Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 8:56*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:35 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts
wrote:

What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS
and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special
interests" could ever hope to scrape up.

Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet
to see stats to back it up.

Even a rudely educated twit knows that Union Dues cannot match the
massive wealth of corporations

Idiot.

Ah, another liberal who only understands insults.
Okay, I'll speak Liberal, just for you: Hey, asshole!
Even a moron leftist knows that unions aren't limited
to union dues. They raise money through their 501s
and 527s, and use it to elect liberal Democrats.

Moron.

There, I've lowered myself to your level, but
if that's what it takes to speak your lingo...

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 9:30*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

IMHO, you are a real simpleton because you just happened to "overlook"
G.W. Bush as one of the worst presidents.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone
who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked.

Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, you seriously disappoint me.

I list ONE person that I think should be added to the list of bad
presidents and I'm "seriously whacked"?

Uh, no, Joe, Joe, Joe. You're seriously whacked because
you seem incapable of expressing a thought without
taking on a gratuitous insult.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 9:30*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:33 am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:57 am, bpnjensen wrote:
Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions,
environmentalists,
and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in
pretending otherwise.
Well, yeah, you're right -- kinda, sorta.

What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS
and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special
interests" could ever hope to scrape up.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet
to see stats to back it up.

What boogeyman and what stats? It is pretty much intuitively obvious to
the casual observer that Big Business has more money than the Unions
because a) the unions have been decreasing in strength for years

True only of non-government unions. Govenment unions, however, now
account for 51% of all union members -- and climbing.. In the midst
of
this recession, with 10% unemployment, Congress somehow managed
to pad the Federal payroll with 70,000 new hires.

I note that you seem unable to back up your claim that evil
corporations spend TONS of money. OpenSecrets is your friend.

And there's no reason to limit the discussion to unions. Corporations
are not, by definition, conservative. Trivial proof: George Soros. Or
is that different somehow?

Please answer me this:
If I recall correctly, there used to be a limit on how much of a
political contribution could be made, possibly $2500. And I seem to
further remember that occasionally, some tried to donate more than that,
got caught and was prosecuted. Please tell me how anything over $2500
used to be bad and now they can donate 25 MILLION or 125 million, the
sky is the limit. Again, everything to do with buying politicians,
damned little to do with your red herring of free speech.

We've seen how utterly ineffectual campaign-finance laws have
been -- or haven't you noticed that money somehow manages
to get spent? Limit it here, it pops up there, in the form of
PACs and 501s and 527s and other special interests -- many
of them established by Mr. Soros and his ideological comrades.
You won't get far trying to convince anyone that liberals are
somehow powerless when it comes to funding.

Me, I'll take 100% disclosure and absolute transparency over
such impotent attempts anytime. Unlike you, I have faith in
the American voter -- and my faith was restored a couple of
days ago in Massachusetts. (Oh... too soon? ;)

As an aside, it's interesting that a liberal (or so I presume)
believes that free speech is a 'red herring.' Civil rights and
civil liberties used to be a bedrock principle of the left.
When, exactly, did that change?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed
the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America. Extrapolate from that what you will.
Extrapolate what I will?

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.

Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have
the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of
where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans
are to dumb to figure things out.

To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.

Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary
for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for
corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust
for the people.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".

Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?

If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read
it.

Why don't you give the theme of the book. The 1st amendment most
fundamental purpose is to protect political free speech. This decision
seems to be a step in that direction. If they could only strike down
McCain-Feigold.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

"dave" wrote in message
m...
Joe Irvin wrote:

Take a look at how much the Dems take from 'big corps'
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...y=A&cycle=2010
Bruce Jensen
Two "wrongs" do not make a "right".

Joe Irvin wrote:

Why is it wrong for corporations to represent their interests? As long
as their is a disclaimer where the money comes from let the voter decide
... whats wrong with that? It seems everyone starts with the assumptions
that corporations are bad/evil.

