BS: President Romney (prediction only)

Subject: BS: President Romney
From: Songwronger
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:06 PM

Normally I wouldn't have given milqetoast Romney a chance in the upcoming election, but it looks as if the media has been directed to turn on Obama. His administration will now be plagued with scandal and innuendo up to the election, and he will lose to Romney.

So what will a Romney administration be like? He's an ancient friend of Israel, so look for the jackass Joe Lieberman to become Sec of Defense or State. And Romney's an asset stripper, so he'll continue the work of killing the U.S. Post Office that Obama/Hastert began. Pension funds will be raided, social services will be shut down, none of Obama's god-like self-appointed powers will be repealed. It'll be like Reagan's "Imperial presidency" after Carter was one-termed.

Any thoughts?

McCain drafting resolution to call for special counsel on security leaks

Attorney General Eric Holder names attorneys to investigate leaks

McCain rejects Holder's leak probe, calls for outside counsel

And finally,the bitch slap.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:11 PM

I got a thought. Romney doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:15 PM

If the GOP weren't divided now as badly as the Democratic Party used to be, he might have a chance.

But it's (unfortunately) a looooooooooooooooooong time to the election.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:30 PM

I agree with the wrong-man... The media is all over Obama...

Exhibit A: "Worst week in 3 1 /2 years"... Those were the words of all BIG MEDIA...

Two ways to look at anything... BIG MEDIA choose to look at it and report it 100% Romney, 0% Obama...

Obama now has an uphill battle to win in November and it doesn't look possible... Bad enough to take on UNLIMITED Obama hate ads but now BIG MEDIA (owned by Republicans) are on board to take Obama out...

Yup, Obama is toast and so are the American people who will end up carved like a T-Giving turkey and wondering...

..."Just how the hell this happen, Ralph?"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Songwronger
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:41 PM

Obama brought it on himself. He was going to "end the wars," and now he's bombing the Phillipines, fer chrissake. Fuck him.

And the Repub party is uniting. The right-wing Paul family (Rand & Ron) are now supporting Romney, and the left-winger Repub candidates will toss him their support at the convention.

On the bright side, there's less chance now that Obama will start his race wars, since he's going to lose.

And speaking of race, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney picks Condoleeza Rice (shudder) as his running mate. That'll get women and blacks onboard. Romney really is a milquetoast, and he'll need all the help he can get, even with Soros' Spanish vote counting company doing the tally on election night.

So I think it'll be Romney/Rice, with Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense, and some Goldman Sachs guy as head of Treasury. Sec of State has become a "woman's" position, so maybe Sarah Palin. Oh God help us. What a circus.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jun 12 - 10:54 PM

No, Obama didn't bring this on himself...

There was no way to end the wars... There was no way to close Gitmo...

Do you even have an elementary understanding of American history and politics, wronger...

Goes back a long time... John Kennedy was ready to bring every American out of Vietnam 3 weeks before his assassination but didn't do so because he said (in private conversations) that if he did the Joe McCarthy Repubs would accuse him of giving in to the commies and he'd loose the '64 election...

There are certain things that a 1st term president can't pull off...

You want sources on what I have reported, wronger, and I will produce them... Sometimes I assume that people understand.know history...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 01:35 AM

"So I think it'll be Romney/Rice, with Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense, and some Goldman Sachs guy as head of Treasury. Sec of State has become a "woman's" position, so maybe Sarah Palin."

shhhhheeeesh Reminds me of some others who have made predictions in the past. Don't worry- we won't forget yours.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:47 AM

Obama's ads here in North Carolina, are well done and I think, will be very effective. Romney promised Mass that he knew how to create jobs then led the state down to 47th out of 50 states in that area.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:11 AM

IF Republicans had anything to stand on other than innuendo about Obama, they'd be bragging about it. They ain't bragging. Ipso facto . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:30 AM

Obama bombing the Philippines? WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:43 AM

Here in the Charlotte area, JtS, Obama is getting carpet bombed with nasty, negative advertising by a group that calls itself the "American Future Fund"... I Googled them up to see who the are and where they get their money... All the listed donors combined couldn't buy a night's worth of advertising so there's some very wealthy anonymous donors who don't want to be known...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 11:23 AM

"So I think it'll be Romney/Rice, with Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Defense, and some Goldman Sachs guy as head of Treasury. Sec of State has become a "woman's" position, so maybe Sarah Palin."

heh heh
I am printing this out and sticking it on my cubicle wall. Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 11:29 AM

Well, Miss Sarah is the right person for the job... Romney says that Russia is "our number one enemy" and Miss Sarah could keep an eye on them from her living room...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 11:30 AM

I don't think Obama can fly a plane, much less bomb the Philippines. A couple days ago he met with the President of the Philippines and they agreed to some stuff, but I don't see Barack Obama at the controls of an A-10 or B-52.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 12:58 PM

Strategically speaking, in terms of possible future military challenges that arise between competing empires, Russia IS still the USA's number one rival in the world...with China rising to possibly supplant the Russians in that position, but China's not there yet.

