Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 1:02*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! Genius improving Genius? INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

Thank YOU mmmmmm mmm mmmmm Rush Hudson Limbaugh mmmm mmmm mmmmmmm

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 21, 5:10*pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? *All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? *No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) *Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! *Genius improving Genius? *INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

Thank YOU * mmmmmm mmm mmmmm * Rush Hudson Limbaugh *mmmm mmmm mmmmmmm

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

Bruce Jensen

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 21, 11:57*pm, bpnjensen wrote:


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

Well sure.

But given the intelligence level of your average ditto-head it's
likely to be quite some time before they figure that out, and when
they finally do it's going to come as quite a shock.

Average Ditto-head: "HEY! I'm getting screwed!!

How did that happen and why isn't Washington *doing* something about
it?"

Heh.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 21, 8:10*pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? *All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? *No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) *Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! *Genius improving Genius? *INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

You imbecilic moron, why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. Seems like people were smarter back in 1907 when they realized
how big business was interfering with the common man than they are now
in 2010. This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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. *

First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions,
environmentalists,
and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in
pretending otherwise.

Second, money never left politics -- McCain-Feingold spawned
any number of workarounds, and special interests continued to
spend their money to campaign for, or against, their candidates.
Why do you think so many 501 and 527 groups sprang up in
its wake?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 3:40*am, wy wrote:

You imbecilic moron,

Yeah, because kindergarten insults do so much
to persuade others to your point of view, right?

why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. *In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. *

They did: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, ..."

Free political speech is not free if the government can
dictate when and where you exercise it.

in 2010. *This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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.

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".

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

jls wrote:
It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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.

And if you see no problem with letting large corporations have all that
power, IMHO you are dumber than you look.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Well, to the extent that the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed on his watch,
yes.

However, I would respectfully suggest that you do not overlook the fact
that George W. had EIGHT years to do something about it -- and did NOTHING.

In any event, partisanship has nothing to do with it. Corporatocracy has
EVERYTHING to do with it.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! Genius improving Genius? INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

This will further reduce the credibility of the mass media and increase
cynicism government. Corporations are not persons. They are
malignant entities. They are Cylons.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Stevie Nichts wrote:


So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.


Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W., Clinton, W. have all been disasters
of one kind of another. Clinton was a DLC Democrat, which is the same
as a Republican.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Joe from Kokomo wrote:


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

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".

Ya'll are just now figuring this out? The SCOTUS just codified what's
already happening.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 8:39*am, dave wrote:
Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W., Clinton, W. have all been disasters
of one kind of another. *Clinton was a DLC Democrat, which is the same
as a Republican.

ø ROTFLMAO
The worst presidents of the past 100 years
Carter
Clinton
Kennedy
FDR
Woodrow Wilson

In one year, Obama is the worst of them all.

––**––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.

America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/22/10 01:57 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02 am, Stevie wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! Genius improving Genius? INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

Thank YOU mmmmmm mmm mmmmm Rush Hudson Limbaugh mmmm mmmm mmmmmmm

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

Bruce Jensen



That may not be the case. Scott's campaign in Massachussetts was
funded primarily with small donations from individuals. Small
donations being $5, $10 and others less than $100. His war chest
went from from the low 6 figures to mid 7 figures literally
overnight after a single appearance on TV, all from small donations
of less than $100 from individuals, and mushroomed from there.

There is no doubt that large donations are solicited and accepted
from corporate entities, but there is now no denying that a
successful campaign can be waged without them.

The real question should be, given that this law has been on the
books for 60 years, and McCain-Feingold has been on the books since
2003. Why did the court that refused to consider this matter when
McCain-Feingold was enacted, choose to take this decision now?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 4:12*am, Stevie Nichts 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. *

First, "the wealthiest corporations" include unions,
environmentalists,
and other left-wing special interests, and there's no point in
pretending otherwise.

Second, money never left politics -- McCain-Feingold spawned
any number of workarounds, and special interests continued to
spend their money to campaign for, or against, their candidates.
Why do you think so many 501 and 527 groups sprang up in
its wake?

