The Five Stooges

[merrylander]

Yes I know there only used to be three, but now we have five, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts. All can be called traitors to America because they put no limits on corporate speech.

So now dear friends, Toyota, Honda, and Aerospatiale (I know how much y'all love the French) or any other U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation can advertise in our elections. I expect Toyota will spend big bucks against any candidate who favours our auto industry. Aerospatiale will of course favour the friends of Boeing, sure, count on it.

If you added up the collective IQ of that five it would still be a number less than 300.:rolleyes:

[Grumpy]

300 ? Thats being mighty generous there Rob :)

[merrylander]

I'm in a kind and gentle mood today Dave.;)

[Writewing]

I thought it was Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank and Rangel but when you said a collective IQ of 300 I knew it wasnt them...........that would be a promotion.

[Boreas]

I thought it was Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank and Rangel but when you said a collective IQ of 300 I knew it wasnt them...........that would be a promotion.

'Mornin', Brighteyes!

John

[merrylander]

So from you assinine comment I take it you approve of foreigners mucking about in our elections? Since you chose to make no comment to the contrary I have to guess that this is the case.

[Writewing]

So from you assinine comment I take it you approve of foreigners mucking about in our elections? Since you chose to make no comment to the contrary I have to guess that this is the case.

Dude its been 48hrs since the ruling so dont pretend to know whats going to happen because as of yet nothing has.

[merrylander]

Grasshopper I do know what the ruling permits, so why would, oh say Toyota not run ads inimical to a candidate who supports our automobile companies. You can be sure they are all in favour of Corker.

Alternatively I could take your position;

[Writewing]

But it has not happened and when it does (if it does) then address it then that doesnt seem to radical or irrational to me.

[Boreas]

Dude its been 48hrs since the ruling so dont pretend to know whats going to happen because as of yet nothing has.

I realize it's pointless to try but here goes anyway.

It's a question of what this ruling allows... forever, not just what has happened in the last few days. This ruling allows everything Rob mentioned and more. Big corporations from all over the world can now drop huge money bombs on candidates and elections here, openly, legally and literally buying the government most favorable to their interests, not those of the people.

You're a big fan of Beck & Goldberg's "theory" of Left Wing Fascism. Well, look Fascism up (I wouldn't recommend using Conservapedia) and see what it actually is. I believe you'll find it accurately describes the form of government this ruling ushers in, courtesy of five right wing activist judges.

John

PS: Don't respond. Just do the research and for once think about it.

PPS: Marbury vs. Madison SUCKS!

[Boreas]

But it has not happened and when it does (if it does) then address it then that doesnt seem to radical or irrational to me.

The only body that can reverse a ruling of the Supreme Court is (surprise!) the Supreme Court.

John

[Writewing]

Its about a Principle of Free Speech, individuals we have always been allowed to spend as much as we want on a message, we cant "give" but we can spend. This is no different than what Unions, Move on.org and George Soros have been doing and you assume folks are not free thinkers who will still decide who is best for them. You dont give Americans enough credit.
The First Amendment does not allow a Government to silence its critics even if that critic is a corporate body. Didnt I hear the ACLU championed this aswell?

This quote is key and IMO sums up why this was a good ruling.

"The Court’s opinion went on to note that the government’s theory of being able to censor organizations that speak to the public simply because that organization is a corporation with the ability to accumulate money would enable the government to go after the media. Every major press outlet is a corporation, and all have vast sums of money. The government’s argument could be used to justify censorship of the press. When that happened, the First Amendment dies."

[Fast_Eddie]

Its about a Principle of Free Speech, individuals we have always been allowed to spend as much as we want on a message, we cant "give" but we can spend.

God, I'm a sucker.

Free speech is a right we get as American Citizens. Being a citizen comes with responsibilities. So, two point there. I'll let you think on them a minute then ask two questions.

No, go back and read the two points again. Rights are given to citizens. Citizens have responsibilities. You got it? Trying to keep it to small words and simple ideas for you.

You ready? You sure? Don't want to move too fast. Seems I lose you a lot when I do.

Question #1. (two parts) Is it okay with you to give the rights of an American citizen to a foreign company? If so, why have you stated so strongly (I said catagorically, but thought I would use a smaller word) that you oppose giving basic rights such as habeas corpus (That's just what it's called. You may need to look it up) to detainees?