So, while what Romney said is rather idiotic in a human or moral sense...it is quite correct in a completely dispassionate sense of how Realpolitik plays out between major military powers.

For example: Right from the end of WWI on until the actual day of December 7/41 the USA and Japan were each other's number one enemies in the Pacific. That's how they both saw it. Why? Because they were the two major naval powers in the Pacific during that period, that's why. And they both had their eyes on exploiting the material resources and trade routes and commerce in the Pacific and East Asia. This put them on a collision course. It made both of them constantly plan for possible future war contingencies with the other, play war games, build new warships and planes, scheme and plot and plan how they were going to one day defeat the other in a massive naval confrontation.

The USA is similarly positioned now in regards to not Japan...but Russia and China. The basic issues haven't changed. The basic issues are who gets to have the controling hand over trade and vital resources such as: oil, precious metals, food, water, etc. He who can achieve military dominance in a theatre of potential war is normally the one who has control...whether by war itself or by the potential threat of war. The USA, Russia, and China all know this, and they all make plans for how to deal with it. India is another major player in the region...being a direct opponent of China.

These things are real. For people like Romney to use such fears to manipulate voters, however, is just the usual crummy stuff that politicians do to get themselves elected...and they pretty much all do it. They scare the people to get votes, and wrap themselves in the flag. Romney and Obama are both guilty of employing such tactics, but why would that surprise anyone? It's standard behaviour. The sad thing is that the general public everywhere surrenders control of their lives to such people...and goes out to fight the war for them when a war comes.

People should refuse to go. Cops should refuse to arrest the people who refuse to go. Soldiers should refuse to fight. If the entire population EVERYWHERE just refused the call to war, the game would come to an end. I don't see that happening. People are too accustomed to just following orders, and they don't realize the collective power they have to stand up and say "no"...nor do they realize that they have far more in common with the ordinary people in the rest of the world than they do with their own leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 01:25 PM

When the Supreme court decided that corporations are people, that sounded the death knell for our democracy. Millions are pouring into republican war chests.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:29 PM

And Democratic war chests too, kendall! Don't forget...you cannot establish consistent control of government policy by controlling only 1 of 2 parties. You do it by controlling both of them. Dead simple.

In Canada it's done by controlling all of them...given that we have basically 4 parties here.

Equally dead simple. You just spread the big money around in several different directions, that's all. And you make it all back seven-fold after your various elected stooges de-regulate and privatize on your behalf once in office, purchase your services, and get the government to borrow more money and bail out the banksters if the system crashes.

We haven't had to do the latter yet in Canada, because de-regulation hasn't gone that far yet in this country, so the banks have remained stable.

Yes, if the Big Money people in the USA feel they can do better in the next 4 years with the Republicans, then they'll dump Obama and appoint Romney in his place. Obama has served them quite well in the past 4 years, I think, but perhaps not quite well as well as they would have wanted...or maybe they think it's just a good psychological moment for the old "change the face in Washington" routine to be played again. Time to replace "God in the White House" again. Whenever the public gets heartily disillusioned and upset with what's going on, you see, they kick out the old "face" and advance a new one, and that briefly resuscitates public confidence. Remember the thrill of hope when Obama was elected? I do. I felt it too. That's enough to keep the game just rolling on and on....just like the odd win at the casino keeps the players gambling on and on.

They did something like that with Mubarak in Egypt. They kicked out the old "face" of the number 1 guy at the top, and people thought that everything would change with him gone. Well, it hasn't. The same oppressive military and security forces are still really in control of Egypt, just like they were before, they are agents of USA regional policy there, and Egyptians are waking up to that. They may have another popular revolution soon, the way it's going.

All that has to be done, though, in more affluent and hypnotized North America is...just hold another election every few years, briefly renew public hope in the wonderful possibilities of their "democracy". That keeps people distracted enough to keep the basic oligarchic system in place. America isn't a democracy or a republic...it's a business conglomerate, and its number one business is war.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:31 PM

"Millions are pouring into republican war chests."

Now, now, be accurate. It's BILLIONS. The anonymous buyers of elections have lots of money to spend, after all. They certainly aren't hiring many workers ("job cremators" indeed). All in defense of the 1%.