On the first point, wrong - corporate coffers are hundreds of times
larger than those of unions and environmental groups. There simply is
no comparison.

Secondly, a workaround is not in the same league as a complete green
light.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 7:32*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
jls wrote:
*It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

I agree, James. I'll call them the five foul fiends.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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".

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 3:43*am, jls wrote:
*

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

No, you don't understand:

When conservative judges make rulings intended to benefit their own
political party it's called "being a strict constitutionalist".

When liberals do the same thing, *then* it's called "legislating from
the bench".

Completely different things.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"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.

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.

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?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"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".

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.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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

ø ROTFLMAO
The worst presidents of the past 100 years
Carter
Clinton
Kennedy
FDR
Woodrow Wilson

IMHO, you are a real simpleton because you just happened to "overlook"
G.W. Bush as one of the worst presidents.

Want proof? It is generally accepted (even by Obama) that people were NOT
voting -for- Obama; rather that they were voting AGAINST Bush -- and Obama
won by a landslide. Now try again, and see if that tells you anything
about W. Bwahahahahahah

There might have been some of the votes that were anti-Bush votes, but you
must admit that Obama was very popular. To say that it was, to a large
extent, a vote for Obama was a vote against Bush is lessening Obama's real
popularity in the election. Its similar to the Dems that voted for Reagan.

In one year, Obama is the worst of them all.

Again, you seem to overlook a simple fact: Obama INHERITED not just one
but TWO expensive so-called wars with no exit strategy and INHERITED a
major Depression -- that started on Bush's watch.

Bush inherited a military that had been downsized ... the military had to be
spooled up because of the war ... remember all the complaints against Bush's
not worrying about the troops ... hummers were not properly armored etc ...
remember Rumsfeld said you go to war with what you have and not what you
wished you had.

You also must remember that Bush can only spend the money that is oked by
Congress. The economic downturned started in the last year of the Bush
administration ... Congress was taken over by the Dem in two years before
Bush's term was up. At that time the economy was purring along with an
unemployment rate of about 4.6%. True Obama has been in office only one
year, but the two previous years there was a Democratic Congress ... are
they responsible for any of the economic downturn?

Rather than picking on Obama, please realize that even if McCain won, we
would still be in exactly the same fix, maybe even worse, due to "Quitter"
Palin the Brain. No one, repeat, NO ONE, could clean up in only one year
as big of a mess as Bush left.

This is an assumption; there is no way of knowing what the outcome would
have been if McCain/Palin would have been elected ... we do know that a
whole year wouldn't have been wasted trying to fool with the US healthcare
system ... there probably wouldn't have been a cap n trade bill ... there
wouldn't have been a stimulus (pork) package of this magnitude either.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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.

Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet
to see stats to back it up. And what YOU overlook is the
simple fact that unions and other left-wing special interests
(why the scare quotes? Do you seriously doubt they exist?)
have the ear of the national media to a far, FAR greater extent
than BigRichEvilKorporations.

And if you see no problem with letting large corporations have all that
power, IMHO you are dumber than you look.

So the choice is between Big Brother dictating how, when,
and where we can engage in political free speech versus
trusting that Americans are intelligent enough to deal with
all that free speech? Your contempt for the American voter
is palpable, possibly eclipsed by your elitism and arrogance.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 11:56�am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:54�am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

� �So, the results of this decision are from certain. The real
question is what prompted the court to take up this issue now?

Because the right suit was appealed to them and accepted by the
conservative court?

So you're okay with Obama dictating the terms of your
political speech? You don't mind being told how, when,
and where you can speak freely about candidates? How...
fascistic.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 3:32�pm, "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.

Standard liberal fa Corporations are, by definition,
evil. Also note their breezy dismissal of unions (and
the many, many left-wing 501 and 527 groups) as
somehow powerless before the might of the Corporations.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 12:53�pm, jls wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:32�am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

jls wrote:
�It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

I agree, James. �I'll call them the five foul fiends.

Of *course* you would. Leftists cannot conceive
that anyone could *possibly* disagree with them
for any reason other than that they're Evil Incarnate.
And then you boobs gape when a Scott Brown
turns your cozy li'l world upside down. It's fun to
watch, actually.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 7:34*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Well, to the extent that the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed on his watch,
yes.