Question #2. (also two parts) Do you think these foreign companies who have been given rights reserved to citizens should now bear the responsibility that goes with being a citizen. And do you think there is any likelihood that they will do so?

Stop! Don't answer yet!

Answering is also a two step process. Think, then type. You've had trouble with the first bit of that so I thought I'd give you a reminder.

Take care,

Ed

Worth noting- I actually think the decision was correct based on existing law. However, I think the decision suggests that we should explore amending some law. Unlikely to happen- people get touchy about limiting free speech and rightly so. But it's a shame.

[Writewing]

You cant just cherry pick what is and how far Freedom goes and simply because you belong to a party who is hostile to big business isnt enough of a reason to thwart true freedom. Now you can continue to try to paint me as a mindless idiot but your opinion of me is as impotent as your ability to silence me for having a different Political view.

[Fast_Eddie]

You cant just cherry pick what is and how far Freedom goes and simply because you belong to a party who is hostile to big business isnt enough of a reason to thwart true freedom. Now you can continue to try to paint me as a mindless idiot but your opinion of me is as impotent as your ability to silence me for having a different Political view.

Another well thought out, logical response full of facts and new ideas. I don't have to paint you as anything. You do it far better than I ever could.

By the way, not that you care or will understand, cherry picking what freedom is and how far it goes is the foundation of law. Unfettered freedom would mean that I can hit you over the head with a bat and take your car free of consequence. We do not have unfettered freedom. We live by law. In this case, the law isn't in our best interest.

[Boreas]

God, I'm a sucker.

Yeah, I started to answer but I... I just don't have it in me any more.

John

[Writewing]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me. I would love to sit around and continue to address your flacide insults but the real world calls and Saturday fun awaits me. I respect your right to be wrong so take comfort in that. Cheers

[Boreas]

Will our president have to register as an Agent of a Foreign Power when he gets elected on the strength of campaign expenditures from foreign governments and corporations?

John

[merrylander]

You cant just cherry pick what is and how far Freedom goes and simply because you belong to a party who is hostile to big business isnt enough of a reason to thwart true freedom. Now you can continue to try to paint me as a mindless idiot but your opinion of me is as impotent as your ability to silence me for having a different Political view.

Maybe we should all chip in and buy WW a tuxedo, if he is going to be impotent he might as well look impotent.:p

[Boreas]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me. I would love to sit around and continue to address your flacide insults but the real world calls and Saturday fun awaits me. I respect your right to be wrong so take comfort in that. Cheers

Man, are you ever naive! (OMG! That's French again!) Whatever happened to that time honored Conservative mistrust of government?

You are such a tool!

John

[merrylander]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me. I would love to sit around and continue to address your flacide insults but the real world calls and Saturday fun awaits me. I respect your right to be wrong so take comfort in that. Cheers

Flacide? Try and stick to American English at least.:p

[d-ray657]

The only body that can reverse a ruling of the Supreme Court is (surprise!) the Supreme Court.

John

There is another, but even more difficult way of reversing this ruling - a constitutional amendment. However, you can be certain that the corporate world (it's too narrow to say corporate America) would buy the best creative talent out there to create fear and loathing for the idea of limiting corporate mind control.

Congress also has the power to undo a Supreme Court ruling on a matter of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation.

It might only take 20 or 30 years to turn the court around, but by that time, our minds might already have been bought and paid for.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

It might only take 20 or 30 years to turn the court around, but by that time, our minds might already have been bought and paid for.

Regards,

D-Ray

Your mind is totally controlled.
It's been stuffed into my mold.
And you will do as you are told,
Until the rights to you are sold.

John

PS: Thanks for the pickup. I knew you'd straighten me out if my "Legal expertise" faltered.

[finnbow]

Politics makes strange bedfellows and I think I side with WW on this one. First, I'll stipulate that I dislike political commercials as much as anybody and find them often tasteless and manipulative.

This case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, was an outgrowth of a ban on TV commercials for "Hillary: The Movie" during the period leading up to the Democratic primary. Do we really think it's right to ban adds for a movie? How about Michael Moore's movies? How about Avatar? (some believe it has an anti-military and by extension, an anti-GOP theme). Where do you draw the line?

