Go Away, Judical Activists–No, Wait, Come Back!

I’m going to make our liberal readers’ heads spin around. They may even vomit split pea soup.

Last month, the US Supreme Court made a decision that took a large portion of the country completely by surprise. In a 5-4 decision, a decades-old set of rules governing campaign finance was stricken down. The majority decision was that these campaign finance laws flew in the face of the First Amendment by denying corporations or other groups their freedom to spend their money as they like. Here’s where I send the liberals into conniptions:

I agree with the ruling.

In light of the mass amounts of money being poured into Democrat coffers by trial lawyers, labor unions and other special interests groups, I’m not keen on the implications that this has. I don’t like the idea of special interests being able to put even more money into liberal or even socialist causes. It is not, however, about what I like or don’t like; it’s about what’s right, and according to our Constitution, laws putting strict caps on how people spend their money were wrong.

What’s more, the minority opinion wasn’t based on law necessarily. It was based more on the implications that I just discussed rather than anything else. What Obama and all of the liberals who blindly follow him don’t realize is that it is not the job of the judicial branch to legislate or decide what’s best for America. Their job is to interpret the law in the light of the Constitution.

What was that about activist judges…?

Then, in a first-ever move for a sitting President, Obama took his opportunity during the SOTU Address to take a very public, very catty swipe at the justices. And he did it with all nine of the justices sitting directly in front of him. Democrats, in keeping with the new liberal ideal, jumped to their feet. Those sitting behind the justices even leaned in to make sure they really heard their displeasure. It was a display of unbelievable disrespect the likes of which we have never seen. Every Democrat in office deserves to be censured for it.

It is one thing to challenge a judicial decision during Congressional sessions and hearings. It is another entirely to stand up during such a revered event and scold the judiciary in such wanton fashion. Our system of checks and balances isn’t perfect, but it has worked for more than 230 years. Trashing those judges to their faces in front of Congress and the entire nation was a shameful display not unlike a two-year-old screaming and kicking his mother in the shins for not buying him something at the store.

If the Democrats want to pitch a temper tantrum about not getting their way, fine–they can do it at home after we vote them out of office.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Go Away, Judical Activists–No, Wait, Come Back!

  1. “they can do it at home after we vote them out of office.”

    lol That right wing confidence always comes back to bite ya doesn’t it? 😉

    “Our system of checks and balances isn’t perfect, but it has worked for more than 230 years.”

    Oh really? Did you forget the outrageous constitutional atrocities under Wilson, Roosevelt, Lincoln etc? Let me guess, those times “don’t count” right?

    And btw, do you guys have ANY idea how ridiculous you sound when you say “Democrat” as an adjective?? Haha! You’re not pissing anyone off sorry to say, but you are making yourselves look like bitter, angry people who can’t win elections. And no, a few recent wins doesn’t balance out the creaming you guys got in the last two cycles.

  2. Regardless of whether checks and balances work or not, no politician has to accept special interest money. Politicians choose to accept it or not. That choice was not removed by the SCOTUS.

    This particualr decision is one that is good enough for the goose and the gander. Perhaps liberals are outraged because their deep pocketed base is not as big as other political parties? Do you think the liberals would be upset at this ruling it it lined their coffers better than it lined the coffers of anyone else?

  3. “And btw, do you guys have ANY idea how ridiculous you sound when you say “Democrat” as an adjective?? Haha! You’re not pissing anyone off sorry to say, but you are making yourselves look like bitter, angry people who can’t win elections. And no, a few recent wins doesn’t balance out the creaming you guys got in the last two cycles.”

    Tom, if you’re not pissed off, it’s never a good recipe to run around proclaiming so.

    Just saying….(accompanied by my condescending giggles)

  4. “Here’s where I send the liberals into conniptions:
    I agree with the ruling.”

    Yeah, because we’re all so shocked that a con agrees with corporations being able to give unlimited funds to right wing politicians. Here’s something that may send YOU into a conniption: you and the ACLU agree on this issue…

    “In light of the mass amounts of money being poured into Democrat coffers by trial lawyers, labor unions and other special interests groups, I’m not keen on the implications that this has.”

    I don’t think ANY special interests should be allowed to give to any politician, including unions, but for the sake of argument, show me one union that has anywhere near the amount of money that any one of the Forbes 500 has. Best case scenario, unions might be able to scrape up $100 million in a year, if ALL of them came together and did so.

