Flashback to President Obama's opening salvo in the 2008 campaign
The "cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."....
"They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page. "
Barack Obama Speech - Obama Speech on Day He Declared His Run For President (http://chicago.about.com/od/chicagopeople/a/ObamaRunSpeech.htm)

That was then... this is now :

The NY Slimes have put in their journalist caps to expose the pay for play ;or as former Rep (Dem RI) Patrick Kennedy says ;the quid pro quo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all?src=tp


Most donors, including Dr. Mohlenbrock and Mr. Kiani, declined to talk about their motivations for giving. But Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”
Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.

“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”

As you recall ;Obama secured the nomination when the Kennedy clan threw their weight behind his candidacy. I wonder if that was part of the quid pro quo ?

Kennedy is small potatoes compared to other donors ;and ,as a result ,their access was greater.

More broadly, the review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times.

The best example of this is perhaps that of George Kaiser ;a multi-millionaire billionaire bundler for the Obama 2008 campaign. He is also known for the failed company call Solyndra.

Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire, was a "bundler" for Obama's 2008 campaign, raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the president, records show. He also was a frequent White House visitor in 2009 and 2010. White House officials for months have denied that Kaiser talked about Solyndra during those visits.
George Kaiser, Obama Donor, Discussed Solyndra Loan With White House, Emails Show (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/george-kaiser-solyndra_n_1084568.html)
But the logs tell a different tale .Between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, Solyndra officials and visitors made at least 20 trips to the White House.
Kaiser made three visits to the White House on March 12, 2009, and one on March 13.On March 20,2009 the Obots awarded Solyndra the 1st "green energy "loan despite repeated warnings about the company's instability . Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011, putting 1,000 employees out of work. It had received more than $500 million in fast-tracked federal loan guarantees under a new section of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as 'the stimulus'at the time of it's failure .

During a debate in 2008 ,President Obama said that “We’re Going To Have To Change The Culture In Washington So That Lobbyists And Special Interests Aren’t Driving The Process.”

But that was then... this is now.

And this is different than any other president in what way?

That's always the left's defense when they get caught as hypocrites. I expect the President will go on the campaign trail with similar lines of BS ,about the culture of corruption.
Back in 2008 he was the blank slate that everyone projected their desires on . Well now we see that he is just more of the same.The veneer has been stripped away .

What will he campaign on ? It isn't going to be the hopey changy stuff ;and he can't run as the reformer... that has been discredited.. he can't say 'stay the course 'when the course he has pursued is a path to failure.
I get it.. The President's campaign slogan... "It's still Bush's fault" .

Well no, I'm just pointing out that all presidents and candidates make promises and then brush most of them aside to cater to the special interests that fund them. It's not a partisan issue. Your system is broken and caters to the rich and the corporations.

Here, look, Romney is giving people with lotsa money better access (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-romney-already-selling-access-to-inaugural-retreat-for-50k/) to his message. All you ned is to pony up $50K.

It's not going to change. You're not going to change it. Sorry.

All I have to say about that is Engineering and Technical Services (ETS) . Worry about your own .

Yes Tom that's what you guys say when you are caught with your pants down, look the other way chaps

JudgeTony Fitzgerald tells me about the amoral political culture in your country that has been a continuous problem for years. . If you look at the op I am the one pointing out the corruption and it's NK that said look the other way.

Well no, I'm just pointing out that all presidents and candidates make promises and then brush most of them aside to cater to the special interests that fund them. It's not a partisan issue. Your system is broken and caters to the rich and the corporations.

Here, look, Romney is giving people with lotsa money better access (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-romney-already-selling-access-to-inaugural-retreat-for-50k/) to his message. All you ned is to pony up $50K.

It's not going to change. You're not going to change it. Sorry.

Besides a retreat you are only making an assumption that there will be additional benefits at the expense of the public. The OP documents where specific favors of giving taxpayer money resulted from the access.