If "Hillary:The Movie" was, in fact, "Hillary: The Book," would you feel equally comfortable banning ads for it? As far as allowing corporations to advertise, keep in mind that GE (a multinational) owns NBC and Disney (also multinational) owns ABC. Should these 2 networks be prevented from running ads? Should the Wall St. Journal or Fox (controlled by NewsCorp, a multinational) not be able to offer political opinions prior to political races? Again, where do you draw the line?

As far as foreign corporations airing political ads/opinions, just what is a foreign corporation? Are multinationals foreign? As for unions, some U.S. unions have a significant presence in Canada. Where do you draw the line?

This decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.

Granted, there may be some problematic aspects in the eyes of many to this ruling. But at its essence, it was about timing. How far before an election can the government prohibit ads by certain parties or should we kid ourselves into believing that it makes a difference?

[Twodogs]

So only the Unions should be able to buy elections. Makes perfect left wing sense to me.:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

So only the Unions should be able to buy elections. Makes perfect left wing sense to me.:rolleyes:

Unions were and are pretty much in the same boat as far as campaign spending is concerned.

John

[d-ray657]

Politics makes strange bedfellows and I think I side with WW on this one. First, I'll stipulate that I dislike political commercials as much as anybody and find them often tasteless and manipulative.

This case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, was an outgrowth of a ban on TV commercials for "Hillary: The Movie" during the period leading up to the Democratic primary. Do we really think it's right to ban adds for a movie? How about Michael Moore's movies? How about Avatar? (some believe it has an anti-military and by extension, an anti-GOP theme). Where do you draw the line?

If "Hillary:The Movie" was, in fact, "Hillary: The Book," would you feel equally comfortable banning ads for it? As far as allowing corporations to advertise, keep in mind that GE (a multinational) owns NBC and Disney (also multinational) owns ABC. Should these 2 networks be prevented from running ads? Should the Wall St. Journal or Fox (controlled by NewsCorp, a multinational) not be able to offer political opinions prior to political races? Again, where do you draw the line?

As far as foreign corporations airing political ads/opinions, just what is a foreign corporation? Are multinationals foreign? As for unions, some U.S. unions have a significant presence in Canada. Where do you draw the line?

This decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from c orporations or unions to candidates.

Granted, there may be some problematic aspects in the eyes of many to this ruling. But at its essence, it was about timing. How far before an election can the government prohibit ads by certain parties or should we kid ourselves into believing that it makes a difference?

You make some valid points, but my biggest concern is that the concept of personhood for corporations has been perverted to the point where corporations enjoy obscene levels of power. Their power is greater than many governments, and they are responsive to no other constituent than the bottom line. In part, perhaps, the response to this case it that it is just another step toward corporate dominance in political influence.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

So only the Unions should be able to buy elections. Makes perfect left wing sense to me.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't blink an eye in agreeing to unions and corporations being subject to the same level of governmental control over their finances.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me.

If the government says it's in your best interest that's good enough for you? You don't really mean that. I know you better than that.

I should say, I feel bad about how I've been addressing you. I was wrong. I'm going to try to do better.

No, I'm serious. I apologize. I'd like to say "won't happen again" but I can be an ass at times. But I'll try.

Hope you have a great day.

Ed

[merrylander]

"We the corporations of these United States, in or to form a more pliable government . . ."

There I fixed it for them.:rolleyes:

[Writewing]

If the government says it's in your best interest that's good enough for you? You don't really mean that. I know you better than that.

I should say, I feel bad about how I've been addressing you. I was wrong. I'm going to try to do better.

No, I'm serious. I apologize. I'd like to say "won't happen again" but I can be an ass at times. But I'll try.

Hope you have a great day.