    “I don’t like the idea of special interests being able to put even more money into liberal or even socialist causes.”

    But the companies with the most money giving to conservative or even fascist causes, that’s okay with you, right?

    “It is not, however, about what I like or don’t like; it’s about what’s right, and according to our Constitution, laws putting strict caps on how people spend their money were wrong.”

    Corporations are not people. Unions are not people. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that money is speech and that corporations are people. Those notions are rhetorical devices that are used exclusively to provide First Amendment protection for all money that wealthy people and businesses want to give to campaigns. They aren’t based in law or fact. And this is just another issue of corporate personhood, a la Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. If you aren’t a natural person, you aren’t entitled to first amendment rights, you aren’t entitled to any rights; you’re given the privilege to exist, by yes, the government. If corporations are to be equal to humans, then I’d either like to write off every minute expense I incur during the day as a business expenditure, or they can pay the same tax rate as the rest of us (none of this effective rate of 2.3%). They can also succumb to death like the rest of us. Sounds like a fair trade, right?

    “What’s more, the minority opinion wasn’t based on law necessarily”

    Yes it was. You just said so yourself that the court overturned decades of laws to come to this conclusion, which is absurd in one other fashion. The court went out of its way to come to this decision. The question before the court was whether or not this smear documentary, Hillary, was subject to (then) current campaign finance laws (i.e., could it be shown in theaters and on cable TV so close to an election). The obvious answer is yes, the laws did apply. There was never a question of corporate personhood or first amendment rights. THAT is activism.

    “What Obama and all of the liberals who blindly follow him don’t realize is that it is not the job of the judicial branch to legislate or decide what’s best for America. ”

    Well, legislating is exactly what they did, as already admitted by you in your first paragraph, and explained in my last. I’m sure I’m not the first to compare this ruling to Dred Scott, but it’s kind of the opposite, whereas Dred Scott made people property, this ruling makes property people.

    “Their job is to interpret the law in the light of the Constitution.”

    That’s not what they did. They created new law by overturning precedence.

    “What was that about activist judges…?”

    Exactly.

    “Then, in a first-ever move for a sitting President, Obama took his opportunity during the SOTU Address to take a very public, very catty swipe at the justices. ”

    Oh, no! Let’s not pretend that the Supreme Court hasn’t been a whipping post for the right for decades over Roe v. Wade (and even before; remember reading about “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers?). I’d also like to point out that calling attention to the court’s overturning of SEVERAL laws regarding this matter is somehow catty in your eyes. Nice.

    “Every Democrat in office deserves to be censured for it.”

    Please. You know, cons have an uncanny knack for saving their indignation for the most inappropriate times. For instance, I heard no calls for censure when the previous president got caught outright violating the fourth amendment by illegally wiretapping Americans (not even when he wiretapped US soldiers). I saw no attempts to censure him for lying about going to the UN for a second resolution before starting a war which Congress never declared. But when someone rightfully decries the absolute subversion of democracy, you guys are so quick to defend the subversion rather than the democracy. It’s insane. You ought to be censured for celebrating this garbage.

    I’d like to share with you an interesting comment I came across on a forum discussing the verdict last week, and I feel it pretty well sums up the conservative viewpoint:

    “You’re just jealous because non [sic] of the corporate money will fund demo rats.
    You have the internet to raise money from all your liberal activists at 2 and 3 dollars each and we have corporations.
    Guess who wins now.”

  5. I love the moonbats….especially their response to a ruling the majority of Americans agree is free speech.

    You wonder at the end of the day what they’re afraid of.

    Hmmm.

  6. “You wonder at the end of the day what they’re afraid of.

    Hmmm.”

    Steve:

    If the liberals could get their coffers stuffed in the same way the conservatives are supposed to get their coffers stuffed, then this would not be an issue.

    This is another example of the liberal bedrock of principal of one set of rules for the liberals and a different set of less fair rules for everyone else.

  7. Exactly. They play the minority card but proclaim to be the majority on bigger issues.

    Corporations have to listen to their consumers and their workers which is precisely why they tend to lean toward a commensense candidate.

    That it’s all a conspiracy to starve off poor people is precisely the kind of hysterical argument they would accuse Sarah Palin of.

  8. “You wonder at the end of the day what they’re afraid of.”