Gah! I wouldn't be in the 1% if you gave me a million dollars!

Bob

(Think about it).

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:43 PM

The very title of this thread is a repulsive abomination not to be tolerated, fit only to frighten little children.


A

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:47 PM

I will bet a dollar to doughnuts that Romney and his Super PACS will outspend Obama and his PAC BIG time... They already are here in NC... Looks like about 5-1 so far... They are pounding Obama nightly on any channel you happen to be watching...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:53 PM

Just for the record, Little Hawk: I do not agree with your postulations. It is much too tidy and it is not borne out by history.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 02:59 PM

I agree with Ebbie... If Obama has served them well then he is a known "servant" and a known servant doing his job is better than an unknown potential servant...

No, Romney's BIG Super PAC $$$ is coming from the big polluters who want the EPA dead... Obama won't allow that... Romney would do it yesterday if he could...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM

Just a quick glance-through of this thread this morning turned up a fairl wagonful of dingo's kidneys from the usual suspects.

Billions in corporate money pouring into the coffers of the Democratic Party? Not so's any Democrats I know have noticed!

And Obama's bombing the Philippines?

Philippine president Aquino solicited the support of the United States in a dispute with China over China's claims to territory in the South China Sea. Aquino and Obama are discussing the matter.

Story Here.

Obama bombing the Philippines? What fevered brain came up with THAT? Sounds like someone with about as much regard for the truth as Rush Limbaugh.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 04:59 PM

I get that, Ebbie. ;-) Okay.

I don't think that Romney is an "unknown potential servant" of the corporate interests, Bobert. I think his utterly fervent inclination to serve as a totally compliant servant of the Big Money interests is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, I can readily imagine that they are sending lots of money his way.

They may feel that Obama's popularity is just too shaky at this point, and that they could generate more public enthusiasm for a Republican candidate now...whether or not it's Romney. If so, then I think Romney will get more funding than Obama. It's important for the system to advance a candidate who can somewhat restore public confidence at any particular juncture. In 2008 that candidate was Obama...far and away beyond the others. McCain was hopeless, the public had had it with the Republicans anyway after 8 terrible years of George Bush, and Hillary Clinton was too problematical because the of past levels of intense hostility against her on the part of about half of your electorate. Plus, Obama was like the liberal dream candidate...a "black" man with impeccable appearance and magnificent rhetorical skills...my God! Almost like a young Sidney Poitier. How can you possibly beat in the face of a public yearning for change after 8 years of George Bush? It was positively intoxicating, specially for those of us who grew up during the 60s and gave our hearts to the cause of racial equality. Hell, it was like a religious experience seeing him get elected! Remember?

That was a marketer's dream. No wonder he got such great funding (from both the "little people" and the rich elite).

If they figure that the thought of another 4 years of Obama will now just depress most people, then I think they'll advance Romney as the supposed "shining hope" of change, the new knight on the white horse. If they think Obama's still viable, on the other hand, then I think they'll basically back him and he'll get elected again.

Either man can win...if he gets the right sort of media and money backing. That means the media and the money people can control the agenda if they simply work in concert with one another toward a common purpose, and I think they usually do.

Either way, I think they'll get what they want...a corporate servant.

I WISH I was wrong. I wish it wasn't that way. But it's that way in Canada too. And in the UK. And in Germany. And in France. The business people and banks have taken over the elections as far as I can see, because they have the money power to do so and why wouldn't they use that power to their own benefit when they have it?. If they can win regardless of which party gets elected, why should they really care which one gets elected...except in the sense of periodically boosting public confidence...and that's an important consideration.

When public confidence gets a boost, it's a lot easier to slip by some very toxic legislation like the NDAA or like a bank bailout or a military move. People will support it if their guy is the leader who does it, because they want fervently to believe that he's honest and trustworthy. They voted for him, after all, so they WANT to believe he's a good guy, no matter what. They'll make excuses for him and say he "had no choice". They won't tolerate the same kind of toxic legislation, however, if the other party's guy is the leader. Not a chance.

I've seen this happen a lot. The Obama administration can pass right wing legislation that would make most Mudcatters howl if Bush had done it! NDAA is a prime example. But when Obama does it, they stay quiet. After all, he's a Democrat, right? A "nice guy". A Democrat can quietly take away their civil rights, and they don't even seem to notice it, but when a Republican tries to do that, they are infuriated.

That's how the partisan mind works, and that's why I really detest the very idea OF political parties. They bend people's minds out of shape and solidify their views of reality along party lines...instead of according to genuine moral principle.