Wikipedia:
"The final bill resolving the differences was passed
in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House:
362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into
law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."

Sounds rather... bipartisan to me.

However, I would respectfully suggest that you do not overlook the fact
that George W. had EIGHT years to do something about it -- and did NOTHING.

Um, perhaps because he agreed with it?

In any event, partisanship has nothing to do with it. Corporatocracy has
EVERYTHING to do with it.

So your implicit assertion is that Americans are too stupid
to know when they're being fed a line of crap? Though given
that Obama was elected, I just might have to give you that
one.

I'm apalled that you believe that Big Brother should
have, the right to dictate how and when Americans
-- remember, this SCOTUS opinion expressly included
those bastions of individual thought known as 'unions' --
are permitted to express their opinion about political
candidates. Free political speech is not free if
the government can dictate when and where you
exercise it.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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.

WTF is with you liberals that you blithely insult anyone
who disagrees with you? You kids are seriously whacked.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/22/10 15:50 , Stevie Nichts wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:32�pm, "Joe 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 ...



All broadcast advertising must conform to the sponsorship
identification statutes, which require the entity purchasing the
time to be identified. So, that issue is already provided for.




whats wrong with that? �It seems everyone starts with the assumptions that
corporations are bad/evil.

Standard liberal fa Corporations are, by definition,
evil. Also note their breezy dismissal of unions (and
the many, many left-wing 501 and 527 groups) as
somehow powerless before the might of the Corporations.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

False Flag ''Operation(s)''?

Limeyland has raised threat level to Severe.
According to this evenings All Bout Communism (ABC) tv Nut Case News,,,,
CIA (CIA is Al Qaeda) might be fixin to ''do sumpin''
cuhulin
.................................................. ..
Hayba Lobba Lobba Lobba, Ding Ding Donnnng,,,,, Hayba Lobba Lobba
Lobba, Ding Ding Dinnnnng,,,,,
.................................................. ...

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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"?

The OP listed FIVE people on his bad president list and apparently you
think that's just fine and that he is a fine fellow. And yes, I truly
and legitimately feel the OP is being naive at best or a simpleton at
worst for not saving a spot on his list for W.

How hypocritical of you...

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

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 and b)
most (if not all) of the money the union has comes from dues of their
*blue collar* members, by definition not the richest people in the
neighborhood.

And what YOU overlook is the
simple fact that unions and other left-wing special interests
(why the scare quotes? Do you seriously doubt they exist?)

Um, Stevie, nothing to do with doubting their existence. If you look
closely, I put it in quotes because, well, I was *quoting YOU*. Please
try not to punish someone for the -proper- use of punctuation.

have the ear of the national media to a far, FAR greater extent
than BigRichEvilKorporations.

Yes, I agree they may have the media's 'ear' but the
BigRichEvilKorporations have the MONEY -- and as we all learned from
Johnny Z. years ago, "Money talks and bull**** walks". (Quote marks used
because I am directly quoting John Z. DeLorean, late of GM).

And if you see no problem with letting large corporations have all that
power, IMHO you are dumber than you look.

So the choice is between Big Brother dictating how, when,
and where we can engage in political free speech versus
trusting that Americans are intelligent enough to deal with
all that free speech? Your contempt for the American voter
is palpable, possibly eclipsed by your elitism and arrogance.

Sadly, I believe it has very little to do with free speech but has
EVERYTHING to do with getting the best politicians that money can buy.

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.

Furthermore, I really was not alluding to the intelligence of the
American voters, but seeing as you read that into it, let me comment...

First, it's no secret that the American educational system has been
falling apart for years, *many* books having been written on the dumbing
of America.

Finally, the dumbing (and numbing) of the populace as alluded to in
'1984' and 'Brave New World' seems to be coming frightfully close to the
mark.

Don't forget to take your Soma pill tonight...and don't forget to read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins (also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man"). The first half of his book explains much more
eloquently than I could ever hope to, the evils of the Corporatocracy.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"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.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"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.

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.

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

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!.

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.