    The same thing that most normal people are afraid of: more undue influence over the political process. Why don’t you go ahead and explain why money equals free speech in the case of multi billion dollar companies. This ought to be good…

  9. “If the liberals could get their coffers stuffed in the same way the conservatives are supposed to get their coffers stuffed, then this would not be an issue.”

    John, it would still be an issue, because liberals are principled. The fact that cons are jumping for joy at this ruling tells me all I need to know about how they are anything but. Proof that I am indeed principled: I have stated, many times, that I don’t want or like unions donating to political campaigns. I don’t think I need to explain that unions don’t contribute to the party that has systematically tried to wipe them out of existence for the last thirty years.

    And your argument gets to the crux of the matter, and that is, at least from your point of view, that he who owns the most gold makes the rules. This is not a plutocracy, and all this does is make painfully obvious that we need campaign finance reform in this country. Elections were meant to be decided by citizens, not by massive economic entities that have a vested interest in seeing the victory or defeat of specific candidates. I think a better question to be aimed at Steve is: what are YOU so afraid of? Why do you need to hide behind money and pretend that it’s equal to speech?

  10. Obama got most of his money from private business, corporations, and people from outside of the U.S. using fake names.

    Don’t know what he is suddenly upset about all of this.

    I cannot wait until accountants get into the records of Obama’s campaign and start writing books.

  11. “Obama got most of his money from private business, corporations, and people from outside of the U.S. using fake names.”

    Is this a joke? He got most of his money from individuals donating $200 or less. He took absolutely no PAC money (which is corporate money). Where the hell are you getting this stuff?

  12. “Is this a joke? He got most of his money from individuals donating $200 or less. He took absolutely no PAC money (which is corporate money). Where the hell are you getting this stuff?”

    It’s not a joke, and we get it from his own website. I’d have no problem with the small personal contributions if it weren’t for people using fake names such as Homer Simpson (that one and Bart Simpson were used multiple times), Bill Clinton, OJ Simpson (one person using that name listed his residence as “State of Nevada” and his profession as “convict”), even Raela Odinga supposedly gave a small contribution (he was the prime minister of Kenya and I doubt it was the man himself).

    The problem is that the campaign deliberately shut off certain security features on their contribution website, allowing anyone in the world with a valid credit card to make a donation under any name and enter bogus information. Then there’s ActBlue, which posts currently on their dollars-for-Democrats website that they’ve raised just over $119M for various Democratic candidates since 2004. They did the same thing: turned off the AVS security software that screened offshore donors and checked for potentially stolen credit card numbers.

    Even the New York Times covered it, but only did so at the behest of a woman who was able to make a donation from an ISP in another country using a fake name and obviously contrived address (12345 No Way). They ignored it during much of the 2008 campaign.

    Andy Stern, the president of SEIU (Service Employees International Union), openly bragged that they’d spent a fortune on Obama’s election. Their contributions totalled more than $60M. The LA Times then reported that Obama gave SEIU the authority to negotiate federal stimulus funds, at which point they stepped up and immediately lobbied to withhold $7 billion in federal funds to California unless the state backed off of a state health worker pay cut that was needed to help the state’s budget.

    Guess who helped back the SEIU push for Obama funds? Americans Coming Together. The group is funded by none other than foreign extreme liberal George Soros. For his role in the fundraising the Federal Election Commission slapped him with a $775,000 fine, the third-largest fine in the commission’s history.’

    That’s not the first time Soros has been fined by an election commission for campaign finance fraud. The same year he was fined $8,000 by the State of California for channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars through another one of his groups to un-do the state’s three-strikes law.

    I just love all this hope and change, don’t you?

  13. “I just love all this hope and change, don’t you?”

    Yep it just dandy isn’t it? Another record deficit budget!!! Is there is enough red ink in the world to write it up? Sadly there is.

    Blame Bush a year after being in office? Hasn’t that song dropped off the charts? Sadly no. If Bush left that bad of a mess then why did the Obama take the job? When you take on a mess then it is your mess. It is 100 percent your mess. While you did not make the mess, you did agree to clean it up.

  14. “Andy Stern, the president of SEIU (Service Employees International Union), openly bragged that they’d spent a fortune on Obama’s election. Their contributions totalled more than $60M. The LA Times then reported that Obama gave SEIU the authority to negotiate federal stimulus funds, at which point they stepped up and immediately lobbied to withhold $7 billion in federal funds to California unless the state backed off of a state health worker pay cut that was needed to help the state’s budget.”

