Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
angryman, we have had an infusion of trolls and bots for the past couple of years. Some of them, I am convinced, are machine generated. There are sophisticated programs written especially for spreading disinformation and propaganda. This is not exactly new technology, since it was first created to do “psychotherapy” back in the 1960s. That program was called ‘ELIZA.” One version was called, “DOCTOR.” More recently, a program was written by a company called “Don’t Ask Software,” which heaps abuse, depending on what the user inputs. Sound familiar?
I am also sure there are paid trolls, most likely funded either by the Koch or Art Pope organizations, or if not them, their fellow travelers.
One thing the writers of the early psychotherapy programs found was that they could disguise the limitations of the psychotherapy program by inserting innocuous and seemingly relevant phrases. If the subject client typed in something the program could not handle, the response might be something like, “You have not said much about your parents,” and wait for a response.
I notice that the current troll does the same thing but in a different vein. Instead of something sympathetic, it resorts to insults and canned ad hominem attacks. I suspect Randy Simon would be proud.
It is a reminder of just how much of a blowhard you are that you think anyone would waste their time on creating a program to deal with such narrow minded full of itself sillyness as exihbited by the regulars here.
“So what you are saying is a corporation that runs a media business doese not have the right to make political speech because it is a corporation.”
Again, not what I’m saying. The activity of the press is protected by the 1st Amendment, the form of the practitioner is irrelevant.
Irrelevant much like everything you say, Corporatist.
gh. thats about your level of intelligence with that answer. zero.
so by your thinking (i use the term hesitently) if a corporation says its a news media they can say what ever they want but if they make steel they can’t.
Oh i get it, you will have the press police telling us whats a news organization and what isn’t.
did you hurt your brain on that one.
Does it impact my ability to contribute to a campaign if Exxon can’t?
Not in the slightest.
Does it impact my free speech to tell Exxon to put a sock in it when it comes to political speech?
Not in the slightest.
Does it impair democracy when Exxon is allowed to fill the airwaves and print media with one-sided propaganda that bears no relation to the interests of the public and every interest toward bolstering their bottom line by influencing the electorate to vote against the electorate’s best interests and for Exxon’s best interests; which as a corporation are strictly profits?
Yes it does.
Does it create corruption when Exxon can give a candidate unlimited soft money support?
Yes it does.
Come one now. Show us how not letting Exxon do that negatively impacts my free speech, my freedom of assembly, my right to petition or any other right I as a natural human have and is protected as an enumerated right. The burden of proof is still yours, Fascist. You still haven’t met it.
Decency? I don’t give a rat’s ass if you think I’m decent. What I care about is that I’m demonstrably correct and you are not.
*************
Mike,
He’s a troll of the most scripted and tedious sort for certain.
I guess my only question is:
Is this troll a Professional Asshole; paid to disrupt this site or is he a Volunteer Asshole with his own twisted Agenda?
I have to admit that I have repeatedly allowed him to draw me in. It’s hard to resist kicking a little bitch like him. I say bitch because he is willing to say anything to incite anger.
Of course it is difficult to say if it’s him or us as it seems all of us Rant incessantly and are Dellusional as well so our judgement may be flawed.
AMS; well if it was my “agenda” to draw out anger, stupidity, and mindless name calling that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I have to say it sure has been easy. Given how easy it was, just imagine if that was actually my agenda.
I think you would have to add up all the name calling (you added a few here) and we would say who was most on subject and who was most ranting and name calling. And the winner is: NOT ME.
There really is an irony that a group of people and a website supposedly about “civil liberties” is so clueless about what that actually means.
apparently you have lots of money. I don’t. I can’t buy ads on Television or newspapers or send out mailers. the only way I can get my message across is through joining with other people to do it…. but in your scheme, if I join with others and call it a corporation I can’t do it, but if I call it a trade association or a union, or an llc, or if I am rich and own all of the biz like the koch scum I can do it…. way to go gh
boy that makes sense (for a dodo bird)
“You were so right about the shouting thing.”
