interest groups. The constitutional and policy arguments advanced by attorneys in these cases, in many instances, are just as likely to advance the development of legal and constitutional doctrine. NATHAN HAKMAN (1986) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:26 AM Donuel: "Ask any person if there is any difference between a corporation and a person." Mute point, the Supreme Court has just ruled there is not. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:39 PM Stevens' rebuttal is brilliant and very much to the point. It makes me embarrassed to have even repeated Scalia's assertion that the decision defended the first amendment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:48 PM btw this case was never ever about censoring books. that was the buzz spin that made the talking point rounds one week, similar to the buzz that WMD's were found in the sand outside Saddam's Palace. Spin is designed to disarm people for at least two seconds as their jaws drop from the enormity of a grandiose lie, which is just long enough for the speaker to interrupt any response, and tell another whopper. In fairness I balanced my polemics with Stevens opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:48 PM "corporate oligarchy" is amazingly close to "sky has fallen". Neither is remotely close to proven--partly for the reasons I've cited. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:41 PM Going back to 1888 law does NOT mean the sky has fallen. It means a corporate oligarchy is assured for our near future. However a meteorite did penetrate a dental offic our area last week. It was determined that it was only going 250 mph when it hit the roof. See? The sky falling is not such a big deal. This is a big deal. The observable difference will be bizrre attack movies released prior to elections that could lead to violence and a shift from the astro turf subtrafuge ads to ads still posing as the will of "real" people. The unlimited corporate money that will go directly to politicians will be enough to even lure Sarah Palin back to work. The rest of our observable lives will continue to be usurped in the traditional manner ;-) pass the popcorn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:32 PM Kat--the WSJ column is not unexpected. The stance of the editorial page is well known. I'd be very curious to know, however, what the actual WSJ reporting said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:30 PM Ask anyone if there is a difference between a person and a corporation. If even half the people you asked said there was no difference, then you would have to accept that some difference between a corporation and a person exists perceptually (right or wrong) in our population. Personally I suspect that less than 1 in 100 people would say there is no difference between a person and a corporation. However if you asked for any similarities between a person and a corporation I think most people could come up with some similarities. example, "They both could rape you but one would do it with impunity and a staff of 300 lawyers on thier side" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:27 PM Good to see that Amos at least, realizes that the sky hasn't fallen. But his rational approach is a lonely road on this thread, it seems. A few observations: 1) Corporations want to be on the winning side. If this is not clear, they will give to both sides--as they have done for a long time now. Sometimes even more to a Democrat than a Republican. 2) Republicans are trying to come across as "champion of the little guy" e.g. Mr. Brown's election. If corporate sponsorship becomes obvious, it ain't easy to play this role. So what Mudcatters ought to be pushing for at this point is total disclosure--say, of any donation above $1,000, for instance. 3) If the current--quickly fleeting--Democratic majorities mean anything, Congress ought to be able to pass legislation to at least partly counter this decision. All the more reason to push the House to quickly pass the Senate health bill--and go on to other issues----like this one-- rather than try the yet-more time-consuming idea of trying to pass bits and pieces of the health bill--which could easily drag out several more months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: katlaughing Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:12 PM Interesting op/ed piece about it in the WSJ...quite a spin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:09 PM btw it is facial and I think it refers to changing everything as opposed to just changing an aspect. please allow these exerpts from Stevens dissent. These are particulary powerful and easy to understand. (A few case law citations have been removed and text has been justified) ############## denotes sections regarding Thomas Jefferson and later T Roosevelt. (translation: Justice Stevens tears Scalia a new one) CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N (dissenting) Opinion of STEVENS, J. 1. Original Understandings Let us start from the beginning. The Court invokes "ancient First Amendment principles," and original understandings,to defend today's ruling, yet it makes only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment. Perhaps this is because there is not ascintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed it would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers' views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case,they would appear to cut strongly against the majority'sposition. This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it, see Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1, 22 (1971), but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society. Those few corporations that existed at the founding were authorized by grant of a special legislative charter.53 Corporate sponsors would petition the legislature, and the legislature, if amenable, would issue a charter that specified the corporation's powers and purposes and "authoritatively fixed the scope and content of corporate organization," 53Scholars have found that only a handful of business corporations were issued charters during the colonial period, and only a few hundred during all of the 18th century. See E. Dodd, American Business Corporations Until 1860, p. 197 (1954); L. Friedman, A History of AmericanLaw 188–189 (2d ed. 1985); Baldwin, American Business CorporationsBefore 1789, 8 Am. Hist. Rev. 449, 450–459 (1903). JUSTICE SCALIA quibbles with these figures; whereas we say that "a few hundred"charters were issued to business corporations during the 18th century,he says that the number is "approximately 335." Ante, at 2 (concurring opinion). JUSTICE SCALIA also raises the more serious point that it is improper to assess these figures by today's standards, ante, at 3, though I believe he fails to substantiate his claim that "the corporation was a familiar figure in American economic life" by the century's end, ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). His formulation of that claim is also misleading, because the relevant reference point is not 1800 but the date of the First Amendment's ratification, in 1791. And at that time, the number of business charters must have been significantly smaller than 335, because the pace of chartering only began to pick up steam in the last decade of the 18th century. More than half of the century's total business charters were issued between 1796 and 1800. . Corporations were created, supervised, and conceptualized as quasi-public entities, "designed to serve a social function for the state."Handlin & Handlin, Origin of the American BusinessCorporation, 5 J. Econ. Hist. 1, 22 (1945). It was "assumed that [they] were legally privileged organizations that had to be closely scrutinized by the legislature because their purposes had to be made consistent with public welfare." R. Seavoy, Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855, p. 5 (1982). The individualized charter mode of incorporation reflected the "cloud of disfavor under which corporations labored" in the early years of this Nation. 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §2, p. 8 (rev. ed. 2006); see also Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517, 548–549 (1933) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (discussing fears of the "evils" of business corporations); L. Friedman, #################################################################### A History of American Law 194 (2d ed. 1985) ("The word 'soulless' constantly recurs in debates over corporations. . . . Corporations, it was feared, could concentratethe worst urges of whole groups of men"). Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic.54 General incorporation statutes, and widespread acceptance of business corporations as socially useful actors, did not emerge until the 1800's. See Hansmann & Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L. J. 439, 440 (2001) (hereinafter Hansmann& Kraakman) ("[A]ll general business corporation statutesappear to date from well after 1800"). —————— 54See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tom Logan (Nov. 12, 1816), in 12 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 42, 44 (P. Ford ed. 1905) ("I hope weshall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country"). ############################################################# The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings,and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.55 While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even "the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty,"given that "at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign." Shelledy, Autonomy, Debate, and Corporate Speech, 18 Hastings Const. L. Q. 541, 578 (1991); cf. Trus-tees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 —————— 55In normal usage then, as now, the term "speech" referred to oral communications by individuals. See, e.g., 2 S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language 1853–1854 (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978) (listing as primary definition of "speech": "The power of articulateutterance; the power of expressing thoughts by vocal words"); 2 N.Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1970) (listing as primary definition of "speech": "The faculty of uttering articulate sounds or words, as in human beings; the faculty of expressing thoughts by words or articulate sounds. Speech was given to man by his Creator for the noblest purposes"). Indeed, it has been "claimed that the notion of institutional speech . . . did not exist in post revolutionary America." Fagundes, State Actors as First AmendmentSpeakers, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1637, 1654 (2006); see also Bezanson, Institutional Speech, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 735, 775 (1995) ("In the intellectual heritage of the eighteenth century, the idea that free speech was individual and personal was deeply rooted and clearly manifest in the writings of Locke, Milton, and others on whom the framers of theConstitution and the Bill of Rights drew"). Given that corporations were conceived of as artificial entities and do not have the technical capacity to "speak," the burden of establishing that the Framers andratifiers understood "the freedom of speech" to encompass corporatespeech is, I believe, far heavier than the majority acknowledges. 38 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.) ("A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it"); Eule, Promoting Speaker Diversity: Austin and Metro Broadcasting, 1990 S. Ct. Rev. 105, 129("The framers of the First Amendment could scarcely haveanticipated its application to the corporation form. That, of course, ought not to be dispositive. What is compelling, however, is an understanding of who was supposed to bethe beneficiary of the free speech guaranty—the individual"). In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framersbelieved "the freedom of speech" would extend equally toall corporate speakers, much less that it would precludelegislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections. The Court observes that the Framers drew on diverse intellectual sources, communicated through newspapers, and aimed to provide greater freedom of speech than had existed in England. Ante, at 37. From these (accurate)observations, the Court concludes that "[t]he First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salientmedia." Ibid. This conclusion is far from certain, given that many historians believe the Framers were focused onprior restraints on publication and did not understand theFirst Amendment to "prevent the subsequent punishment of such [publications] as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare." Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 714 (1931). Yet, even if the majority's conclusionwere correct, it would tell us only that the First Amendment was understood to protect political speech in certain media. It would tell us little about whether the Amendment was understood to protect general treasury electioneering expenditures by corporations, and to what extent. As a matter of original expectations, then, it seems absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of asponsor of electoral advocacy. As a matter of originalmeaning, it likewise seems baseless—unless one evaluates the First Amendment's "principles," ante, at 1, 48, or its "purpose," ante, at 5 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.), at such a high level of generality that the historical understandingsof the Amendment cease to be a meaningful constraint onthe judicial task. This case sheds a revelatory light on theassumption of some that an impartial judge's application of an originalist methodology is likely to yield more determinate answers, or to play a more decisive role in thedecisional process, than his or her views about sound policy. JUSTICE SCALIA criticizes the foregoing discussion for failing to adduce statements from the founding era showing that corporations were understood to be excluded from the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Ante, at 1– 2, 9. Of course, JUSTICE SCALIA adduces no statements to suggest the contrary proposition, or even to suggest thatthe contrary proposition better reflects the kind of right that the drafters and ratifiers of the Free Speech Clausethought they were enshrining. Although JUSTICE SCALIA makes a perfectly sensible argument that an individual's right to speak entails a right to speak with others for a common cause, cf. MCFL, 479 U. S. 238, he does not explain why those two rights must be precisely identical, or why that principle applies to electioneering by corporations that serve no "common cause." Ante, at 8. Nothingin his account dislodges my basic point that members of the founding generation held a cautious view of corporatepower and a narrow view of corporate rights (not that they"despised" corporations, ante, at 2), and that they conceptualized speech in individualistic terms. If no prominent Framer bothered to articulate that corporate speech woul have lesser status than individual speech, that may wellbe because the contrary proposition—if not also the very notion of "corporate speech"—was inconceivable.56 JUSTICE SCALIA also emphasizes the unqualified natureof the First Amendment text. Ante, at 2, 8. Yet he would seemingly read out the Free Press Clause: How else could he claim that my purported views on newspapers must track my views on corporations generally? Ante, at 6.57 Like virtually all modern lawyers, JUSTICE SCALIA presumably believes that the First Amendment restricts theExecutive, even though its language refers to Congressalone. In any event, the text only leads us back to the questions who or what is guaranteed "the freedom of speech," and, just as critically, what that freedom consists of and under what circumstances it may be limited. JUSTICE SCALIA appears to believe that because corporations are created and utilized by individuals, it follows (as —————— 56Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, "as originally understood," ante, at 37, did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, "the common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation," First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize anyFirst Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part ofthe 20th century, see ante, at 25–26 (listing cases). 57In fact, the Free Press Clause might be turned against JUSTICE SCALIA, for two reasons. First, we learn from it that the drafters of the First Amendment did draw distinctions—explicit distinctions—betweentypes of "speakers," or speech outlets or forms. Second, the Court's strongest historical evidence all relates to the Framers' views on the press, see ante, at 37–38; ante, at 4–6 (SCALIA, J., concurring), yet while the Court tries to sweep this evidence into the Free Speech Clause, the Free Press Clause provides a more natural textual home. The text and history highlighted by our colleagues suggests why one type of corporation, those that are part of the press, might be able to claim special First Amendment status, and therefore why some kinds of "identity"based distinctions might be permissible after all. Once one accepts that much, the intellectual edifice of the majority opinion crumbles. Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 41 night the day that their electioneering must be equally protected by the First Amendment and equally immunized from expenditure limits. See ante, at 7–8. That conclusion certainly does not follow as a logical matter, and JUSTICE SCALIA fails to explain why the original public meaning leads it to follow as a matter of interpretation. The truth is we cannot be certain how a law such as BCRA §203 meshes with the original meaning of the First Amendment.58 I have given several reasons why I believe the Constitution would have been understood then, and ought to be understood now, to permit reasonable restrictions on corporate electioneering, and I will give many more reasons in the pages to come. The Court enlists the Framers in its defense without seriously grappling with their understandings of corporations or the free speech right, or with the republican principles that underlay those understandings. ##################################################### The Court's central argument is that laws such as §203 have "'deprived [the electorate] of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function,'" ante, at 38 (quoting CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., concurring in judgment)), and this, in turn, "interferes with the 'open marketplace' of ideas protected by the FirstAmendment," ante, at 38 (quoting New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208 (2008)). There are many flaws in this argument. If the overriding concern depends on the interests of the audience, surely the public's perception of the value of corporate speech should be given important weight. That perception today is the same as it was a century ago when Theodore Roosevelt delivered the speeches to Congress that, in time,led to the limited prohibition on