    This is exactly the type of shit that I don’t like. These types of institutions have no place exerting influence over the political process.

    ” The group is funded by none other than foreign extreme liberal George Soros”

    I don’t get that him being a foreigner is a big deal whenever he’s mentioned. You people have no problem with Rupert Murdoch being Australian, or the number two investor in his company being a Saudi Prince who has openly bragged that he had a hand in manipulating FOX News coverage of Muslim riots in France. I guess I just don’t understand the double standard.

  15. “Blame Bush a year after being in office? Hasn’t that song dropped off the charts? Sadly no.”

    Sadly? No. Appropriately? Absolutely. I shouldn’t say this accusatorially, but if you actually look at what is in the budget instead of being reactionary, you’ll see that a huge chunk of it goes to paying interest on the debt that Bush racked up (see why the song is still pertinent?). It also includes $100 Billion for job creation. You do want jobs, don’t you?

    “If Bush left that bad of a mess then why did the Obama take the job? When you take on a mess then it is your mess.”

    That’s seems like backwards way of thinking. When I was a kid, my brother and I would take turns cleaning our bedroom. My brother was a slob, and when my turn would come to clean, I never thought it was my mess I was cleaning, and I know my older brother (who’s nine years older than us and therefore had his own room) didn’t think it was mine either.

    I know this all seems like crazy out of control spending, but everything Obama has done economically has worked for the most part. I know it kills conservatives to admit it, but hard numbers don’t have a bias. For example, The Office of Management and Budget projects that the annual deficit for 2011 will go down to $1.27 trillion. By 2012, it is projected at $828 billion. By 2013, it’s $727 billion. So, things aren’t nearly as terrible as they were when he came into office. Same thing with job losses. January saw 22,000 jobs lost, which is the lowest since November, where “only” 11,000 were lost. But these numbers are still the lowest in two years. He hemorrhaging has undeniably been mitigated.

    “While you did not make the mess, you did agree to clean it up.”

    Well, I’m glad you ended on a rational note. He did campaign on and agree to help clean it up (that was a good question, asking why he ran. I think it takes a certain amount of crazy to do that).

  16. “The same thing that most normal people are afraid of: more undue influence over the political process. Why don’t you go ahead and explain why money equals free speech in the case of multi billion dollar companies. This ought to be good…”

    Why don’t you go ahead and proclaim all corporations and companies to be “multi-billion dollar corporations.”

    Corporations are people. Sometimes a corporation has 1 shareholder. Sometimes they have 1000 shareholders. Those shareholders have to actually work (unlike the government who has our taxes to rely on) in listening to their employees and to their consumers.

    This anger of yours falls in line with your liberalism whereas you’d be happier if Government controlled corporations as opposed to PEOPLE controlling them.

    People versus Government? No contest.

    “John, it would still be an issue, because liberals are principled.”

    So principled, they promise to hold all the health care meetings on CSPAN! (without their big union friends)

    “Elections were meant to be decided by citizens”

    Those same citizens are responsible for starting corporations and growing them. They work for them, they buy their products and pay for their services.

    “This is exactly the type of shit that I don’t like.” (Regarding unions donating to campaigns).

    I’m glad. But unions again are funded by the people. Why citizens give them the power they have is beyond me. But all entities have rights because entities exist solely because of the people.

    A Corporate CEO with shareholders to keep happy is not going to push for a candidate that goes against the financial will of the people. It would be stupid.

    When companies are allowed to operate freely, the country does better.

    It’s only when the government sets up bureaucratic nightmares like Fannie and Freddie which influence the market, that it fails to deliver.

    Just as Obama wants to do now with this small business fund. An entire new chain of government workers to loan money to “small businesses” guaranteed to come equipped with loose lending standards, promoting local lenders to lend and spend with the guarantee that these funds set aside with guarantee the debt.

    Miraculously, everyone and their brother will start up a “small business” tomorrow.

  17. “For example, The Office of Management and Budget projects that the annual deficit for 2011 will go down to $1.27 trillion. By 2012, it is projected at $828 billion. By 2013, it’s $727 billion. ”

    That’s supposed to be good news? That’s horrible. More red ink. Balance the budget. Cut, cut, and cut some more.