The thought of Romney getting elected horrifies me. The thought of Obama getting elected again depresses me. I don't expect to be presented with a 3rd (viable) choice, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 05:33 PM

Exactly so Little Hawk, but why do we continue with the pantomime?
Just look at this forum compared to thousands of others on the net, we are not stupid people, there must be some other reason.....and the reason is that we all believe that we have some sort of sorry stake in this economic system......no matter how little we have, we've always got more than that other guy down the road!

Only this time its different, this time they are going to take everything, starve our children and create two distinct classes, the rulers and the underclass....that is what "democracy" has produced.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 06:02 PM

As one who has twice beaten doors for Ralph Nadar this is not a year to buy into all the Republican spin... Part of their narrative can be found in LH's posts... These continual "twiddle dee-twiddle dum" posts
are straight outta the Republican PR war room...

With that said, yeah, the right wing in America has accomplished it's goals... Soften up the entire country to expect nothing... Kinda like Somalia...

I hate hearing kids say, "There won't be any Social Security for me when I retire"... That is one of the BIGGEST of the Republican ploys to make people anti-government and hate that they have to pay to help others... Social Security is so fixable it is pathetically laughable that kids don't realize that when they say/parrot this shit it's just another nail in their own coffin... Quit saying it!!!

Quit parroting PR pablum as if it means anything at all... It doesn't... You don't want poison water and air and privatized everything else then quit propagating right wing propaganda...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: MarkS
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:35 PM

Hang on, folks, hang on and do not start the wake just yet. It is a long time till November and lots can, and probably will, happen prior to election day.

For Petes sake we have not yet even had the conventions and official nominees yet.

But in the spirit of the prediction game, I'll play along, so, ahem:

President Obama does an LBJ and walks away, leaving the Democratic nominee to be.....................Hillary!

Any other bombshells worth mentioning?

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 03:44 AM

I think the splits in the Democrat campaign can be laid at the door of Bill 'n Hill.
As I have said many times, they were Mr Obama's biggest mistake.
I believe that they have been working in their own interests, not the interests of the nation.

Mrs Clinton has the dead eyes of a rattlesnake.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

Ms. Rodham Clinton to you!

Church will become state...

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:07 PM

I think that if Hillary and Joe Biden swapped jobs the Dems would not lose a single state from last time. That is IF Hillary can be a team player.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:54 PM

I think the fact that she might not be able to be demonstrates Obama's wisdom in placing her in her kingdom-once-removed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 03:00 PM

The election depends on how many gullible fools believe the lies the right wingers are spinning.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:06 PM

Just finished watching the NBC news (5:30 - 7:00) and Citizens United won 7 to 1... Yup, 7 ads either pounding on Obama or telling us a bunch of lies about how great Romney will be as president... One ad for Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 11:25 AM

The U.S. has no shortage of gullible fools, Kendall. In the last 20 years or so, ignorance has been enshrined as a virtue, and there has been a population explosion of gullible fools.

And they're PROUD of the fact that they're gullible fools.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 11:48 AM

Ya know, if we created a 'GULLIBLE FOOLS' placard/poster, attached a shoulder board and footnoted it: VOTE REPUBLICAN along with an address, they just might buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 01:05 PM

I am conservative in my views, and would support a conservative candidate. but the legislators most prominent now wish to destroy many useful government services rather than improve them.
The Republicans want to radically reform agencies of the government, eliminating services that act to develop new procedures or products- the very services that add to income and employment and should be preserved by a business-oriented administration.

For the above reason, if I was able to vote in the election, I would support Obama. (Ex-US citizen, now Canadian)

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 01:47 PM

If I was able to vote in it, I could not in good conscience vote for either Obama or Romney, but that doesn't mean I couldn't find other individuals to vote for on the lower levels. It isn't just a question of voting for the one person who will be president.

Curiously enough, we do NOT vote for the "leader" in Canada at all. We vote for the local candidates of the various parties, not for the party leaders themselves. The leader of the winning party then becomes the Prime Minister, but only the people in his local riding actually voted directly for him (or her). Nevertheless, our elections are conducted as if we were all voting for the party leaders, so in a psychological sense, that is pretty much what is happening.

I'm not campaigning for either side, Bobert. You are campaigning for one side. That's why we see the situation differently. You're treating it as a partisan matter, I'm not. How can you reconcile the fact that Mr Obama has brought in even more draconian domestic legislation (the NDAA) than Bush ever dared to do?