If you look at the op I am the one pointing out the corruption and it's NK that said look the other way. No, I didn't say that at all, I said it's endemic to all your politicians and not fixable. Please, please, stop putting words in my mouth, it's really annoying.

Feel free to not reply to my posts.

Someone has to correct misinformation. :-) I'm sorry you don't like it.

Yes, in addition to his unprecedented transparency he certainly changed the culture in Washington.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_wine_tub_2_jef_120416_wblog.jpg

Lets see ; revelations of pay to play ; Secret Service that can't screen guests to official White House functions ;and go partying with prostitutes when they are doing advance work for a Presidential trip. GSA run like it's Animal House ;one failed domestic and economic agenda after another ; lead from behind foreign policy . He certainly has a record of achievement .

Yes he has achieved a great deal, He has got you out of Iraq and may get you out of Afghanistan even if it is a retreat through Kyrgyzstan. I think you should resign yourselves to not exiting through Pakistan due to his and your lack of respect for national soveriegnty. He has stirred up a hornet's nest in Iran and NK. On the home front he has polarised the nation.

I hear we will be leaving Afghanistan early. I'm sure we owe that to that same lack of respect, one in all in

But if he finds out there really was misconduct with his Secret Service he's going to get really angry.

For the record Clete ;in Iraq he retreated in the face of victory. I don't mind an exit from Afghanistan... or what he called in 2008 "the good war" . Since he has no plan for victory there then all he does is waste NATO lives and treasure.

But Tom we are winning the war, we can go home early. Think positive man. What happens when we leave well we can't control everything. There is no victory in terms of the Taliban laying down their arms, they are not going to do that. If you want to conquer Afghanistan you need a million men and be willing to conquer Pakistan too. Not going to happen. As soon as you leave Afghanistan, Iran will also quieten down

as soon as you leave Afghanistan, Iran will also quieten down
They have been at war with the US since 1979 . No they won't quite down .They will try to assert hegemony in the region.

But this posting is not about the Obama record of failure in foreign affairs.. it's about the Obama corruption in the face of his rhetoric.

Leads from behind, snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and provides cures in search of a disease. Obama is the anti-hero!

You go righties, sounds good on paper so pile on while you can, but its clear that he has an edge with most of the voters who watch with amusement as you guys try to tear him down while he just keeps going, and going, right to re election.

Now that the right wing challenger has come through, and the circus is over(?), we can see how you guys intend on taking the world over.

Good Luck, you will need it, and some votes. I won't bother disputing your FACTS and let them fall on their own, and they will. I will betcha $10,000, hardey-har-har!!

No they won't quite down .They will try to assert hegemony in the region.

.

Have you asked yourselves why they are "at war" with you? This is another cold war or a continuation of the old one. Did they march into Iraq? They had much more chance of succeeding there. Your arguments reek of paranoia

Your argument reeks of blame America 1st... no surprise there .

Now Tom look at history, what america has done to Iran warrants their undying enmity. You interferred with their internal politics, put despots on the peacock throne, incited Iraq to attack them and funded the war. You are the aggressor here, and you are crapping your pants should they get nuclear weapons because they don't understand MAD. I remember a certain byblical prophesy about burning oil fields and I have often wondered what the circumstances would be that would make it happen

You expect everyone should forget, it was just those other guys, not me. It doesn't wash. Your country is nasty war monger Tom, it changed after WWII, getting the bomb turned you into the bully on the block

Your history reminds me of a Sat morning cartoon they'd air here... 'fractured fairey tales' .

The US did absolutely nothing to incite the Iran Iraq war. Their border disputes arounf the Shatt al-Arab went back for ages(at least since the breakup of the Ottomans ). Saddam saw the Iranians as vulnerable because of the revolution and he made his move. It was no different than his aggression against Kuwait. But don't forget that Khomeini was openly advocating a Shia revolution in Iraq too. None of that had anything to do with us.