Dammit Joe, I sincerely mean it when I say you should read Perkins'
book. I really believe it would answer a lot of your questions. An easy
read and carried by many public libraries.

I really don't have any questions about the 1st amendment ... its original
intent as we are discussing it, was to protect free speech, leaving aside
religion and freedom to assemble.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 9:30 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:33 am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:57 am, bpnjensen wrote:
Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions,
environmentalists,
and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in
pretending otherwise.
Well, yeah, you're right -- kinda, sorta.
What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations have TONS
and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other left-wing special
interests" could ever hope to scrape up.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet
to see stats to back it up.
What boogeyman and what stats? It is pretty much intuitively obvious to
the casual observer that Big Business has more money than the Unions
because a) the unions have been decreasing in strength for years

Stevie Nichts wrote:

True only of non-government unions. Govenment unions, however, now
account for 51% of all union members -- and climbing.

Huh? Government unions climbing?

As in starting back when Ronnie Reagan smashed, shredded and destroyed
the Air Traffic Controller's union? THOSE government unions? ROTFL!!!

As an aside, it's interesting that a liberal (or so I presume)
believes that free speech is a 'red herring.' Civil rights and
civil liberties used to be a bedrock principle of the left.
When, exactly, did that change?

Making quite a leap there, aren't you Stevie?

I referred to YOUR use of it as a red herring in THIS discussion only.
You seem to have extrapolated it to a broad, general statement. Be
careful that you don't hurt yourself making such broad leaps. ;-)

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed
the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America. Extrapolate from that what you will.
Extrapolate what I will?

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.
Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have
the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of
where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans
are to dumb to figure things out.
To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.


Joe Irvin wrote:

Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary
for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for
corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust
for the people.

Yes, I agree...money is necessary for people to get elected to office,
BUT...

....when you are talking millions and TENS of millions of donation
dollars with no limit nor oversight, you are creating a very dangerous
situation, ripe for abuse. Both political parties have had their share
of crooked *******s -- and even "honest" people may well be corrupted
when you dangle millions under their nose.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".
Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?
If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read
it.

Why don't you give the theme of the book.

I thought I did, but here goes again.

The book is divided in two parts, the second part being his potential
solutions -- which you may or may not agree with. The first part of the
book describes actual, real-life, documented evils of Corporatocracy.

Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you see
any problem.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 9:30 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
IMHO, you are a real simpleton because you just happened to "overlook"
G.W. Bush as one of the worst presidents.
Stevie Nichts wrote:
WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone
who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked.
Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, you seriously disappoint me.

I list ONE person that I think should be added to the list of bad
presidents and I'm "seriously whacked"?

Stevie Nichts wrote:

Uh, no, Joe, Joe, Joe. You're seriously whacked because
you seem incapable of expressing a thought without
taking on a gratuitous insult.

Hey, every boy needs a hobby...

....and you don't seem to be doing too badly in the insult department
yourself. ;-)

But it's not about me. Why don't you try addressing the original
contention of G.W. Bush belonging on the list of worst presidents?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 2:57 pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Again, you seem to overlook a simple fact: Obama INHERITED not just one
but TWO expensive so-called wars with no exit strategy

Stevie Nichts wrote:

And yet, Obama assured us that he *had* an exit strategy
for Iraq -- and don't you remember him telling you that
Afghanistan was the important war? Sure you do!.

Hey Stevie...
Are ya sittin' down? Are ya ready for this?

I agree with you; we are on the same side of the fence on this one.

Obama was just telling the people what they wanted to hear -- and they
-desperately- want to hear that we are going to get out of those two
fiasco sink hole 'wars'. A politician that tells the people what they
want to hear -- how quaint! I'm sure no Republican politician ever did that.

But let's look a little deeper.

Poppy (Bush Sr.), in his book, stated that he did not invade Iraq
because "there was no exit strategy".