  18. “That’s seems like backwards way of thinking.”

    Robert

    Your brother messes up the room you and your brother share and you clean it up? That’s backwards. Your brother had no incentive to keep the room clean because he only had to do half of the work to clean it up. Such a deal.

  19. “It also includes $100 Billion for job creation. You do want jobs, don’t you?”

    Yes I do. Let’s fund that $100 billion by cutting something else.

  20. “Corporations are people”

    You know damn well that isn’t true.

    “Sometimes a corporation has 1 shareholder. Sometimes they have 1000 shareholders”

    Since this constitutes a person to you, then it’s clear that this “person” suffers from multiple personality disorder.

    “This anger of yours falls in line with your liberalism whereas you’d be happier if Government controlled corporations as opposed to PEOPLE controlling them.”

    I can’t be the only one who sees how ass backwards you are. Corporations are people but government isn’t. How does that work? And you say control, I say regulate. Would you trust the butcher to provide you with meat that hasn’t been inspected to make sure it isn’t lousy with disease? Use your fucking head here, Steve.

    “People versus Government? No contest.”

    You mean corporations versus government. No contest indeed. Because at least We the People can hold government accountable when something goes wrong. Good luck getting your pension back from Enron, Joe Blow.

    “So principled, they promise to hold all the health care meetings on CSPAN! ”

    I find it incredibly hypocritical (particularly among politicians) that those who supported the previous administration, where damn near everything was done in secret, have the unmitigated gall to criticize anyone else’s transparency. It’s just like Obama said last Friday (where he publicly spanked all House Republicans single handedly with a camera crew in tow), it’s nothing but tactics, and it doesn’t solve any problems.

    “Those same citizens are responsible for starting corporations and growing them”

    Using your logic, they’re entitled to vote twice. How is that fair?

    “A Corporate CEO with shareholders to keep happy is not going to push for a candidate that goes against the financial will of the people. It would be stupid.”

    What? It happens every time there’s an election. This logic is so completely flawed. PACs already exist for employes of corporations to contribute to candidates. You can’t tell me that every employee will agree with the decision for the company to support one candidate over the other. Likewise, in situations like this, what’s good for the goose is rarely good for the gander, because when corporations lobby for special treatment and tax breaks, that leaves the employee holding the bag. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that corporate America is interested in providing for a healthy middle class.

    “When companies are allowed to operate freely, the country does better.”

    What the hell are you talking about? Look at what just happened. Laissez Faire capitalism got us where we are. AIG was the first and biggest domino to fall, and look at the trillions of dollars worth of unregulated (hell, unknown to anyone in any level of government) collateralized debt obligations they were sitting on. But knowing you, you’ll overlook that in favor of blaming the poor slob who was swindled by sheisters who made promises of amazingly low interest rates that turned out to be lies.

    “Miraculously, everyone and their brother will start up a “small business” tomorrow.”

    I knew you would find a way to oppose this, and I know damn well it’s because of WHO’S proposing it. This is an idea that has been showered in praise by conservatives for as long as I can remember, and now, all of a sudden, it’s bad. But they can’t tell you why. Same damn thing with setting up a panel for deficit reduction. It was a Republican idea, and a majority of them opposed it! (in fairness, the same number of dumb-o-crats opposed it (23) as did Republicans) I hate to agree with psycho Judd Greg, but he was right when he said that this was “yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation.”

  21. “That’s supposed to be good news?”

    That’s incredibly good news. Would you rather deficits go up? Because it seems like that’s what Republican politicians want, so they have something to scream about at election time.

    “Your brother messes up the room you and your brother share and you clean it up? That’s backwards. Your brother had no incentive to keep the room clean because he only had to do half of the work to clean it up. Such a deal.”

    We’d alternate from week to week. I’d clean it one week, and he would clean it the next. He had to clean my messes too (although I was much neater than him), so it would theoretically balance out. The point of that story was that I always knew whose messes belonged to whom, regardless of the fact that I was cleaning it up.

  22. “That’s incredibly good news. Would you rather deficits go up? ”

    I’d rather see deficits go down.

    Wall Street is back. Companies are learning to do more with less. There isn’t going to be a job recovery because the people out of work are not needed and won’t be needed.

    Spending tax dollars to run up red ink to put unnecessary people to work doing unnecessary things is beyond stupid.

    America is culling its workforce and this is long overdue.