You think they are simply sitting in their territory minding their own business ? BS ! They have their tentacles in every nation in the ME . It is they that sent their IRGC into Iraq in the last decade to kill US troops . It is they that had the places that created and constructed the IEDs that killed the most US troops . It was Iranians that was indirectly responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar tower bombing. They or their proxies have been at war with the US since 1979 .
They are a terrorist nation who is on the verge of having nukes. You see bibilical prophesy and they see the return of the Mahdi . So yes ,we cannot assume they will act rationally with that weapon. The world agrees . You are the lone voice that says it's acceptable.

Now do me a favor.. this OP is not about Iran.. Start one of your own if you want to continue,

Leave it to the righties to blame the left for their misery. You guys would rather point out isolated pieces than recognize your own part in things not working better.

Like most Americans wanting the rich to pay more so we can have an infrastructure improvement program that creates jobs, for a lot of people in 50 states. Or taking the poor and middle class to pay for rich guys who got bailed out already by those they now thumb their nose at.

Doesn't look isolated to me . Looks like business as usual from the most transparent adm ever. The Dems spew demagogery about blaming the rich at the same time they've failed to pass a budget out of the Dem controlled Senate for the 3rd straight year. The President commissioned a so called bipartisan commission on the budget ;and then shelved the committee recommendations . Why ? Because they didn't recommend the "soak the rich " one trick pony ?

No republican won't go along with the common sense approach in Bowles/Simpson. Wonder why that is? That's right, it goes against privatizing everything, and shifting cost to old people, poor people, and everyone but the rich.

The right wing idea of fair is everybody but them should profit.

The President should've put it on the table. How do you know what the Republicans would've done ? You don't .
But your comments are more diversions . I don't know why you won't address the culture of corruption in the Obama White House. Well ,yes I do know why... and it isn't because 'all politicians do it '.

I don't know why you won't address the culture of corruption in the Obama White House.Another diversion and red herring.

Not at all . It is the subject of the OP... which I say again... you are free to move on and not address .

Another diversion and red herring.

Um, the red herring came from Tal in diverting from the subject of this thread. You're still batting .000 as "corrector."

You're batting .000 concerning posting factually correct information.

The President should've put it on the table. How do you know what the Republicans would've done ? You don't .
But your comments are more diversions . I don't know why you won't address the culture of corruption in the Obama White House. Well ,yes I do know why....and it aint because 'all politicians do it '.

I know what the repubs DID, what they have done the last 4 years, they voted against it, and ignored it, and blamed the president for not pushing it, but he has in separate parts, and they were voted down, or filibustered. Show me what he hasn't proposed by Bowles/Simpson!

Why I haven't addressed the culture of corruption? I have, but you haven't paid attention very well to be honest.

Refresh my memory.. did you say "Bush did it " ?

Corruption in high or low places and this is somehow an important issue as if... this should not happen and yet it does. How can you debate this... the whole nation is awash with sexuality and yet you want to discuss the moral failure of a few

yet you want to discuss the moral failure of a fewAlways only liberals; a blind eye is turned to the others.

You're batting .000 concerning posting factually correct information.

Feel free Mr. Guardian of Truth to point out all - any - of my factually incorrect information.

Always only liberals; a blind eye is turned to the others.

That's a flat-out lie.

And for 8 years your side was very willing to point out when there was corruption . Don't believe me ? Check out how many times Tom DeLay or Jack Abramoff was discussed on these pages .

I think Tom is referrring to Solydra, not the current Secret Service scandal. Solyndra was the green jobs tauted by the president and everyone else as a viable green jobs facillity, for making solar panels, that went bankrupt, because of Chinese price fixing. This project was one of 200 to receive federal loans, under the Bush administrations Energy department.

Bankrupt Solyndra shells out $368,500 in bonuses Don Surber (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/54285)

White House-Backed Solar Solyndra Company Collapses - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/white-house-backed-solar-solyndra-company-collapses/story?id=14420755)


Officials at the Department of Energy told ABC News and iWatch News that it used objective factors in selecting Solyndra, and Wednesday the department released a statement on its website blaming changing economics in the industry -- including a major push by Chinese firms to drive down solar panel prices -- for the company's collapse.