corporate campaign expenditures that is overruled today. See WRTL, 551 U. S., at 509–510 (Souter, J., dissenting) (summarizing President —————— owners may speak in their own names, rather than the business', ifthey wish to evade §203 altogether. Nonprofit corporations that wantto make unrestricted electioneering expenditures may do so if they refuse donations from businesses and unions and permit members todisassociate without economic penalty. See MCFL, 479 U. S. 238, 264 (1986). Making it plain that their decision is not motivated by a concern about BCRA's coverage of nonprofits that have ideological missions but lack MCFL status, our colleagues refuse to apply the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment or the lower courts' de minimis exception to MCFL. Roosevelt's remarks... The distinctive threat to democratic integrity posed by corporate domination of politics wasrecognized at "the inception of the republic" and "has been a persistent theme in American political life" ever since. Regan 302. It is only certain Members of this Court, not the listeners themselves, who have agitated for more corporate electioneering. Austin recognized that there are substantial reasons why a legislature might conclude that unregulated generaltreasury expenditures will give corporations "unfair influence" in the electoral process, 494 U. S., at 660, and distort public debate in ways that undermine rather than advance the interests of listeners. The legal structure of corporations allows them to amass and deploy financialresources on a scale few natural persons can match. The structure of a business corporation, furthermore, draws a line between the corporation's economic interests and thepolitical preferences of the individuals associated with thecorporation; the corporation must engage the electoral process with the aim "to enhance the profitability of thecompany, no matter how persuasive the arguments for abroader or conflicting set of priorities," Brief for American Independent Business Alliance as Amicus Curiae 11; see also ALI, Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysisand Recommendations §2.01(a), p. 55 (1992) ("[A] corporation . . . should have as its objective the conduct of business activities with a view to enhancing corporate profitand shareholder gain"). In a state election such as the one at issue in Austin, the interests of nonresident corporations may be fundamentally adverse to the interests oflocal voters. Consequently, when corporations grab up the prime broadcasting slots on the eve of an election, they can flood the market with advocacy that bears "little or no correlation" to the ideas of natural persons or to any broader notion of the public good, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:43 PM "And corporations, which were not mentioned in the Constitution, were later defined as "artificial persons," as contrated with "natural person" (aka human beings)." This, as many decisions we either endure or agree with is true, too. But as early as 1819, the Marshall Court in Dartmouth v Woodward set the basis for corporate personhood rights. Of course the 14th Amendment--nearly 40 years later--might have reversed that with the language Genie suggests, but that would have turned back the clock on what had helped make the country great to that time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:38 PM The justices forgot that Thomas Paine was never incorporated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:02 PM Ooops. Premature keystroke = premature posting. I was going to add that Freedom Of Speech was intended to refer to content, not the size of the soapbox, megaphone, or microphone. And all sorts of restrictions on where and how loudly one can 'speak' exist without running afoul of the First Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:58 PM It's pretty clear that the "founding fathers" did not intend for "speech" as in "freedom of" to refer to money. And corporations, which were not mentioned in the Constitution, were later defined as "artificial persons," as contrated with "natural person" (aka human beings). Unfortunately, the writers of the 14th Amendmet neglected to include the word "natural" before the word "person," thus opening up the possibility of such non-originalist judicial interpretations as "corporations are people & thus entitled to all the rights of natural persons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:46 PM Bobert: [[GfS has a good point, too... This could work against the current batch of Repubs, as well... The corporations are gonna want to get "their" guys in ... I mean, what is to stop the corporation from just puttin' their CEOs in??? Nuthin' now]] Seems a guy named Benito tried that very think in Italy back in the 1930s. Let's see ... What did he call that form of government? Oh, yeah. FASCISM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM I'm not the constitutional scholar that some of you folks seem to be, but I know that regarding the Bellotti case which Donuel noted above (actually First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti, 1978) Justice Stevens voted with the majority in the opinion which overturned the Massachusetts law prohibiting corporate contributions to the political process. He seems now to have reversed himself, while the current court would seem to have followed precedent. Bye the bye, that decision, too, was 5-4. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:12 PM Any decent Gilded Age has to have a stupendous court decision like this one. btw Enron used to march grandmothers off cliffs. It was a standard remark to dupe grandmothers. The mob mentality in such groups would sizzle like a spider on a stove if practiced out in the open. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:04 PM This ruling will bring parity between unions and corporations. Something, I believe is long over due. No such thing, and you know it. The days of the unions are long since past. The interests of corporations rarely mesh with the interests of individuals, and now that corporations may speak as individuals, with the power of the purse, they will be able to drown out all they disagree with. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:56 PM The problem with the decision (as highlighted in Stevens' excellent bit above - where I think "facial" has appeared by mistake for "facile") - is that it gives freedoms and rights to the rich and powerful that are illusory for the poor and powerless. We know that advertising has effect. That is why capitalists pay to advertise their products, why the defective but well promoted can prevail in the market place over the excellent but less well promoted, and why it has steadily become necessary (at least recognised as necessary in other places) to police truth in advertising. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " - Joseph Goebbels. It really is quite disconcerting to see the country that invented and coined the name of the snake oil salesman elevating the liberty of such salesmen to apply, through wealth and influence, the principles of Joseph Goebbels in the name of liberty and democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:44 PM We are now truly entering into the age of "The Golden Rule". He who has the gold, makes the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:42 PM I keep hearing about all this union influence... What a joke... The lbor movement in the US has been in decline ever since Reagan was elected... The percentage or union workers today is 1/3 what it was then and still declining... Labor just ani't got all this financil firepower that Boss Hog has... Actually, Boss Hog spills more than verything Labor has to throw at campaigns... Let's keep this in some perspective here as we continually read that "corporations and unions" will now be able to spend as much as they want on campaigns... This is just right wing media trying to make it sound like apples-and-apples when it's more like apples-and-a-grain-of-sand... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM Doug: Please do not be asinine, or insulting. I would no sooner lead a charge against the first amendment than I would lead your grandmother over a cliff. But you are being obtuse, either intentionally or blindly, if you fail to see the problem that the SCOTUS decision has unleashed. The argument that the corporation "represents" the stockholders is not fal;se but is very incomplete. Often the stockholders are blind to the decisions made in their name because they are merely investors and usually interested only in the quarter's returns, yes? That means ANY conduct which yields short-term gain even if it is unethical (such as selling poisionous fertilizers to third world countries because they've been outlawed here) does the trick of "representing" the stockholders. But if you were to ask them if they wanted to poison farmlands in Uruguay, they would recoil and deny it. This is the Big Blind Spot of the unwitting stockholder and to claim that the loud bullyragging of some corporation is "representative" of its stockholderts in the sense of a democratic vox populi is just BS. The corporation in general is BETTER off not informing its stockholders. This violates the fundamental equation of Jeffersonian democracy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:23 PM It's Rollerball. Welcome to the United States of Exxon. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Arkie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:59 PM The only people who will benefit from this ruling is a very small, but very wealthy segment of society. Including unions as a beneficiary is probably a smoke screen but could result in an increase in union membership as the only way for the "little" guy to have any voice. If this stands it could very well be the demise of democracy in this country. This is one more step toward corporate takeover of the country. When the law shifts to favor the speech of the powerful and wealthy, I do not see how anyone can twist this into support for free speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:58 PM "A corporation's 'speech' is ultimately the voice of the stockholders. " Nonsense! That's a vague concept! The stockholders have almost NO input into daily manipulations by a company. Stockholders (except the very largest ones) seldom pay any attention unless profits fall or the company is going to be sold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM no longer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM A corporation's 'speech' is ultimately the voice of the stockholders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:37 PM "Are you going to lead the charge to repeal the Freedom of Speech Amendment to the Constitution?" That question is very like:"Are you going to keep beating your wife?" It assumes that curtailing the influence of corporate power in on the same place as stifling individual freedoms. I submit that, no matter how you parse it, a corporation's 'speech' is ultimately the voice of one, or a very few, directors OF that corporation, and thus represents a vested interest getting an unfair advantage. Constraining that is essentially what has BEEN the principle for the last 100 years. Changing it is purely a rationalized way of enlarging certain interests influence and weakening the collective influence of individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:19 PM DougR, My answer; Not merely lead but indeed I would pull the lead charge wire First if that is your Ammendment. In other words I will gladly pull your plug when the time comes. Only a true friend would do that for you. Now you haven't answered my equally inane thread drift question. When would you like me to pull your plug? A wise man once said to me that there are no stupid questions. He taught me the valuable lesson that even wise men can say stupid things. But seriously I find most of your points of view irrational, pithy and inane. If on the other hand you were a CEO or CFO of a multinational corporation sitting on a billion or more dollars, at least I would find your POV rational yet unethical. Thank you... not you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM JohninKansas: Nope, I was wrong. Unions were treated the same as corporations under the current law. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM Thank you for those kind words, Donuel, but you did not answer my question. Are you going to lead the charge to repeal the Freedom of Speech Amendment to the Constitution? Perhaps Amos will join you! JohninKansas: I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the unions have had the same restrictions that corporations have under the current law. This ruling will bring parity between unions and corporations. Something, I believe is long over due. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:39 PM One more thing: Congress has defined those limits in law over 100 years old ago as recently as Feingold but the Court has chosen to overstep Congress, reset the clock, and start over with the unlimited corporate powers of Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan. You can begin to see how this is at its core a family struggle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:33 PM WIkipedia's discussion on libel and slander has some interesting points: "Public figure doctrine (absence of malice) Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[13] Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault. The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. [edit] Defamation and freedom of speech Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others.[14] Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.[15] There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalize defamation.[16][17] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986)." The ERROR in the situation is NOT the protection of the basic First Amendment Right against incursions of free speech. The ERROR is in making the right of a large corporation with a war-chest identical in effect to the right of a citizen. This comes, in my opinion, from a blind spot about what citizenship means. The original protection of "corporations as citizens" probably came with the realization that such a protection would make them liable for taxation same as individuals. It could be well argued that this is double jeopardy, I guess. The other liability of this error is that it means employees and share-holders making up the corporation are having their voices subordinated to the decisions of the directors or their delegates of the corporation, which is surely a misrepresentation. For example, if AT&T throws its weight behind John McCain, it implies all iPhone users are supporting him. This is probably not a true representation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:26 PM Yes what it does is require more law to hatched, and loopholed and on and on. HOWEVER at the same time the scotus has made future challenges regarding curbing any undue corrupt corporate abuse MORE difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:22 PM Donuel: The thing aout this is that the SCOTUS has made a decree which does protect a freedom which would have been otherwise curtailed as a side-effect of an effort to constrain campaign funding and abuse. There is nothing wrong with curtailing campaign abuse. The mechanism to do so must be in defining the offense so clearly that laws formed against it do not tread on the toes of more fundamental principles. As long as the Federal code cleaves to the "corporation rights = human rights" doctrine, this will be very difficult. That is the key. This is a conflation which has limited, not unlimited applicability, but the SCOTUS has declined to define those limits; it is [properly the business of congress. We need one of several possible remedies: 1. Corporations are better defined and their rights derfined much more narrowly than those of individuals 2. Offenses of falsified, distortive calumny, vilification, slander (for spoken words), and libel (published in print) are more precisely defined and made actionable in such a way that the definitions do not chill free speech. 3. Laws governing electioneering as special communications subject to certain constraints are formed. This is the weakest approach since it is theone SCOTUS just shot down and the most antagonistic to the broadest insurance of the First Amendment. And possibly others. I am a bear of limited imagination in such matters. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM To my disappointment I have lived to see the day when I am on the opposite side of the fence of the ACLU regarding this case and decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM Doug R, I will lead the charge to preserve your right to spasmodic blind spurts of ignorant speech. While no constitutional right can cure stupidity, it can preserve and protect your decision to embrace it, if that is your choice. I'm 100% behind you on that one buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:00 PM "Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content" That Bull Shit sounds like Scalia or Roberts So the solution of assuring fairness case by case is to give unlimited blanket influence to corporations? This is not just about the speakers, this should also be about the listeners. And as far as the right wing premise of a current mistrust of goverment power, what evidence do you present? Tea baggers? Glen Beck? Hitler Obama posters? premise my ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:54 PM Donuel: So, are you going to lead the charge to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution? How many of you folks are going to join the charge? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:42 PM in a further stretch of sarcasm; This is about power, its not about you. Its about corporations. To be honest, you are not important enough for it to be about you. Not that it is not about you because you don't matter, but rather its not about you because you are not important enough for it to be about you. Now if you were a corporation you could make sure of whom you don't want it to be about. But as it stands, you don't matter, because to be important you must wield huge capital, not merely law or constitutions. Since you don't have meaningful capital that could enrich or diminish other super capitalists, its not about you. For people who it is about, they look upon you and know that they can buy or sell your life and family for less than thier lunch money. That is a feeling of great pride and levity for those whom it is about. They may feel and know in thier heart that you don't matter, yet you still matter in the sense that it is not about you. This is about the immortals. This is about corporate power over life itself. Thank you very much...not you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:34 PM Chief Justice Roberts is a good father first. His citizenship however is very far down on the list. Certainly his grandchildren will be able to live off trust funds garnered from money that may have suddenly appeared in his name from off shore banks. The debt he has left on the backs of American citizens is one in which we are now re-enslaved by corrupt systems that we fought against and won 100 years ago, only to have all those efforts to dodge the fist of robber barons to be dashed by Robert's decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:17 PM TheRoberts court ruled that corporations while being an unreal person is entitled to all personal rights with the added benefit of being immortal. Corporations do not merely sound like GOD, they may now wield God like powers in political elections. All prior anti corruption rules regarding coporate money in political elections are now subservient to the current ruling. The Investment Trust Co. is now the In God We Trust Co. and may use general treasury funds without any obedience to the board or shareholders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:04 PM "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content." ..."Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used todisseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all tointerpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself wouldcreate an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chillingprotected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N Opinion of the Court that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, "must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech." " I think based on these excerpts that the problem is not in the Court directly, but in their perceived obligation to extend individual rights to corporate entities. The Congress of the United States is the onlyentitiy that can reverse this unfortunate conflation. I am pretty sure that such an extension was NOT part of the FOunding Father intentions for a number of reasons, one being a decent respect for individuals and another being a distrust of oligarchy. THat's how it seems to me, anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM I have read it and saved the document. I am in total agreement with Justice Stevens. In short he shows that the court heard one case but decided a different one, which not only based its decision on 5 judicial mistakes it over reached beyond all established precendents and rules. exerpt Today's decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority's agenda over the litigants' submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individualdissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertionover tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and 90 rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin theCourt's lawmaking power. Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest,along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades. In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending shouldoutweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority's rejection of this principle "elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have foughtagainst the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majorityof this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:38 AM Anyone who would like to joint me in attempting to actually read the decision can download the pdf posted by MSNBC from: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/scotus.pdf. They generally keep postings accessible for a week or two, but by then the decision should be posted at the SCOTUS "Pocket Decisions" website. The SCOTUS site usually takes a few days to get new decisions up. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:30 AM With so many bright and informed people here I needn't be overly simplistic with hypotheticals from poli sci 101. What this activist Roberts court has done is go against every judicial precedent and has radicly brought elections in this country back to 1888 where the only newspapers were monopolies owned by the robber barons who bought and sold thier puppets and figure heads in the executive and legislative branch. Satiricly we have just cut out the middlemen politicians and may now just vote directly for Exon for President or Goldman Saks for co President. ------------------ What needs to be done now is make some new laws to protect the public from the now secret legal fraud of buying elections by corporate front groups. What we have now are corporations operating under 502s to pretend they are not corporations making ads by saying they are "Plain ol Citizens Who Can't Sleep Because We Are So Worried Association" You know, fake astro turf instead of grass root organizations. We now need a law, so that no shilling can occur. When an ad says, ALERT NEWS ALERT! Obama had sex with his mother! - IT MUST SAY THAT THE AD IS FROM : Bank of America or Fox News Group or whoever paid for the ad. The law must include that the owner of the ad must be visible and audible. This court ruling has made the corrupt lobby system in DC worse in that no voice may be heard if they do not have billions of dollars instead of mere millions of dollars. The current phony bologny groups must now be honest about who they are, like "Citizens Against the Destruction of Liberty.org" that are really PACs owned by big Oil for the purpose of making it legal to drill and excavate any and all private property for free. ergo they want the liberty to do anything they want for free. In other words, now that corporations are free to steal elections with unlimited money, the best we can do is make them be honest about it and tell us who they are. And thats the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:21 AM I think the judges who rendered this decision don't need to think. When people are operated remotely with strings, thinking is not required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:19 AM Most of the reports I've seen have stated that the decision gives corporations, probably including non-profits, and possibly unions the right to speak during the period immediately prior to an election. The primary Act that was overturned in effect prohibited anyone not a party to the candidates' campaigns from any public statements during a period, generally 90 days, immediately preceding any election that qualified under the provisions of the Act. One effect of this was that a candidate could "smear" an opponent on issues not central to the opponent's platform but of major concern to "issue groups," with the expectation that the oponent's campagin would be "too busy to respond," and those with concerns were prohibited from "rebutting the lies." Having downloaded the full text of the decision, and after spending about 3 hours thus far attempting to read it, I can't quite be sure what it does accomplish. The decision is 185 pages in the PDF and is not exactly an example of clear exposition. It does appear, however, that the majority opinion examined and overturned some two dozen prior SCOTUS decisions contrary to the decision that the conservative judges wanted. The majority significantly extended the scope of a handful of prior precedents that supported their position. In a significant departure from prior Court decisions, SCOTUS appears to have rendered decisions on issues not part of the appeal petition, thereby assuming an "activist court" stance that has been a core fear and complaint of conservatives - to act clearly in favor of conservative agendas not legitimately part of the questions before the court. It has been a "settled precedent" that as an appeal court, SCOTUS cannot address a question that is not directly included in the petitioners' appeal petition. That precedent apparently has also been overturned. It is NOT CLEAR that the decision gives any rights to labor unions. In a couple of places, that I found so far, it could be construed that the majority opinion intentionally was vague, or implied contrary intent, on this point. PACs (read lobbyists) are mostly incorporated as non-profit corporations, and while it seems that the decision intends to free them from all restraints, I'll have to do quite a lot more reading to be sure. As the decision is very densely written (you guess whether that's a pun?) it will take me some significant additional time and effort just to complete reading it. Tracking the citations and looking at the precedents that were discarded quite probably will be more than I can expect to accomplish. One might wonder if that was intentional. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM Maybe that's what happened to the Supreme Court Justices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:09 AM Q, it's not a matter of people being do dumb to think for themselves. It's a matter of having access to information. If people don't have access to any information that contradicts what the corporations want them to have (and this decision makes that a very real possibility), they won't have enough information to be able to think for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: John P Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM It all boils down to the concept that corporations have LOUDER or MORE free speech than I do. How about a law requiring everyone who wants to spend money on politics to all start with the same amount of "free" speech? Where's my billions? I really don't feel like I'm being treated equally under the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:41 AM Not all the American people, Capt'n... The upper 5% are popping the champaign corks... What is going to take it's place, Rigs, is a new Democratic Party made up of CEOs and corporate board members... You'll love their platform... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM "Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party..." I wonder what will take its place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: kendall Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:01 AM The big loser here is the American people.Government by money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:56 AM Correction: Impeach Roberts... ...and Alito... Hard to keep those two seperated since they are like clones of one another... GfS has a good point, too... This could work against the current batch of Repubs, as well... The corporations are gonna want to get "their" guys in... Kinda like when the head coach of a football team gets fired... All the rest of the coaches also get fired and new ones brought in... I mean, what is to stop the corporation fgrom just puttin' their CEOs in??? Nuthin' now... Ahhhhh, don'cha just love it??? The best democracy that oney can buy... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:59 AM Not only that, Tam, we should prosecute politicians for perjury when they are caught not upholding the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution, when they take office!!!! ....Not to mention campaign lies!!!!!!!isn't that false advertising (campaigning), with taxpayer money?????? Oh oh...there goes this Democratic Party! Republican Party too!....Maybe they better think twice, BEFORE they run!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: VirginiaTam Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:49 AM As a remedy, perhaps we should make it a civil offense to promulgate false information in a political cause, or to libel or slander a politician with false or misleading statements. A standard of truth could do a lot to revive the democracy. I like this idea... Can the average voter, say you or me, slap a lawsuit on anyone doing this? I vote for huge fines to be paid into cleaning up the media mess caused by these bastards. Plus have them publicly pilloried with LIAR inscribed over their heads. Free baskets of rotten tomatoes, eggs, etc. standing by. I am not kidding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:21 AM Though I wasn't in agreement with the court ruling, myself, I don't think it had any 'killing effect' on the Democratic Party, who, this week got slaughtered, after a year of committing suicide!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:46 AM The "equality" remark above was rendered, in the UK, as "The courts of England are open to all, like the Ritz hotel". The view that a properly incorporated company (or corporation) has a legal personality distinct from its shareholders or directors has been part of English law for much the same period (Saloman -v- Saloman) but is still occasionally attacked in the literature as irrational and the cause of injustice. But it is the general case throughout jurisdictions originally founded in English law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:19 AM The nation is so far to the right of where it was under Nixon that it could use a little left. The Democratic party in 2009 is about where the Republican party was in 1968, and the Republican party of 2009 is about where 1968's John Birch Society was. If we go any further to the right we'll have to elect Pinochet. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:50 AM No, no, no, Bobert, the sky is not falling for the Democratic Party because of the Supreme Court decision. Portions of McCain Fiengold were simply ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure even you support the first amendment, right? Now it is possible if the left wing of the party insists on Obama continuing to try to take the nation to the left, the party may kill itself though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:13 PM Alex, it's questionable whether Dubya was actually elected either time, given the prevalence of black-box voting machines, uncounted ballots, and various other shenanigans in states such as Ohio. But the gullibility of the American voters is evident in the fact that GWB even came close to getting half the votes in 2004 after his administration's record in the first term. Oh, and speaking of dumb, how about them Democrats in the Senate when Roberts & Alito were being questioned for confirmation? They asked softball questions, let the candidates slide by with glib, vague answers, etc. And they refused to filibuster, partly because too many of them said they believed judicial nominees should not be opposed on political grounds, if they were qualified. (Where the hell is THAT written??) A lof of people, including me, saw rulings like today's coming as soon as Roberts & Alito were nominated and confirmed. How come our Senators couldn't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:06 PM Mick..and 999... I wish I could claim full credit for that line above, but the truth is, it was my best recollection of something I heard once. I just found it... ""The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France (1844-1924) (from The Red Lily, 1894) I guess even a bad rendition makes the point though. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If any conservatives are reading this... do you see any problem with this court decision? If I remember correctly, one of conservatives hallowed principles is 'I don't want big government telling me what to do or how I can spend my money...etc.' I am curious to know how you might react if you wake up one morning in a few years and find that there is not too much difference between your 'government' and the corporate boards of insurance companies, munitions suppliers, oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, ...and Walmart. Getting 'your own' Supreme Court sounded like fun for awhile, huh? Just DO be careful that the 'conservative values' they preserve and uphold do not end up giving you the 'freedom' of what color uniform to wear as you march in lock-step to their corporate band. Doomsayer? Silly "nattering nabob of negativism"? Flustered, disappointed liberal? ..... perhaps.... call me in 10 years, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:05 PM The point is, Bobert, that impeachment is essentially a political process and the commission of a provable crime or even an illicit tryst is not necessary grounds for impeachment or conviction. In the case of Scalia and Roberts, there have been cases where they should have recused themselves on grounds of conflict of interest because of business ties to parties in the cases. (Bush v. Gore was one such case, in Scalia's case.) There's also a very good case to be made for Roberts and Scalia and maybe Alito to have lied to Congress during their confirmation hearings. Unlike a jury trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. Normally I would oppose the use of impeachment as a "poltical" tool, but when the Justices themselves are using the courts as political tools, I think it's probably legitimate. Especially when there's no "recall" procedure and it's a lifetime appointment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:40 PM since Americans are too dumb to think for themselves and are easily led by the biggest noise... Well they did elect Dubya twice (once via the Supreme Court, but it was an election). And, in case you think they've gotten wiser since ... can I sell you a teabag? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:42 PM Exactly, Genie... In other word, judical activism... This Robert's court has overturned more law in two years than all the courts in the last 20 years... This is actually beyond judical activism... This is a coup da ta by Alito and his clowns over Congress... In other word, 9 is greater than, ahhhhh, hundreds... "Impeach Alito" is going on the back of my trucks rear window tomorrow... And to think that the Dems were stupid enough to believe him in his confirmation hearings... Stupid Dems... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:39 PM Where does the constitution say that corporations have the right to free speech? I saw this coming when they started packing the court with republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:29 PM Greg F, your citation of the facts of the Santa Clara Country v. So. Pacif. RR case and its judicial aftermath well illustrates what's meant by "judicial activism" and how jurists like Scalia and Roberts who claim to be "strict constructionists" or "originalists" and decry "legislating from the bench" are total hypocrites. In today's ruling, the Roberts court went out of its way to overturn both original intent and precedent, extending their considerations in this case far beyond the questions at issue in the case (which was whether the corporation that wanted to put out a politically-inflammatory movie close to an election date should have to disclose their identity). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:21 PM Not all corporations are international. They can't all operate internationally and many are purely entitites recognized by only one country. More importantly, even multinational corporations may have HQ in one country, with most of their income bolstering the economy of that country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:18 PM In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution. Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history. The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts. David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: dick greenhaus Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:07 PM —and that government: of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth. safe at last. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:37 PM You got it, Donuel... From here on it will be corporate shills and clowns... You know, Republicans... Serious business... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:07 PM If corporations are smart they will gradually enforce thier new ultimate media power over time until people are used to it and then just snuff out the last remaining populist with only 1/17th the money to campaign. game over in 12 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:03 PM OK We already know most political ads are nasty and bear little resemblence of the truth, no matter how you define truth. IT will now be glossier but the same thing, except the non corporate voice will be limited to town hall meetings. With this ruling we can eliminate the middle man of politicians all together. Lets just elect Exon President/Bank of America Vice President verses Goldman Sachs President/Fox News Vice President Govenorships will go to: General Foods, Kraft, Toyota, Walmart etc. Senators will be a collection of Defense contractors. Representatives will be a catch all for Insurance companies and multinational corporations. Wholesale Corporate democracy will overtake Magority rule Democracy. Unless you think untelevised town hall meetings and one late night debate is fair and balanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:40 PM Oh yeah, there will be jobs.... For Repubs... People will be investigated and if they ever wrote a leteer to a newspaper that was considered leftist, they will not be considered... Or a post on a blog... Or, or... Fuck!!! It's alklready like that here in Page County, Virginia... The Repubs own the two banks and guess who the only folks they atre makin' loans to??? Yup, there Repub, Chamber of Commerace buddies... I'm lookin' at losin' a major project because I'm not a Repub... Yeah, when times were good tyhese same bankers were sayin' "We'll be here for you" while making tens upon thousands of my dollars in interest... Now things are tight and anyone other than good solid Repubs need not apply... That is the absolute truth!!! Guess what, folks... When tyhe Repubs take control nest time they will never, ever let it go back to anyone else... They will chip away at Social Security and Medicare and in the end the US will be a Third Worl country... Go to Michagan and see a sneak preview... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM All corporations are by nessesity International corporations, most are Multinational corporations. Walmart's China has an unlimited voice with billions in cash to get the best tax break or protection from any negligence lawsuits when their products kill babies, pets and parents alike. Q you do not think things through, therefor you remain a troll until proven otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: GUEST,999 Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:34 PM '"The ruling by the Supreme Court gives not only business but unions and non-profits more power to spend freely in federal elections." like the rights shared by the rich & poor alike to sleep under bridges..... ' Bill D: That is now the best remark I've ever read on Mudcat to do with politics. BRAVO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:33 PM I mean corporations that are foreign-owned, with primary loyalty either to some other country or to no country. Corporations whose profits primarily boost the economies of other countries. Corporations that do not have to abide by US laws. If corporations owned by political enemies of the US can pour unlimited $ into our elections, what's to stop them from deliberately backing politicians whose policies are likely to bring our country down? In other words, whence American sovereignty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:30 PM since Americans are too dumb to think for themselves and are easily led by the biggest noise... You don't need to look any farther than Douggie-Boy to prove that this is indeed the case, at least with a substantial sector of the electorate.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:21 PM Foreign- do you mean global corporations? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:14 PM We well may have a Palin/Beck adminstration next time around if nothing is done to curb the huge corporations -- including FOREIGN corporations -- from spending billions bombarding us with propaganda via ads, movies, TV shows, etc. Oh, and what chance do you think Net Neutrality will have now that the big corporations can spend as much as they damn well please to defeat any politicians who support it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM OK, the posters here are agreed that the decision will destroy democracy since Americans are too dumb to think for themselves and are easily led by the biggest noise; nothing for it but to let the US slide down the slope to oliogarchic and eventually autocratic rule, becoming a cracked mirror image of modern China. But think of it as an exercise in job creation! Look of all the jobs big business will create in order to trumpet their message to the sheep- writers, artists and cartoonists, animators, talking heads, television technicians, etc., and lobbyists at all levels of government, zoning consultants But sob! there will be nothing for the lower tier, which will continue to be poor, downtrodden, complaining, always on the outside, looking in at all the goodies true followers of capitalist society will enjoy during their lifetime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:07 PM Take another REAL LIFE scenario: What about these corporations that have a trillion dollars of our tax money? They get to use our money to support Rush Limbaugh or Sarah? 1,600 million dollars ($1.6 billion of movies and election ads will go to Boehner, with our money? Ads both devious and misleading to support the candidate who will safeguard all the AIG and Wall St. practices and expand with a few new scams. With our money? how does that work? American Neocons (Mousolini style fascists) have been wishing for this wish to come true for decades. Well it's come true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:49 PM [[As a remedy, perhaps we should make it a civil offense to promulgate false information in a political cause, or to libel or slander a politician with false or misleading statements. A standard of truth could do a lot to revive the democracy. ]] Unfortunately, the courts have already ruled that it's legal to lie in political ads. Congress might be able to overcome that ruling via legislation -- but do they have the sense and the guts to do it? Of course, Roberts (and probably Scalia & Thomas too) could probably be impeached on legitimate grounds and removed from the court. But if the Dems won't even go after Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al., don't hold your breath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Genie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM This decision well may kill not only the Democratic Party but democracy in America itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:42 PM Rinse and repeat rinse and rinse and repeat and rinse and repeat and rinse and repeat and rinse and repeat and hypnosis works. 30% of Americans still Believe that Saddam Hussien was part of the 9-11 attack. 20 % think Obama is muslim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:39 PM ADMIN request there are two prior threads regarding this "1st ammendment case", the first, yet smallest, of which was started by me. The information contained is them was collected and editorially crafted with care. Could there be a unification? Q you speak in fuzzy notions. Lets take a look at the realities. Lets make it tiny and local, A county election where a landfill operator wants to appoint their guy mayor to help crat some more relaxed zoning laws. The nationa land fill corporation BFD places all thier ads for Buck Johnson in the last four weeks of the election. They pay 3 million dollars for every slot available on every public and private media in the county and Flood the expensive State media with another million dollars of ads. Every slot with the exception of 3 to 4 AM is paid in advance. Vote for Buck Johnson. Terry Belcraft although an incumbent mayor of Emerald Falls ,the capitol of Boonhick County, and respected for his green agenda and helping the tourism in the area is unable to place a single ad anywhere on TV or radio in the last 4 weeks of the election. Vote for Buck Johnson. BIGGEST noise? try the only noise! a single voice drowning out Mr. Belcraft from even being heard with the exception of responding to a sound bite on two local news programs. The news station hears from BFD and avoids the embarrasment of any further interviews with the old mayor. Vote for Buck Johnson And thats not all, A documentary is submitted paid for by BFD and produced by Sinera Club and Green troops for America showing "Mr Belcrap" mayor of Emerald Pines in dramatic reinactments of unspeakable sex offenses and theft of public funds. Vote for Buck Johnson. It airs 2 days before the election. Guess who wins? say his name Guess who loses whats his name? With respect Q, if you learn to think in real hypotheticals wou wouldn't leap to certain conclusions that only sound right. The reality of a situation is not just about how a nice sound bite feels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:38 PM Yeah, this is kinda like Boss Hog sayin', "Nuff of this democracy crap... We're callin' it off..." Hey, it's real simple folks... There's a reason why some songs seem to be ones that everyone knows... That reason these days is ClearChannel which decides what folks are goin' to hear... (But, Boberdz... There's always the internet... Why can't some candidate use it to promote his or her candidacy???) Well, they can... All their bloggin' friends will vote fir 'um... That means, what??? A hundred people??? Good luck tryin' to win a Senate seat on the innernet.... Ain't gonna happen... But Amos has a very good point and that is law suits for libel when the corporations slander and lie... I think that approach has some merit until the Roberts Court stops that one, too... But, hey, it's worth a try... Of course, it can't pass by the 41 Republicans but it is at least a way to rile up the left and get them doin' what the tea baggers are doin'... Workin'!!! My own feeling is that the Dems oughtta bust ass in Congress, use reconciliation and throw up as many roadblocks as are needed to keep the complete take-over by the Repubs which, BTW, is exaactly what Roberts and his Repub Supremes have in mind... Yeah, the Dems have about 8 months to build a fort before the big rounds start raining down on them... After that, folks, it's over... Boss Hog wins... He get's all the money and the US bec omes like Haita, sans the earthquake (at least for now)... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM Now how could one restore the balance in the Supreme Court with a view to a review of this doctrine, just as the enslavers reviewed Roe -v- Wade? Just kidding, I mean no-one would, would they? The fact remains that the American democratic process (and remember Kucinich suggesting reform of the lobby system) is so broken that it will be hard or impossible to reform without a revolution as profound as the revolution against English rule. It has become an oligopoly as evil as ci-devant France. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:17 PM The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. Bobert's position is that the people are not ready for democracy, responding only to the biggest noise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM "if it's true that "the electorate is too ignorant" (etc.), it is because they are kept that way. Which places the blame for the alleged ignorance on those who wilfully use their wealth and power to mislead the electorate." Exactly. That is the essential problem. People end up believing what they are told, and what they are told (by way of the mass media) is intended to keep them deluded and obedient to the very small elite which commands power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:46 PM Q closed a post with this "zinger": Bobert thinks that the electorate is too ignorant to make reasonable choices. Q, I don't see where you get that statement of Bobert's position. I certainly don't read his founding post to say or imply that. But, if it's true that "the electorate is too ignorant" (etc.), it is because they are kept that way. Which places the blame for the alleged ignorance on those who wilfully use their wealth and power to mislead the electorate. And always remember that "ignorance" and "stupidity" are entirely different things. Ignorance can, at least in theory, be cured, given a free flow of relevant information. While I wouldn't have phrased it quite the way Bobert did, I don't think he is so terribly wrong. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Big Mick Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:33 PM That's my Billy Boy!!!! Well said, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:31 PM "The ruling by the Supreme Court gives not only business but unions and non-profits more power to spend freely in federal elections." like the rights shared by the rich & poor alike to sleep under bridges..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM Looks like Carol, SRS, Amos also need that 're-education'. Don't need no costly set-up like Gitmo, just use that cattle prod. Whoop! te kiy yi yo! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:19 PM "Bobert thinks that the (American) electorate is too ignorant to make reasonable choices." WHOA!!!! What a radical thought! What a shocking assertion! I mean...who could possibly countenance such a ridiculous notion as the notion tbat the American electorate is too ignorant (on average) to make reasonable choices??? Who, I ask you? ;-) WHO!?? Bobert should definitely be thrown into some high security torture facility like Guantanamo and given stringent re-education if that is what he thinks. He should be defenestrated. Flayed alive. Forced to watch "Three's Company" until he recants. Whatever it takes... Show no mercy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: katlaughing Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM Interesting article about it HERE. One Dem did say they would try to get some legislation going concerning it over the next few months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM If a company is a person it ought to be possible to put it in jail when it breaks the law. The whole company. If that can't be done, it means not a person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Amos Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM The issue is (a) the disproportionate amount of cash resources in large entities compared to small and (b) the dominant effect of consolidated media businesses who will sell all the yelling power you can pay for. This places the power to twist futures into the hands of the wealthiest. Their natural instinct will be to twist those futures in ways which expand their wealth regardless of other merit. As a remedy, perhaps we should make it a civil offense to promulgate false information in a political cause, or to libel or slander a politician with false or misleading statements. A standard of truth could do a lot to revive the democracy. When folks are willing to be herded with false data, as has occurred so often, the cattle prod belongs to he who can flood the data channel, not he who has the most reliable data. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM Labor unions can't trump the cash corporate America has to throw at the disinformation they will wage against consumers. I think the electorate is too busy being distracted by many things to take the time to sort out the issues in any particular question, so they will migrate to the views expressed in the slickest, most memorable ads out there in the marketplace. Paid for by those corporations that had to sit on their cash and not let the fat cats at the top speak for all in the company. Until now. The Bush legacy continues. I wonder if Obama's majority in house and senate can tackle this in the next few months? They are acting like 59 to 41 in the senate is a defeat, ferchristsakes, after the Massachusetts election of its new beefcake senator. (And now they're going to wait until he's on board and revote everything? Why are they playing so nice, after Bush dope-slapped the nation for 8 years? It's time to let the light in the back room glint off of the political stiletto, guys. . .) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: CarolC Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:08 PM Non-profits and labor unions don't have the kind of resources that large fat-cat corporations have, so I think Bobert is correct in his assessment. And the electorate can't make reasonable choices if they don't know what all of the choices are, which the corporations do everything in their (ever inreasing) power to prevent them from doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:06 PM "The United States is supposed to have a "literate, educated" populace, able to think and reason." Q - You need to check your sources! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:05 PM The initial post by Bobert is extremely biased. The ruling by the Supreme Court gives not only business but unions and non-profits more power to spend freely in federal elections. In the majority 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." The United States is supposed to have a "literate, educated" populace, able to think and reason. Bobert thinks that the electorate is too ignorant to make reasonable choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: pdq Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:04 PM Unlimited campaign spending by companies, political action committees and labor unions. |
|
Subject: BS: Supreme Court Kills Democratic Party... From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:48 PM Reminiscent of the 2000 case Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided that they quite preferred Republican rule... In a 5-4 decision, with all five justices in majority being appointed by Republican presidents, the court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corpoarte Fat Cats in campaigns... The Righties here and elsewhere will argue that this is about free speech and the constitutionality of limiting corpoartions from enjoying the same rights as individuals... I personally could accept this argument if those politicans who will now be bullied into voting ***exactly*** the way Boss Hog wants them to vote had orgainizations or individuals who were granted "equal time" but that isn't the way the Republican packed FCC has rigged the game... And make no bones about it, the game is now fully rigged... Makes TV wrestling look real... So, ya'll... 2010 is now going to be a bloodbath for Dems and those who do get re-elected will do so only if they promise to sing the company fight song... What was left of democrarcy has now been dropped into the shreader... Seems the only out now is revolution... B~ |