Gene,
This guy seems like he is in a loop of non-reason. There is no getting to him he just repeats his comforting “mantras”, time and again, refusing to let other information in. He is vicious in his attempts to insult though, going for what he thinks is the “jugular”. He doesn’t get that before you can insult someone effectively, they need to somehow respect your opinion.
Nice job MS, another nothing. there would have to be other information from anyone here to actually have information to let in. Like your comment now, it actually says absolutely nothing on the subject at hand. Nothing, nada, zero. It about summerizes 99% of what has been said by you and your mindless minions in this “discussion” (more accurately my attempt at discussion and you all attempts at insults)
Oh, and you so wound me to the core that you don’t respect me. Oh my goodness, my world is so shattered (for one nano second).
You know, if Mr. Turley is actually wasting his time reading this crap of yours he is either crying that there he has given birth to such lunacy or laughing his butt off. Despite some things I disagree with him on I really don’t think he as full of himself as you folks. At least I hope so.
I forget which one of you actually thought I made some sense early on when I first started posting. But interestingly, as soon as I disagreed with the party line here (your way or no way) it didn’t go over so well.
Ah shucs.
Again . . .
You made some pretty strong claims about how preventing corporations from unlimited political spending will negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights.
Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences.
Since you haven’t yet, I’m going to assume that you can’t.
Your grade is F-, Troll-boy.
Gene, you are certifiably dense. I have given you countless examples…
That wasn’t a quote, Fascist.
That was a paraphrase.
The only liar here is you insisting that limiting corporate behavior would have “UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS”.
Now that? That was a quote. Shouting and all.
Gene, its past your bedtime… get some rest. Your brain is overheating.
YOU SAID: “The only liar here is you insisting that limiting corporate behavior would have “UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS”.”
the operative phrase written by you is “you (meaning me) insisting that limiting corporate behavior would have….”
Now what I actually said is (and I realize it was too much trouble for you to actually include the whole quote because cut and paste is more complex then you are used to handling):
““I did not say allowing unlimted corporate campaign spending would eliminate corruption. I said TRYING TO REGULATE IT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE CORRUPTION, MAY MAKE IT WORSE, AND PROBABLY HAVE UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.””
Can you grasp the giant differences between the two? You do realize that taking quotes out of context is the same as a lie.
“what we want to do is reach as many people as possible in an unfiltered fashion as in expensively as possible, with objective information that is easy to assimilate and is considered reliable to the receipient. To be effective there must also be multiple channels of information to minimize the risk of manipulation. The receipients must also be of a mind set to accept information and facts not based on preconceived notions or biases. They have to have basic understandings of the political system and the means by which we are all manipulated by marketing methods.”
Crock of shit, written by me in a Gestalt manner, being in the present. You are so out of it I’m beginning to feel bad for you. No clue, much noise.
MS: thank you for repeating my notion. I appreciate the free press. I’m guessing that when you deal with your customers and they tell you something you respond “crock of shit” and thats about all you have to say about anything. So much for that 2 week correspondent course in psych that you took.
(I would rebut your argument but you didn’t actually make one)
Mike,
You were so right about the shouting thing.
And that’s F- as in “Lame Assed Fascist Apologist” just in case you missed it.
If you don’t like being called a Fascist? And keep in mind I called you a Corporatist Fascist (Italian Fascism promotes a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in a corporative associations to collectively represent the nation’s economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy – exactly what you advocate in defending Citizens United).
Then don’t act like one, Fascist.
It’s really very simple.
Much like your argument that “corporations are people too!” and the rest of the addled contents of that thing holding down your neck.
Gene: you are a liar, as they say liar liar pants on fire hah hah hah.
Another mindless rant with not a fact in there: I dare you to find where I say as you quoted:
“corporations are people too!” .
You really are beneath contempt.
In your view anyone who believes that speech should NOT be limited by the type of entity or the content is a F. in the end it is you who are the true Fascist, you are a fraud and a hypocrit, except that you really are too ignorant to understand anything let alone that. Mr. Welch said it best, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” I would have also no sense of your own lack of dignity?
“The “right of the people peaceably to assemble”, is something only you get to decide what is or isn’t an allowable assembly.”