"The changing economics have affected a number of solar manufacturers in recent months, including unfortunately, Solyndra, a once very promising company that has increased its sales revenue by 2,000 percent in three years and sold more than 1,000 installations in 20 countries," the Energy web post states. "As a result, Solyndra now plans to suspend its manufacturing operations and file for bankruptcy protection."


This company was profitable in 2005-2009, and was operating until 2011. As I said, one of many projects the DOE works with.

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Dis I sum that up well?

That's a flat-out lie.Nope.
Ask Me Help Desk - Search Results (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=speechlesstx)
Feel free to point out how many threads were started concerning the moral failure of conservatives.

What it has to do with White House and secret service corruption is yet to be seen

Hello:

A cop got arrested here in Seattle. That's Obama's fault, right?

excon

So I'm right... you are going to blame Bush. But the truth is that although the "Bush Energy Dept." had the loans under review... in fact ,they were NOT approved by the "Bush Energy Dept ." .They were held up because the "Bush Energy Dept. " had concerns about the loans .

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information,"
http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/599546.pdf
Solyndra's application was approved in March 2009 under the "Obama Energy Dept" . Under circumstances I documented .

Nope.
Ask Me Help Desk - Search Results (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=speechlesstx)
Feel free to point out how many threads were started concerning the moral failure of conservatives.

That would be another fallacious argument, an argument from silence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence). Feel free some day to use actual evidence.

No I blame Bush for ruining the global economy, of which he has a long record of screwing up businesses, including the Texas Rangers, but as to Solyndra, it fell to market forces and some collusion by the Chinese government.

Solar 'scandal' upshot: China is dominating global solar market, for better or worse | Grist (http://grist.org/solar-power/solar-scandal-upshot-china-is-dominating-global-solar-market-for-better-or-worse/)

U.S. Solar Manufacturers Request Duties on Chinese Imports - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-20/u-s-solar-manufacturers-request-duties-on-chinese-imports.html)

As usual its more to the story than you righties care to look at, and jump at whatever backs your side, and ideology. If your mind was open, you would look a lot deeper, and have more facts than just the Fox News version. A narrow view of a bigger picture does not yield all the facts.

Solyndra was but ONE victim of global forces designed to under cut a world market for green/clean energy exportation.

That would be another fallacious argument, an argument from silence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence). Feel free some day to use actual evidence.You have to click on the link to see the evidence. Sorry, I should have made it more clear.

Yeah it is systemic to the whole green tilt at windmills approach to energy . Yesterday we got to see a Space Shuttle piggy back on top of a 747 ,and fly cross country . I assure you that the 747 did not get the power for the lift needed for such a feat using solar panels or windmills. Your green fantasies will never provide more than a supplemental to the main energy sources.

You have to click on the link to see the evidence. Sorry, I should have made it more clear.

Let's add shifting the burden of proof to your argument from silence.

Yesterday we got to see a Space Shuttle piggy back on top of a 747 ,and fly cross country . I assure you that the 747 did not get the power for the lift needed for such a feat using solar panels or windmills.
Correct, it used a non-renewable, air-polluting energy source which is forever rising in cost.

Let's add shifting the burden of proof to your argument from silence.Don't even know what means. It makes no sense logically.

yeah it is systemic to the whole green tilt at windmills approach to energy . Yesterday we got to see a Space Shuttle piggy back on top of a 747 ,and fly cross country . I assure you that the 747 did not get the power for the lift needed for such a feat using solar panels or windmills. Your green fantasies will never provide more than a supplemental to the main energy sources.

The approach to energy on a global, and local level is all of the above, all we can get. Develop it all. Today's supplement can be tomorrows primary. Drill, baby, drill, is but a part of the equation, a major part, but alternatives must be developed.

Never say never.

Correct, it used a non-renewable, air-polluting energy source which is forever rising in cost.