  23. “You know damn well that isn’t true.”

    Okay, Robert…if corporations are not people and the First Amendment does not apply, then I guess we can start deciding what kind of business people can get into. Cafepress.com merchandise that offends Presidential staffers or Congressional leaders can be yanked because, well, it’s a business, it’s not people running it. Every major corporation should be subject to review by a new government panel to decide who can stay in business and who’s gonna go. And all these small companies that push white supremacy, Hispanic supremacy, black power? They’re gone, too, because they just offend everyone and the First Amendment doesn’t apply to businesses.

    Do you have any idea how absolutely silly you sound?

    “Because at least We the People can hold government accountable when something goes wrong. Good luck getting your pension back from Enron, Joe Blow.”

    When a couple of snot-nosed high schoolers broke into my car several years ago I didn’t hold the car company responsible for my loss. The kids were caught because they were dumb enough to brag about it, and THEY were held accountable–but by that time, my $2500 stereo was already gone and nobody could tell where to. It sucked but that was the way it was.

    Here’s what happened with Enron: Kenneth Lay brought together two major energy companies in Houston and hired financial advisers to help with the merger. From the start there were problems; the new company had billions of dollars in debt from multiple failed projects, but the whiz-kids Lay had hired managed to keep it hidden and pitched a completely fraudulent financial standing to the new executive board. Financial auditor Arthur Anderson was in on the whole scheme. We all know how the fallout happened: stocks dropped from $90 to $1 in a single day, and when the SEC came knocking they found a host of corporate fraud.

    Kenneth Lay died before sentencing, but he faced somewhere around 45 years in prison. Jeffrey Skilling got just under 24 years in prison. Fifteen others involved in the fraud all either pled guilty or were convicted. So you see, we did hold them accountable, because what they did was wrong. The money is mostly gone, but that’s what happens when the bad guys commit crimes. More often than not you don’t get your property or money back.

    Your arguments are full of holes.

  24. “can’t be the only one who sees how ass backwards you are. Corporations are people but government isn’t. How does that work? And you say control, I say regulate. Would you trust the butcher to provide you with meat that hasn’t been inspected to make sure it isn’t lousy with disease? Use your fucking head here, Steve.”

    How about the fact that it is businesses that create wealth and opportunity? How about the fact that it takes that individual liberty and fre-market enterprise to create the taxes in the first place?

    Government is there FOR ONE REASON. To accept a fee — our tax dollars and a secure pension — to ensure that everyone is entitled to the same freedoms and liberties existing in the private marketplace whether they are assuming the role of seller or consumer. With that responsibility, they are to treat our tax dollars as they are precious, use them only when required, stop using them to involve themselves into private matters which suuport conducting business in a way consumers cannot respond (quit being their safety net).

    And by the way, this argument is whether or not corporations who have an interest in liberty and freedom have the right to partake in the Democratic process. How can you counter that with the Government when in fact, Government officials CAMPAIGN FOR THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME!

    You want to control corporations.
    I want to control the Government.

    Small business and free enterprise is what employs me, not the Government.

    “Good luck getting your pension back from Enron, Joe Blow.”

    Hey, tell the Government to quit appointing regulators to the SEC who can be just as tempted as any business man on Wall Street to have his back scratched, who can be bought off with “perks” and lunches and trips to strip clubs.

    You act as if the Government “regulators” are ordained. Like they’ve been completely made over with Holy water….and they are here to do their “Diana Prince Wonder Woman” spin and save the world when in essence, it’s the intrusions of government regulation that contribute to dishonesty.

    ACORN is one example with their misuse of taxpayer funding. Bernie Madoff is another. Regulation DOES NOT WORK. You know what works? PEOPLE in the free market screaming like hell and showing up on Madoff’s porch….that’s what works!

    “I find it incredibly hypocritical (particularly among politicians) that those who supported the previous administration, where damn near everything was done in secret, have the unmitigated gall to criticize anyone else’s transparency. It’s just like Obama said last Friday (where he publicly spanked all House Republicans single handedly with a camera crew in tow), it’s nothing but tactics, and it doesn’t solve any problems.”

    Wait, who got spanked?

    Right now, Obama’s GALLUP approval is still less than 50%.

    In a current GALLUP poll, 57% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court decision and back its finding that donating money equates free speech.