A corporation is not a simple assembly of people. It is a legal fiction with perpetuity and limited liability. Real people are not perpetual and have unlimited liability. The Constitution was written for people, not corporations. As to corporations being well known? You should brush up on your Jefferson: “I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country.” – Letter to George Logan (12 November 1816). I don’t decide anything other than what is and what is not a human or a group of humans. Corporations are not human nor a simple group of humans. They are a discrete legal fiction with distinct advantages over real humans (this is part and parcel of why they must be constrained).
“Oh, and that threshold question of yours, does it exist to make money? I did not see that little criteria in the constitution either.”
Missing the point again, I see. The point is corporations are 1) fictions and 2) amoral. As fictions, they have no rights, nor as a functionary of an amoral function measured by an amoral metric should they be given any.
“Still, it just isn’t there, now is it, except in your delusion? But then again, by your reasoning, any so called news orgainisation owned by a “corporation” would not be entitled to the freedoms of the press.”
I addressed that point, Mr. Doesn’t Read. Press is an activity given a right, not a form of business.
In fact, I addressed all of those points. That you didn’t like the answers is immaterial to them being correct. The rest of what you say, once again, is drivel, Fascist Apologist.
Now, back to the homework you were assigned.
You made some pretty strong claims about how preventing corporations from unlimited political spending will negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights.
Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences.
Since you haven’t yet, I’m going to assume that you can’t.
Your grade is F-, Troll-boy.
Gene, can you not read? The tparty (in boston), and Jefferson’s remarks are all indicators of their distaste for corporate types of entitites, but still they did not make an exception to it. And indeed subsequent court rulings during the time period did not limit corporations in anyway you suggest.
Unions, religious organsations and many other types of groups also exist in so called perpetuity (keeping in mind that they can all be revoked.)
So what you are saying is a corporation that runs a media business doese not have the right to make political speech because it is a corporation.
You say you have answered issues but in fact the only clear actual answer you have given that wasn’t just a rant is you explicityly singled out one type of entity from being allowed poltical speech. I think that says it all right there.
“What he said on New Year’s Eve convinced me that he was not a newcomer to this blog, Mike.”
SwM.
There was a guy who just around the time I started coming here was doing irrational rants like this, then got a little crazy and then retured 2 or 3 tim3s with a new persona, but the same MO. Damned if I remember the various names, but it does sound like a familiar tune, it’s just that the trolls come and go.
MS I have never ever been here before or under any other idenity. but I don’t expect any of you to believe that and nor do I care. And even if I had what does that have to do with anything other then demonstrating you can’t come up with anything meaningful at the moment.
A wolf in sheep clothing? Say it ain’t so!
“You challanged me to “Prove it. How will preventing corporations from unlimited political spending negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights? Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences.” Fair enough, but you haven’t addressed even one of my questions yet.”
You’re the one making the incredible claim that preventing corporations from unlimited political spending will negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon the rights of individuals.
The burden of proof is entirely yours.
Get to work, skippy.
Now, on with making you look more like a fascist than you do already . . .
“Gene, just so we are talking on the same page here please clearify, when you use the term “corporations” are you also including other entitities such as unions, clubs, religious organization, trade groups, or any other type of legal form of association.” or is it your beleif that the regulation of money in political speech only applies to corporations”
And while you are at it does the right to assembly include the right of individuals to form groups such as unions, clubs, religious organzations, trade groups and so on?
And you asked, “How do the words ‘congress shall make now law … abridging the freedom of speech…” confer the right of free speech to corporations?”
Actually, Bob asked that . .. and answered it too.
“You might notice there that it doesn’t confer the right of free speech to people or corporations in that passage. The opperative phases is “make no law ABRIDGING…” as in make laws taking away that right. And, I might add that it exists in a passage concerning groups (ie assembly and religion) I am going to read that as being inclusive of not ABRIDGING those rights of groups.
In other words, care to show me where people who assembled together were exclused from these rights?”