Nor will solar or windmills EVER provide the power necessary to perform such tasks ;or provide power for the modern economy.

nor will solar or windmills EVER provide the power necessary to perform such tasks ;or provide power for the modern economy.
Probably not for an airplane, no; but for alternate travel methods perhaps. And for other power uses such as commercial/residential uses.

Don't even know what means. It makes no sense logically.

Makes perfect sense. I won't attempt to disprove your argument about what I allegedly haven't said.

Makes perfect sense. I won't attempt to disprove your argument about what I allegedly haven't said.You mean the threads you started that are 98% about liberals?

You mean the threads you started that are 98% about liberals?

Um, I'm a conservative and I intend to show my conservative bias. Doh. Still doesn't change the fact that attempting to argue based on what I allegedly have not said is intellectually shallow.

Still doesn't change the fact that attempting to argue based on what I allegedly have not said is intellectually shallow.In a way you are correct - you do not post threads on the moral failures of conservatives, only of liberals. That's what I said in the beginning: you turn a blind eye to the failings of your kind.
Check and mate.

In a way you are correct - you do not post threads on the moral failures of conservatives, only of liberals. That's what I said in the beginning: you turn a blind eye to the failings of your kind.
Check and mate.

You need to work on your chess, too. Whether I start threads on failures of conservatives of any kind is irrelevant to whether I condemn their failures, which in fact I do. I don't condone scumbags of any stripe. Check and mate.

Whether or not I start threads on failures of conservatives of any kind is irrelevant to whether or not I condemn their failures,You just choose not to bring them to light here, right?

You just choose not to bring them to light here, right?

That is what excon does, he doesn't need my help and it's still irrelevant to the point you continue to fail to make.

That is what excon does
Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, that's what I do... Wait.. What?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, that's what I do... Wait.. What?

excon

I love it when we agree on something. :)

New Culture Of Irresponsibility

What do the GSA spending scandal, the Secret Service sex scandal and Leon Panetta's expensive weekend trips home have in common? They stem from a culture of irresponsibility set by the man in the White House.

When President Obama came to Washington, he promised to usher in a "new era of responsibility," one where everyone would recognize "duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." But Obama has delivered the opposite.

He's used the presidency to lavish himself and his family with hugely expensive perks. He's used the Treasury as a piggy bank to reward donors and friends. He's blurred the line between campaign trips and presidential business. And let's not forget the fact that he's driving the country towards a financial cliff.

Since taking office, for example, the Obamas have jetted off on 16 vacations, with one — their 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii — costing taxpayers more than $1.5 million. His daughter's spring break in Mexico required a massive protection detail.

Just for kicks, Obama flew himself and British Prime Minister David Cameron to Ohio for an NCAA basketball game, at a cost of $365,000.

When a local TV reporter grilled Obama about his vacationing ways, he airily dismissed the complaint. "I'm raising a family here," he said, and besides, "most folks understand how hard I work."

When not treating himself, Obama was showering taxpayer gifts on his friends. The Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer has revealed that 80% of the "green" companies getting Energy Dept. grants and loans were run or substantially owned by Obama financial backers. And the Washington Post discovered that Obama gave more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers plum administration jobs.

Nor is Obama shy about abusing his office to help his re-election campaign. As ABC News reported recently, Obama crammed 18 fundraisers into four "official" trips in the first two months of the year.

All this excess comes when the country is facing financial ruin, with $5 trillion more in debt to pay off, thanks to Obama's reckless fiscal policies.

Is it any wonder that officials at General Services Administration — the agency dedicated to managing government procurement — thought nothing of throwing themselves an $823,000 Vegas "conference," complete with clown and mind reader?

Or that Secret Service agents thought it perfectly reasonable to arrange a sex party with at least 20 prostitutes while preparing for Obama's arrival in Cartagena?

Is it surprising that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would travel home to California almost every weekend, even though the trips cost taxpayers $860,000 so far? Panetta's excuse: "I've gone home because my wife and family are there." Apparently it never occurred to him that a modicum of personal sacrifice is in order while slashing the Pentagon's budget.