Ed

Thanks but you dont owe me an apology, I do appreciate your kind words and the class you showed in your private mail. Politics isnt pretty and there is a great reason we dont bring it up at dinner parties, work out in general because it causes strong emotions. Personal attacks sort of make me grin because I dont sweat the small stuff, I am disabled and have alot of health issues and somebody calling me an idiot about a simple point of view is just silly so I point it out but when I log off here everyone stays here. There is much more to life than somebody thinking I am an idiot when I am in the company of tens of millions of other folks and besides we feel the same on our side about the opposition anyway.
I like to poke fun, point out hypocrisy and get critical of politics but I dont make it about an individual person outside politics, well I sometimes do but only if somebody has chosen that path. We get off on smearing eachother and you need not look further than any given post to see we all thrive on the business of right, wrong, insane and danger of each others views as apparent to us. If folks want to continue to attack and insult me as a person go for it but I am a firm believer that when that happens the person has already lost the arguement and has no choice but go low road.
At anyrate thanks again and I think I can do better too........maybe atleast with somebody who has as much class as you have shown you possess.

[noonereal]

. If folks want to continue to attack and insult me as a person go for it but I am a firm believer that when that happens the person has already lost the arguement and has no choice but go low road.
.

Aren't you the one that transformed the tone of this forum?

just sayin'

I am not saying people did not piss each other off but there was never any of this nonsensical baiting and sniping.

[Writewing]

Yea its all my fault, you guys are perfect gentleman, feel better???
My post waas between 2 men who understand something that must still be lost on you but blame me if it makes you feel better cause I have better things to do than argue with you over and over.
If you dont like my postings dont participate, simple enough correct?

[noonereal]

was just sayin'

[Fast_Eddie]

Yea its all my fault, you guys are perfect gentleman, feel better???


Well, let me try to say this in the right way. I have to say, when you showed up the tone changed a bit. I do *not* however, think the blame falls completely on your shoulders. Many of us, myself included, made the decision to respond in kind. That was a choice I made. You can not change or control the tone of this board. You can only control the tone of your posts. And I mine.

I'm not happy with the tone of my posts as late. I do not feel they represent what I believe.

[BlueStreak]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me.


So, I take it Roe v. Wade is just fine with you, then?

Or are there some decisions that you don't like? Such as, "the ones that aren't so nice.":D

Dave

[Boreas]

The Supreme Court thinks this is in our best interest, atleast a majority of it does and that is good enough for me.

It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide what is or isn't in our best interest.

John

[merrylander]

The Supremes also broke the rules when they asked that this case be brought back. The court is an appelate court they can decide which appeals will be heard but the are not supposed to be the ones making the appeal.

[Writewing]

So, I take it Roe v. Wade is just fine with you, then?

Or are there some decisions that you don't like? Such as, "the ones that aren't so nice.":D

Dave

Yes I am fine with Abortion, its a needed option

[Writewing]

It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide what is or isn't in our best interest.

John

But they do decide whats legal and what a laws affect is on such items as Free Speech and it is in our best interest Free Speech is truely free.

[Sandy G]

Ahh, all of y'all's Mamas wear Army Boots !! So there ! N'yah, n'yah....(That was about the worst insult I could come up with when I was in the 3rd grade...Didn't exactly know what it meant, but it made a 5TH grader REAL mad, so I figgered it must have been a Jim-Dandy one....

[Fast_Eddie]

But they do decide whats legal and what a laws affect is on such items as Free Speech and it is in our best interest Free Speech is truely free.

I certainly agree that free speech should be truly free. But as I heard it said the other day - if money is speech, speech isn't free, is it?

[Boreas]

I certainly agree that free speech should be truly free. But as I heard it said the other day - if money is speech, speech isn't free, is it?

+1

John

[Twodogs]

+1

John

Oh Yeh, well -1, so there, we're back to just one.;)

[Writewing]

I certainly agree that free speech should be truly free. But as I heard it said the other day - if money is speech, speech isn't free, is it?

Tell that to Unions and the moveon.orgs of the world. I see this as perfectly fine and if it gets out of control they can place some limits on this (but limits not outright ban.)

[Fast_Eddie]

You've brought up Move On several times. I honestly don't know because they're not my thing, but aren't they privately funded? I don't think they're a corporation are they? I could be wrong. Unions you may have a valid point. I'll have to think about that. Off the top of my head, it does seem a little different. Unions are collections of citizens. American citizens. No different than all of us putting a bunch of money together and running an ad. That seems okay to me.

What I don't like is the idea of foreign companies using their profits to try to affect American politics. Do we want Toyota spending a billion dollars to influence policies that affect auto sales in the US? Shoot, I didn't like what the American owned insurance companies did with health care. I certainly don't want all of our policy decided on corporate interest.