You keep mistaking that this is a free speech or assembly issue. You also keep begging the question that a corporation is simply an assembly of individuals. It is not. Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United begins with a staggeringly stupid 1st Amendment mistake. Kennedy claims that the case is about the constitutionality of discriminating between two categories of First Amendment speakers -corporations and human beings – and much like your entire argument, this begs the question that corporations are simply an assemblage of people. They are not and as they are not they should get no 1st Amendment rights in the first place.
A business corporation is an artificial entity, a legal fiction, a state-created entity with unlimited life that has highly favorable techniques for acquiring, accumulating and retaining vast wealth through economic transactions. Transactions which nothing to do with politics other than said corporations would like to have no regulation to prevent abusive and/or criminal acts and/or acts that infringe upon the rights of individuals – including the right to be free from tyranny. Business have one and only one purpose – the pursuit of profit; making money. They are amoral, fictional constructs that measure their success or failure by profitability.
By contrast, human beings die (they lack perpetuity), they do not enjoy economic advantages like limited liability and, most important of all, human beings have a conscience that sometimes transcends crude economic self-interest (unless you’re an Objectivist and/or a sociopath). These real dramatic and critical differences raise a threshold question completely ignored by Justice Kennedy: Are corporations even in the 1st Amendment ballpark?
So to answer your question about unions, clubs, religious organization, trade groups, or any other type of legal form of associations? The answer is “No. I mean business corporations.” All of these other forms of organization you mention can (and most do) serve other purposes besides making money (even trade associations). This belies your ridiculous assertion that “As near as I can tell you want to take away the right of virtually everyone except an individual acting completely on their own to make what you consider political speech. the press would not be able to talk about politics so they would loose a free press; no groups of any kind can talk about it so they would loose the rights of assembly (though I suppose you would say they can assemble but just not talk to anyone about it); and religious groups could not talk about anything because it might be considered political speech by somebody.” As near as I can tell, you don’t know how to do anything but contort and distort. No one is talking about limiting speech to individuals or groups. We are talking about limiting speech of corporations. Why? They are amoral legal fictions.
The creation of the corporate form was for one reason – its economic potential. It makes sense to vest it with limited constitutional protection for its property as found in granting the ability to contract, to purchase property and to limit liability. However, it is a illogical and unsupported jump Kennedy makes to vest business corporations with non-economic constitutional rights that flow from respect for human dignity. Machines don’t have a conscience and neither do business corporations. Vesting a corporation with free speech rights is legal fiction run amok that makes as much sense as vesting a machine with rights. Which is to say it makes no sense at all. Just so, we don’t allow corporations to have the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (a non-economic right and most would argue a natural right), it make no sense to give them a 1st Amendment (non-economic and natural right of) free speech right just the same.
The issue here is contributions, both soft and hard money. All of your preceding gibberish is premised on two lies: 1) that money and free speech are equivalent and 2) that corporations are people or a simple assembly of people. Thanks to Citizens United granting corporations a 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited sums to win an election, we are facing a second Gilded Age. American democracy is for sale to the highest corporate bidder and that bidder is an artificial construct, bereft of conscience, and driven solely by profit; a money making machine.
Also, don’t try to raise the issue that “the press is owned by corporations”. Well, not all of it is and the 1st Amendment creates a specific exemption for the activities of the press, not the legal form in which the press takes. If the Founders had intended for banks and oil corporations to be explicitly granted a right of free speech, they could have enumerated those activities as well, but they didn’t. Just the press.
“Oh, I’m sorry, i must have missed the place in the constitution, where Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Rousseau drafted of signed it. They may have influenced the thinking of the day but so were their many influences. Now you really are getting desperate.”
Not at all desperate, slick. The point in raising Hobbes, Locke, Paine and Rousseau is that you don’t know squat about natural versus legal rights if you’re referencing Darwin. That or you are admitting that you’re a social Darwinist which is a kind of mental derangement common among the Greedy Classes (Objectivists and/or sociopaths). Either way, the point was to illustrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t then and you don’t now. Good show.
The rest of what you write is drivel.
Now, you made some pretty strong claims about how preventing corporations from unlimited political spending will negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights.
Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences.
The burden of proof is yours.