W painted us in a corner in both places -- we are screwed if we
stay...and we are screwed if we leave. Why? Because there is NO EXIT
STRATEGY. Too bad junior didn't listen to Poppy. And no easy solution
for Obama, McCain or anyone else.

So, Obama said it, people are hoping he's right...but only time will tell.

and INHERITED a
major Depression -- that started on Bush's watch.

Say, when did the Democrats take over Congress?
Oh, right: 2006. Would you care to revise and extend
your remarks? And what's this about a "depression"?
Not even Krugman goes that far. Go on, do go on.

It DID start on Bush's watch as stated above, pegged at either 4Q '07 or
1 Q '08 by nothing less than the very right wing Wall Street Journal.

As to a "depression", it could be semantics... but it IS the worst
economic upset since 1929.

You have to realize that the gubermint fudges the figures; for example,
once your unemployment benefits run out, the gubermint takes you OFF the
list of the unemployed -- even though you still ARE unemployed.

inflation...the gubermint jockeys those numbers around too, by
either continuously changing the "market basket" of goods they use, or
just plain ignoring costs of education, medical care and energy.

Believe it or not, many do call this a Depression. Your mileage may vary.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have
handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America. Extrapolate from that what you will.
Extrapolate what I will?

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the
Corporatocracy.
Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have
the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer
of where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think
Americans are to dumb to figure things out.
To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.


Joe Irvin wrote:

Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary
for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for
corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust
for the people.

Yes, I agree...money is necessary for people to get elected to office,
BUT...

Ok we have agreement there, that money is needed to get one elected. Now if
I'm understanding what you are saying we need restraints on the amount of
money?? who is to decide how much money is needed and who can contribute?

...when you are talking millions and TENS of millions of donation dollars
with no limit nor oversight, you are creating a very dangerous situation,
ripe for abuse. Both political parties have had their share of crooked
*******s -- and even "honest" people may well be corrupted when you dangle
millions under their nose.

Money corportions give is not to the politician, but a commercial
for/against a politician. If there is full disclosure why isn't this
enough? My default is free political speech no matter whether a
citizen/association/corporation. Money is like water it finds its way into
the political process. Congress has tried, at least since Nixon to control
money into politics ... they haven't. Why not let the money flow, because
it is anyway, just let everyone know who is giving the money. We are going
to have the crooks anyway.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".
Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?
If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read
it.

Why don't you give the theme of the book.

I thought I did, but here goes again.

The book is divided in two parts, the second part being his potential
solutions -- which you may or may not agree with. The first part of the
book describes actual, real-life, documented evils of Corporatocracy.

This is the real world, Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom etc. These will
always be with us even with strict regulation. With all the laws we have we
still have Bernie Madoff ...
In the cases above the government regulation was suppose to shield us from
the problems ... it didn't ... we shouldn't default to more govt control.

I read some of the reviews of the book Hookwinked ... its the same old stuff
.... the West (capitalism) is the cause of all the world's problems ... "We,
and the rest of the West, learned the trick of selling unneeded
infrastructure, services, over-sophisticated weapons--stuff that could never
benefit anyone other than the people who lined their pockets. And yes,
Perkins is right, the international economists and press were handmaidens to
the thievery."
http://www.amazon.com/Hoodwinked-Eco...at_ep_dpt_2Who is it that responds to the world when it gets into trouble? In Haitiwas it the evil West (US) or the middle eastern dictators that respondedwith help? During the industrial revolution was it the capitalist that wentout in the country side snatching people off their subsistance farms andbringing them into the towns to work in factories? ... their livingstandards were raised. Capitalism is the reason the west has such a highliving standard. Read at least the first half of the book and then let me know if you seeany problem.I see a problem with any book that tends to blame the West generally and theUS in particular for the world problems when the US is a nobel nation andhas done so much in the world. I know the US isn't perfect, but when itsjudged against other countries the US come out pretty good IMO.