    In Massachusetts, a half-century-old liberal seat held by a provable liberal crook has been turned over to a Republican.

    In Illinois, a super-conservative (Bill Brady) has won the gubernatorial race for Governor against the more likable RINOs in the race to face off against Pat Quinn in the fall. (Brady was even endorsed by Ann Coulter)

    Your Democrats had a super majority for a year and was spanked handsomely by Sarah Palin with her little “death panels” Twitter from her kitchen in Wasilla. They couldn’t even ram a health care bill through the Senate because of minority Republican opposition which supported the majority of this country.

    BIOB again? More patriot act spew? All of these evil “BIOB” lines where you miraculously are still blabbing about them and managed to never be hauled off to any prison camps for dissent.

    But Obama goes behind doors with union honchos and makes deals on something that affects 1/6th of our economy, nah—those intentions were noble.

    He lied. Not only was he not responsible for spanking anyone, but he did something a lot worse to himself (starts with an “F” and rhymes with “duck”).

    That “Obama spanked them” line is helpful in one thing. It represents that 99.99999% of the stuff you say is intellectually dishonest and goes against the Constitutional fabric of this nation.

    “Using your logic, they’re entitled to vote twice. How is that fair?”

    No it doesn’t. It means they are are responsible for the growth of these corporations and their direction. All the corporations are doing are helping to ensure that the messages of the candidates get across so that Americans can make better-informed decisions when they go to the polls.

    It just sticks in your craw everytime our government makes a decision that puts power in the hands of the people. And as angry as you get by it, it only reaffirms in my mind precisely why they should have that right because you’ve always got the right to respond.

    Proving by your wordy-posts, you’re certainly a beneficiary of the First Amendment. Yet, you want to slap your metaphorical duct tape on anyone with the audacity to disagree with you.

    “You can’t tell me that every employee will agree with the decision for the company to support one candidate over the other.”

    Of course I can’t. But people responsible for executing the decisions – paid for by shareholders and workers – must take the government seriously in strategic planning. It is not mere coincidence that upon learning of Obama’s election win that the market dropped the next day.

    They’re allowed. Free speech is not only for you and corporations provide the backbone of our economy.

  25. “How about the fact that it takes that individual liberty and fre-market enterprise to create the taxes in the first place?”

    Well, let’s not pretend that either entity is there to serve the other. Tariffs represented 100% of government revenues from before the Constitution was ratified up until the Civil War. You hate taxes on American corporations? Join me and lobby for sensible tariff laws, which still generated a great deal of revenue until Reagan took a whack at them.

    “Government is there FOR ONE REASON. To accept a fee — our tax dollars and a secure pension — to ensure that everyone is entitled to the same freedoms and liberties existing in the private marketplace whether they are assuming the role of seller or consumer”

    We are not either! We aren’t consumers, we’re citizens. The role of the government as laid out by the preamble to the Constitution is establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves. Back before people like you needed an enemy and dichotomy in their lives, government meant all of us, collectively. Nowhere in there did I read anything about slashing taxes on the rich to ensure freedom. If you know your history and it hasn’t been tampered with by the likes of Glenn Beck (Thomas Paine was a conservative? Really? Read Agrarian Justice, Beck), you’ll remember that the Boston Tea Party was the citizen’s revolt against tax cuts for the world’s wealthiest corporation, the East India Company. Government is not the beck and call girl to big business, despite how your party acts. The sooner you appreciate that fact, the better off you’ll be.

    “And by the way, this argument is whether or not corporations who have an interest in liberty and freedom have the right to partake in the Democratic process.”

    They don’t. Corporations are not natural persons, which the Constitution grants rights to. They are not living, breathing people. They are institutions created by those who have very different goals than people. You don’t see me on Capitol Hill lobbying for the right to dump known toxins into Lake Pleasant. I don’t get to stash my money offshore to avoid the IRS. I don’t get to pay myself in dividends and get taxed 15% while everyone else pays 35%. Can’t you see that your intentions are (or should be) very different than theirs?

    “How can you counter that with the Government when in fact, Government officials CAMPAIGN FOR THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME!”

    Government officials are people, you jag. And the last time I checked, neither party’s paltry millions could compare with Exxon/Mobil’s billions (per quarter).

    “Small business and free enterprise is what employs me, not the Government.”

    And government is what protects me from free enterprise. I guess we’re even.