You won’t be able to make it, but it’ll be funny to watch you try.
Gene, your long winded but mindless rant says it all. The “right of the people peaceably to assemble”, is something only you get to decide what is or isn’t an allowable assembly. Funny thing, I did not see your exception for for “Corporations” mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Funny thing about that is the concept of Corporations was well established at the time. Indeed, one might say the Boston Tea Party was directed against a corporate merchilisim. Given the founders distaste for it all you would think if they wanted draw exceptions that would surely be the one.
Still, it just isn’t there, now is it, except in your delusion? But then again, by your reasoning, any so called news orgainisation owned by a “corporation” would not be entitled to the freedoms of the press.
Oh, and that threshold question of yours, does it exist to make money? I did not see that little criteria in the constitution either. And your exception to your exception is if it has some other purpose. So, If for example a corporation ownes a steel mill but contributes 10% of its profits to a hospital it would be exempt from your exemption.
Once again, the operative term here is “Abridge”. There are no exclusions based on the form of enity; there are no exceptions created for particular types of entities. Everything you have said is completely and invention drawn out of your delusion.
But thank you for demonstrating, not only do you want to regulate what can be said and who can say it, but now you are deciding who has the right to assembly and for what purpose. You know you keep throwing the F words at me (a sure sign you are too ignorant to actually deal in facts or reality), but more and more it sounds you need to take a hard look in the mirror.
SwM,
Yep, the New Year’s Eve thing was a dead giveaway.
Mike S.,
“Then again……..Nah.” 😉
I read that posting where he went all “how dare you” when you questioned his Obama sincerity … and had already, like you, begun to draw that same conclusion for he really fit quite well into the “with friends like this, who needs enemies” category.
Political operatives serve a useful purpose on this blog as they present the opportunity for the learned contributors to offer truth and explanations that are no longer as readily available to viewers of the established media outlets. I call it the JT Learning for Lurkers Classroom for there are many who come to this blog only to read. It’s a good thing.
“As near as I can tell you want to take away the right of virtually everyone except an individual acting completely on their own to make what you consider political speech.”
I can’t speak for Gene but it soundlike you are finally getting it. Corporations, religious groups, unions, etc. do not have the right to free speech. Corporations; not being people have no rights at all.
They have no right to express an opinion other than to their members. They have no right to lobby or make donations.
So yes I would regulate those groups freedom to voice political opinions down to zero.
“the press would not be able to talk about politics so they would loose a free press;”
The job of a free press is to report the facts; all the facts without regard to the implications of those facts. That is what makes the press free. The press has no right to express political opinion. They report the facts so that people get good information to make decisions with. So yeah; we need to regulate that very carefully
“no groups of any kind can talk about it so they would loose the rights of assembly (though I suppose you would say they can assemble but just not talk to anyone about it); and religious groups could not talk about anything because it might be considered political speech by somebody.”
Politics is supposed to be a proccess whereby the American citizen decides who he wants to hold public office.When a union proclaims that they support Candidate A; is that because they took a vote of their membership and the majority chose candidate A? No Otherwise they would just wait for election day when they all would vote anyway.
This is not a union expressing the choice of it’s members. This is a union; a group; an organization, a corporation perhaps; attempting to influence how their members will vote in order to benefit the organization. So even though the corporation can not vote because they are not a person; they can influence the outcome by harranging and intimidateing their members to vote their way; thus in effect giving them a vote.
Thus a man might feel pressured to vote for a candidate he does not believe best for himself and his family in order to please the organization.
The end result is that many people vote according to the wishes of a small committee from whatever organization they have listened to. You’re damn skippy this needs to be stopped. And don’t give me any of that bullshit about How i would be denying freedom of expression to these groups. They have no rights; because they are not people. The people should not care what they think or want. And they wouldn’t have to if we take their freedom to intimidate and pontificate away.
“The way to combat the influence of corporate money against government is to better educate the people.”
This may be one of the stupidist things you have said.
Just what education would do away with the corruption in the political system. Teaching them to recognize when they are being screwed won’t stop the screwing.
Educating them to make more reasoned choices will do no good as their are no choices being offered. Fascist or Fascist take your choice.