[Writewing]

Move on is funded by a George Soros a mega wealthy business man and IMO its just a front for him to be able to get his message across. I simply agree with the ruling and see its merit but others dont.

[Boreas]

You've brought up Move On several times. I honestly don't know because they're not my thing, but aren't they privately funded? I don't think they're a corporation are they? I could be wrong.

MoveOn.org is a "527", not a corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Organization

I'll see WW's MoveOn.org and raise him one Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, now morphed into the Tea Party Movement by its principal funder David Koch and his Americans for Prosperity.

John

[noonereal]

MoveOn.org is a "527", not a corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Organization

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

smearing a war vet in favor of a draft dodger chick hawk

what can you say

sounds anti american to me

[BlueStreak]

smearing a war vet in favor of a draft dodger chick hawk

what can you say

sounds anti american to me

(Insert chuckle here.) Oh, Boy, here we go.....

Dave

[Boreas]

Move on is funded by a George Soros a mega wealthy business man and IMO its just a front for him to be able to get his message across. I simply agree with the ruling and see its merit but others dont.

MoveOn isn't "funded" by Soros. He's a major contributor but he doesn't call the shots as you seem to be suggesting. I think it's safe to say that most of MoveOn's funding comes from their 5 million members/contributors. That gives them a pretty significant say.

Soros is a big contributor but not the largest. Linda Pritzker of Hyatt Hotels has given more than twice as much. Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance is another big contributor.

MoveOn's name came from their beginnings as an advocacy group promoting the idea that we should "Censure and Move On" in the matter of Bill Clinton's 100 million dollar BJ. In retrospect, that was a good idea.

John

[Boreas]

(Insert chuckle here.) Oh, Boy, here we go.....

Dave

Yeah, I'm not at all sure I want to go there. I just think it's interesting that the money man behind that hideous mess is also behind the Tea Parties. There's a lesson there, I think.

John

[merrylander]

Who funds that conserapedophilia site?

[Boreas]

Who funds that conserapedophilia site?

Good question. I'll check into it. That fetid heap of offal bears a bit of scrutiny, IMO.

The thing is a "wiki" is a fairly cheap thing to organize. Content is added by voluntary effort. It probably didn't take a lot of scratch to launch.

John

[Boreas]

Okay, this will get us rolling. The site is owned by Andrew Schlafly, a radical Creationist and the son of the ever popular Phyllis Schlafly.

Andrew started Conservapedia after he got frustrated with Wikipedia for repeatedly rejecting his fact-free edits to issues relating to the theory of evolution. Interestingly, Conservapedia rejected edits from an MD who took exception to Conservapedia's contention that abortion is a causative factor in breast cancer.

John

[merrylander]

Exactly as I imagined, "just don't confuse me with facts Schlafly".

[finnbow]

Exactly as I imagined, "just don't confuse me with facts Schlafly".

Here's a good Schafly quote, and proof positive that she, like many conservatives, are immune to irony: "It is long overdue for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect our children against the intolerant evolutionists."

[Grumpy]

Here's a good Schafly quote, and proof positive that she, like many conservatives, are immune to irony: "It is long overdue for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect our children against the intolerant evolutionists."


No idea who that is but I put him in the same class of person who said it takes a village to raise a child.

The idiot village that is.

[Boreas]

No idea who that is but I put him in the same class of person who said it takes a village to raise a child.

Wow, talk about yer apples 'n' oranges! :)

John

[finnbow]

I figured this resurrected thread would be a good place to post this blurb, courtesy of The Onion:

WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs." Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

[BlueStreak]

The corporatocracy has come out of the closet. It should get very interesting from here on out.

"Tonight, the General Electric Congress. G.E., We bring good things to Light. Things like lax environmental laws, and a base of elected officials who just take their money and fuck off."

"This State of the Non-Union brought to you by Toyota, because at Toyota we know what's best for America. And what's best for America is a cheap and compliant workforce."

Anyone care to add?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I figured this resurrected thread would be a good place to post this blurb, courtesy of The Onion:

WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs." Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

I LOVE The Onion!

Dave

[merrylander]

......