    “Hey, tell the Government to quit appointing regulators to the SEC who can be just as tempted as any business man on Wall Street to have his back scratched, who can be bought off with “perks” and lunches and trips to strip clubs.”

    Is that really your argument? Let’s have no regulators because maybe they might think about possibly being bribed? And good luck bribing the entire SEC…

    “it’s the intrusions of government regulation that contribute to dishonesty.”

    That’s just dumb. That’s like saying that parents contribute to the delinquency of children.

    “Regulation DOES NOT WORK. You know what works? PEOPLE in the free market screaming like hell and showing up on Madoff’s porch….that’s what works!”

    So, in other words, it’s better to let the crooks take the money and run, then do something about it? Regulation does work, it’s worked for fifty years. Once stringent regulations were in place after the first republican great depression, we didn’t have a single bank panic or failure in this country until Reagan deregulated the S&Ls, and we saw what happened there. Jefferson was certainly right when he said that banks can be more dangerous than standing armies.

    “Wait, who got spanked?”

    House Republicans. FOX News didn’t like the fact that Obama was beating back every talking point that Frank Luntz had faxed to them that morning, so they cut away, lest uninformed viewers be confronted with the fact that the GOP has no solutions, just obstructionism.

    “In a current GALLUP poll, 57% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court decision and back its finding that donating money equates free speech.”

    That doesn’t make it lawful. I’m sure well over 80% of people don’t fully understand the Constitution. But, that generally seems to work in the republican’s favor…

    “Your Democrats had a super majority for a year and was spanked handsomely by Sarah Palin with her little “death panels” Twitter from her kitchen in Wasilla.”

    First of all, the Democrats never had a super majority. I’m not sure when 58 became 2/3, but Obama took office with 57 (including Independent Bernie Sanders) Democrats in the Senate. Then Arlen Specter jumped ship (58), then Norm Coleman stopped wasting the people of Minnesota’s time and the GOP’s money and admitted defeat, giving them Al Franken (59). The entire premise of a supermajority rests on the shoulders of a man that was a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention. Care to rephrase your argument?

    Second, it’s cute that you expect people to believe that a half term governor with the brain capacity of a penny can spank anyone from behind a computer screen, drawing particular attention to what has been judged to be the lie of the year:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

    “They couldn’t even ram a health care bill through the Senate because of minority Republican opposition which supported the majority of this country.”

    I’m sorry, but since when did 23% become a majority?

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

    Also, an interesting note; your party’s pathetic obstructionism isn’t working:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html

    “He lied. Not only was he not responsible for spanking anyone, but he did something a lot worse to himself (starts with an “F” and rhymes with “duck”).”

    Explain. How is he lying, and how did he screw himself?

    “That “Obama spanked them” line is helpful in one thing. It represents that 99.99999% of the stuff you say is intellectually dishonest and goes against the Constitutional fabric of this nation.”

    I go against the Constitutional fabric of this country? That’s fucking hysterical, coming from some jag who regularly argues for torturing human beings and wiretapping American citizens.

    “All the corporations are doing are helping to ensure that the messages of the candidates get across so that Americans can make better-informed decisions when they go to the polls.”

    Are you kidding me? What makes you think that they have any desire to present an objective viewpoint?

    “It just sticks in your craw everytime our government makes a decision that puts power in the hands of the people”

    You’re out of your mind if you think this will do anything but take power out of the hands of the people. All this will do is drown out the voices of those who aren’t rich (i.e. 98% of the country).

    “Proving by your wordy-posts, you’re certainly a beneficiary of the First Amendment. Yet, you want to slap your metaphorical duct tape on anyone with the audacity to disagree with you.”

    You know what’s great? I’m 90% sure you don’t even believe that. The bottom line is that first amendment rights were meant for human beings. If the founders of this country wanted so desperately for corporations to enjoy all the same rights as people, they wouldn’t have specified, through law, that a corporation couldn’t exist past forty years. Likewise, they wouldn’t have tried to restrain the power wielded by these institutions. You are wrong, and demonstrably so. It’s both funny and sad that you take this ridiculous position.

    “It is not mere coincidence that upon learning of Obama’s election win that the market dropped the next day.”

    And, in that same vein, it must also not be coincidence that it’s been consistently over 10,000 since he’s been president. It must also not be mere coincidence that the day after Scott Brown’s election win, the market went down over 300 points.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s