You think taking the private money out of politics is a bad idea because it won’t get rid of 100% of it
Well you can educate all you want; if the corporations still get to put their two cents in the till; you won’t be getting rid of any of it.
If the Private money was gone it would serve to clear out the legal corruption and thus make any donations illegal.
No question; you wound up with money from corporation x. tovote for this or that. Can’t have been a political donation. Must be a bribe. Guilty.
I just never understand how you can support the imaginary, made up,”rights” of corporations but stand by while the rights; the valid, God/Nature given rights of the people are trampled.
I love the way you took the suggestion to benefit the people and called it unconstitutional because it would restrict the rights of unions, corporations and church groups.
You sound like a republican now
What was it you said to Gene? oh yeh well back at you man. You miss the point of the Constitution. It was intended to protect the people from just such tyranny as you seem to reccomend so
“the more you write the dumber you get…. quit before they kick you out of kindergarten.”
where does the idea of an entity of some kind promising to make an investement in one location versus another based on who will give them the most favorable worker and environmental laws, fit into your scheme of money corruption politics and how does your idea of laws regulating money in politics deal with that?
If the envorionmental laws were the same all over the country there would be no issue; and that is how it should be. Protecting the country from pollution is equally important everywhere. What is the sense in allowing a company to emit x number of tons of pollutant B into the air in Maine if you wont allow it in Texas for example.
States rights; right? Wrong. Need to revisit those puppies in a big way.
It would take too long to explore that now and we won’t agree so we can leave it at that.
Suffice to say that States rights should only be concerned with the running of a state. Not used to assume the right of a state to oppress the people beyond what federal statutes hold. Not used to enact policies that are in opposition to the will of the people or the welfare of same.
As I say; it is more complex.
Well AMS, you covered some territory. Seems you have a lot of things you want to regulate out there. You want to tell the press what is news and what is not. Who gets to say which is which. Nobody can give opinions anymore or was it news… I guess we will have to have the thought police running around keeping track of that one.
For now lets not go into the “States Rights’ thing or as I call it the “right to exploit people” which is the battle cry of the old south…. at least i think we can agree on that much its a bunch of bs.
Environmental regulation is very different from regulating speech. Pollution (in what ever form) is what it is. No individual, business or entitity of any kind has the right to poison the envirnoment. We can objectively determine what is a danger and what is not. Under the constituion the government clearly has the right to regulate commerce. It is quite another thing to say regulating political speech is the same.
The constituion says what it says. It does not say the 1 st amendment applies to one group and not to another. You have created an exception that does not exist. I happen to believe that any time you create such a wide ranging exception you undermine individual rights rather then strenghten them (which is supposedly your purpose). I also believe that your solution (regulatory exceptions that don’t exist in the C0 actually makes the problem worse or at the very best don’t fix the problem and there are better ways to deal with it.
You say, “You miss the point of the Constitution. It was intended to protect the people from just such tyranny as you seem to reccomend”. However, in meeting the intention in your way you are actually creating another form of tyranny.
Lets suppose there really was a workable approach to “corporations” not making any political speech. Lets even say this exception you have invented for corporations but no other type of entitiy is okay. And suppose I wanted to do ads that announce the unhealthy nature of foods and that there should be legislation banning all fast foods and vote against any candidate who supports fast foods. Would that industry or the corporations be allowed to do advertising that described the benefits of their foods. would that be political speech. Would a food company that was privately owned be allowed to do it but not a corporation. Would a union or other association of workers who work for the company be allowed to do it.
Don’t you see how crazy that all gets. Are you folks here smart enough to not be manipulated by corporate money in politics? (presumably you think you are but personally I doubt it) Are you saying everyone is an idiot but you and they need you to tell them what is ‘right or wrong”. If you are able to resist the influence of corporate money why are you so sure others can not?
How did you get to the point where you are able to resist the influence? Why can’t others also get to the point. Your approach is to silence the speech. My approach is believing people can learn to think for themselves with a little help. If all of you can do it (at least in your own minds) then let me tell you anybody can.