Here is Rachel Maddow's take on that: Rachel Maddow talks about Obama and the NDAA

She's concerned about it. Rightly so! How about you? What would you have said if George Bush had been the man who enacted such patently unconstitutional and oppressive domestic legislation as the NDAA? Or if Romney did? You'd be very upset... But what about when Obama does it? Is it somehow "okay" to enact fascism when a Democrat does it....as long as the Republicans aren't the ones who do it?

Partisan mind. It turns the blind eye when its own party takes it down the road to what it would find totally unacceptable and outrageous, were the other party to do it.

That's how those 2 parties have you in their grasp. And they are both taking you very clearly down the road to a totalitarian state. Do you really think that supporting either one of them is going to preserve your vanishing freedoms?

In an American election I would vote for individuals I believe in and trust...if there were any such individuals named on the ballot. I do not believe in or trust Mr Obama or Mr Romney. I might find someone else to believe in on your ballot, though...and if so, I'd vote for them...regardless which party they were in.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 02:59 PM

In the US, as in Canada, it is the elected representatives that count most- Representatives and senators in the US, elected MPs in Canada. Look at Boehner in the US Congress, with a majority behind him he can be stronger than the president.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:17 PM

Yes. Particularly in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:33 PM

""Do you even have an elementary understanding of American history and politics, wronger...""

He doesn't even have an elementary understanding of what he had for breakfast Bobert.

I'm absolutely amazed that he can use a computer. He comes over as one who wouldn't understand anything with more than one knob to turn.

On/Off, that's it!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:44 PM

""What fevered brain came up with THAT? Sounds like someone with about as much regard for the truth as Rush Limbaugh.""

He calls himself "songwronger", which may well be thonly true word he has ever posted, and to have a ""fevered brain"" he would first need to have a brain installed.

Five brain cells would produce a fivefold increase in his capacity to lie about Obama, but little else.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:55 PM

How will devastating verbal attacks made via the Internet upon another human being's ego assist in advancing any political causes you espouse, Don T?

And do you imagine that by insulting and demeaning Songwronger you will somehow persuade him to change his mind or go away?

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 04:20 PM

Songwronger is restating what I just said..and I agree with him..or should I say, the both of us....Question is, who has directed the media to do just that??...THEN, you'll be getting somewhere! Could it be, as 'suggested' before something like this??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 04:29 PM

When the Supreme court decided that corporations are people, that sounded the death knell for our democracy. Millions are pouring into republican war chests.

The principle that a corporation is a "person" was established primarily by the "Marshall Court" (1801 - 1835) when Chief Justice John Marshall and "his court" faced the problem of creating concepts of what a corporation should be, in the face of an increase in schemes for making money, many of which were destructive, unfair to competing interests, and counter to principles (and to some extent ideals) inherent in the founding structure of the country.

The thing decided by the recent SCOTUS was not that the corporation is a person, since that was already an established concept. What the new decision was is that a "corporate person" is different in a specific way from an "actual person," and also different than some "other kinds of persons that are not real persons" in that a "corporate person" may make UNLIMITED donations to a "person" running for political office, while "other kinds of persons, including real persons" are restricted in the amounts they may donate.

It MIGHT BE appropriate, based on prior principles, to allow corporate donations; but the Court evaded (or was too stupid to see the full impact) the need to more fully define limits on the "personhood" of corporations as political donors in a way consistent with the limits on others.

It is an established principle in law, and particularly for the Supreme Court, that a court should answer only the questions asked by petitioners, and if the question isn't asked there is a principle involved when the court limits their own extension of the question, to establish new rules that are not clearly and directly related to the suit. To do more would be the "activism" so widely claimed (often falsely, esp by Replublican lackeys) by those who just don't like any limits on their ability to abuse the law.

The decision on Corporate Donations is WRONG, only partly because the Court made a poor decision, but mainly because petitioners didn't ask the complete and appropriate questions. (And nobody filed a counter-petition to raise questions about the obvious consequences.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 06:14 PM

I agree, it was either stupid or argued wrong. Foreign countries, corporations, big unions, and the banksters all made out with it....as for the people...you know, as in 'We the People' got shafted. hopefully, and hopefully soon, it can be turned around....but I'm not holding my breath..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:45 PM

Another 7 Romney/anti-Obama ads (5:30 to 700) tonight by anonymous donors (Koch brothers, et al)

One Obama ad paid for by Obama's campaign...

Score 7 to 1... Cowards win...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:37 PM

Soros has out spent the Kochs in multiples, Bobert!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:45 PM

As usual, John, thanks for a lucid analysis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:50 PM

You Lie, GfinS...

Where ever you came up with that is Bogus as a three dollar bill!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: President Romney (prediction only)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 10:09 PM

Bobert, Read ALL the way, to the end.....let the chips fall where they may!

GfS