No one can resist corporate influence. The corporations don’t need to influence me. It seems we are speaking of two seperate issues. I am speaking of Corporations funding politicians and political campains through donations and lobbyists. I am speaking of other groups endorsing or funding candidates. In other words I reject all private money and I reject the “right” of corporations or other groups to have a political opinion much less express it publically. I reject the “right” of unions to tell their members who to vote for or even to reccomend a choice. I totally reject all corporate or group involvement; financial or otherwise; in politics at any level.
I believe it was you who said we need to stop doing the same things over and over; try something new. Well this is new. Stop treating Corporations like people and stop allowing these make believe people to influence our choice of leadership. That would be new. And stop saying the corporations have a right to do anything. Get the idea of them having rights out of your head. Look at what allowing them to assume rights not theirs has brought us to. What they should have is not rights but responsibilities. not just to their stockholders but to their employees and to the American land and people whom they could not exist without.
“The constituion says what it says. It does not say the 1 st amendment applies to one group and not to another.”
It seems you are creating an inclusion. The Constitution grants nothing to any group. It recognizes the rights of citizens not groups. As I say it was written to guarantee rights and freedoms to the people. I don’t get why you disagree with that. It really makes me pause to try to fathom your reasoning.
You seem to be more along the lines of advertizing which is really a different matter I could spend multiple thousand of words on. But I won’t. Suffice to say that you won’t like my opinion about them any better than my other ones. I have serious issues with what is allowed and still be called honest advertizing. An Oxymoron if ever one was uttered. I would also add that the Industry is closely tied to the political system as well.
What a shock. Liers allied with liars who are legally paid to lie about everything from Presidential Candidtes to Toothepaste with impunity.
This gets alot deeper and to be honest; i havn’t followed it to a conclusion that I feel comfortable making a stand on yet. But like I don’t have to to know there is something fundamentally wrong there.
So ams, in your world nobody can actually say anything. that might be so bad afterall. Just think how much time i would have not wasted here.
“The constituion says what it says. It does not say the 1 st amendment applies to one group and not to another.” It seems you are creating an inclusion.”
Thats the point, it does not creat an exclusion for any group. in Gene and OS view it has an exclusion for only the groups they choose (namely “corporations”) but not other groups even if they are similar in nature.
It might be a new script – pretend you are an Obama supporter only to makes Obama and his supporters look bad. After about the third post I was suspicious. What he said on New Year’s Eve convinced me that he was not a newcomer to this blog, Mike.
“Gene,
Once again you are stuck with idiot patrol.
Bob, however, is giving you some relief.”
Blouise,
I must admit I bowed our relatively early leaving the task in Gene and Bob’s capable hands. As you may know I’m a psychotherapist and we are trained to use our instincts to sniff out people with inconsistent ideation. When 1bs1 first appeared on another thread with a hysterical rant calling Tony C. a fascist, my bullshit detector began to hum. I must remind you that since I have come out early for Obama, it is a relative embarrassment to have common cause with an ass. However, things are not always what they seem on first glance. I did call him out for possibly playing the role of an Obama supporter and then acting like an obnoxious idiot, as a sort of stupidly reverse Koch strategy. This is reinforced by his support of Corporate Money, which has been arrayed against Obama.
Let’s deal though with his main premise, which through all the “sturm und drang” seems to be the way to combat the influence of corporate money against government is to better educate the people. How pray tell would this be financed and accomplished? Why wouldn’t the corporations simply out finance the “educators”? It is a silly solution posed because 1bs1’s purpose was merely to attack……..anyone, yet in his rather delicate mental state allow him to feel like he was providing an answer. Time and again he fails to address the rebuttals that destroy his case, resorting to CAPS to relieve his underlying stress. That he suffers from some sort of oppositional disorder is apparent, however, we’re a tolerant group here and if he would just support his ideas with rational argument, perhaps we’d take him seriously. Then again……..Nah.
MIKE, if you are a what passes for a psychotherapist (gestalt or otherwise), lets hope there really is a god around to save your customers (yes, I did use that term intentionally). Its either that or you have been putting something really fowl up your nose and its destroyed your sniffing.
Now when you say somethiing like “This is reinforced by his support of Corporate Money”, that makes you a liar or an idiot. Here I thought gestalt was supposed to focus on the here and now and reality. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to you. By your reasoning, if I said the Constitution incorporates slavery (which it clearly did) you would say I favor it which I clearly do not (no doubt one of you idiots will claim otherwise which would really demonstrate what disgusting sorts you really are).
In Gestalt, you try and deal with the way things are; identify the issues, and come up with ways to effectively cope and fix. You don’t (except probably in your case MS) fix one problem by creating a whole bunch of new problems.
The Constitution is what it is, like it or not, until you change it. I happen to believe more rights are better the fewer rights; wider interpretation of rights are better then narrower interpretations. Fewer exceptions are better then more exceptions. Apparently, I am alone in that vew.
The Constitution does not make an exception for Corporations or any other form of association of people. If you start making those exceptions especially when they are done broadly you create endless problems. And when history demonstrates time and again that money/politics/government are not going away any time soon and every attempt to do so only seems to make it worse, then it is time to take a new approach.
You Said, “Time and again he fails to address the rebuttals that destroy his case, ” THAT IS A LIE. everything that has been said came even close to being called a real argument was addressed. Indeed, there has been so little that actually has been a real argument (including your current rant) that such a point may not say much but, beyond any doubt I will be happy to stack up my arguments and rebuttles against what has been the worst kind of name calling and lies.
Indeed, I invite you to have Mr. Turly review the comments here and weigh in as objectively as he can, if not on the subject itself but the actual arguments offered.
You said of my solution, “seems to be the way to combat the influence of corporate money against government is to better educate the people. How pray tell would this be financed and accomplished? Why wouldn’t the corporations simply out finance the “educators”?
I will accept that as close enough for our purpose of my position, though included in that is the ability to communicate knowledge and information.
You may recall that I said ultimately what corporate money buys is communications of one sort or another (air time, advertisements, mailings etc).
So the real challange is not to stop the flow of corrupting money in politics (and its not just from corporations you nitwits) but to immunize people from its effects. How do you accomplish that. what we want to do is reach as many people as possible in an unfiltered fashion as in expensively as possible, with objective information that is easy to assimilate and is considered reliable to the receipient. To be effective there must also be multiple channels of information to minimize the risk of manipulation. The receipients must also be of a mind set to accept information and facts not based on preconceived notions or biases. They have to have basic understandings of the political system and the means by which we are all manipulated by marketing methods.
This happens to be a subject I have been giving a lot of thought to lately from the standpoint of Health. 60% of the nation is obese or overweight. We are literally eating ourselves to death and bankrupting the nation in the process. We all know this. We all know that the fast food and sugar laden cereals and salt saturated foods are killing us but we do it any way.
Corporations manipulate our minds with marketing and we follow along even when we know it is killing us. This (poor eating and lack of exercise and other self inflicted habits) is the single greatest cause of sickness and death in the country. Our politicians are on the take of these companies that are knowingly killing our kids..
So, the problem of eating ourselves to death and the problem of political corruption of money by corporations and any other group you can name are closely related.
When I was growing up we had civic classes, I went to boys state, we studied history and society. Much of that is gone from schools. Along with the obesity epidemic of the last 40 years we have had the dumming down of America epidemic (you probably all know about the texas text books).
We will go into this more, but we have a better chance of fixing the system through education and the tools of communications at our disposal then trying to get money out of politics and corruption. We’ve seen it happen in some ways in the middle east. We see it happening right here with this screaming match.
We can change this, unless of course you really are the hypocrits I think you are and people are as stupid as you think and apparently want them to stay.
SwM and raff,
Yep … welcome to the 2012 election year. In the words of my many esteemed ancestors who first stepped onto this continent at Prince George, Maryland somewhere between 1594 and 1602 …”Get thee here, there is money to be made.”
I have not had a problem posting on any other thread….I suppose one could be paranoid about this as well……Special People…get Special Privileges…
Or is that Special Attention….
Blouise, last week was, too. They are different people with different agendas.