We're hearing a lot lately about "culture" problems at these agencies and how they contributed to the recent scandals. That's a good point. But guess who is responsible for establishing the cultural environment in Washington in which such recklessness could blossom?
New Era of Responsibility? President Obama To Blame For GSA, Secret Service Scandals - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/articleprint/608453/201204191829/obama-to-blame-for-recent-scandals-webhed-era-of-responsibility-obama-to-blame-for-scandals.aspx)

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. He's STILL a better choice than Romney. Republican Louie Gomert summed it nicely, "Romney has been on your side at one time or another"..

excon

The offending people will be gone: More Secret Service resignations expected this week - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57416465-503544/more-secret-service-resignations-expected-this-week)

New Era of Responsibility?Hello again, tom:

Let me expand on my previous answer... New ERA?? Are you kidding? George W. Bush was responsible for the horrors that occurred under his watch, and I was right there to remind you of that fact. Even though he wasn't in direct command, the people under him could detect when certain behavior is acceptable, EVEN when they're dead wrong.

In fact, some people might have thought it was OK to stack up a bunch of human beings/prisoners and make fun of them. Some might think it's OK to be LOOSE with the taxpayers money.

But, the guy at the top IS responsible for what goes on under him, no matter what.

excon

But, the guy at the top IS responsible for what goes on under him, no matter what.

Seems ol' Jon Corzine, the guy who managed to let over a billion dollars of client funds just "disappear," is still bundling funds for the Obama campaign, over half a million (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jon-corzine-still-bundling-obama_640493.html?nopager=1) in this stretch. Blogger Ace of Spades asks (https://twitter.com/#!/AceofSpadesHQ/statuses/193441633184919552) a darn good question:


Why is a man under investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who controls that agency?

No culture of corruption there, eh?

Meanwhile, Democrats have launched a plan to amend the first amendment (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-amend-first-amendment). Sure seems like Democrats are engaging in a war on the constitution if you ask me. I mean, who cares if most or all media outlets are corporations that would be covered under their new gag rules?

Well at least this time they are pursuing a Constitutional remedy . What is the wording of the new amendment... "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ,except for corporations they don't like . This provision will not apply to trade unions ,public service unions , press institutions we favor ,or special interests advocacy groups that Democrats approve of ." ?

That's it Tom grab your bat and ball and run home

Well at least this time they are pursuing a Constitutional remedy . What is the wording of the new amendment ... "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ,except for corporations they don't like . This provision will not apply to trade unions ,public service unions , press institutions we favor ,or special interests advocacy groups that Democrats approve of ." ?

Hi Tom,

Finally, someone is trying to do something about that ridiculous corporate personhood thing.

Tut

Tut they won't win because they have their own vested interest in it also despite their bleating protests to the contrary.This is but some more election year posturing.

Tut they won't win because they have their own vested interest in it also despite their bleating protests to the contrary.This is but some more election year posturing.

Hi Tom,

I don't think it is about winning or losing. It would be about making a level playing filed. You people complain about the administration doing favours for the corporations they like. In the future a different administration will favor corporations they like. Wouldn't it make sense to make it fairer? In other words, individuals and corporations have the same opportunities in a democracy?

Tut

When it comes to speech ,the 'Citizens United' decision affirmed that fair playing field . Everyone whether as an individual ,or in association ,have the same free speech rights.

When it comes to speech ,the 'Citizens United' decision affirmed that fair playing field . Everyone whether as an individual ,or in association ,have the same free speech rights.

Yes, It's just that some free speeches are freer than others. I can have as much free speech as I like, but it does me no good if I am chained to a wall. It's all about opportunity as far as I can see.

Perhaps freedom of speech could deliver some working class people into positions of authority in government rather than the rich and mega rich.


P.S.

I googled it. Tom please tell me you are not using 'Citizens United v Federal Election Commission as an example of a level playing field.

Tut

Yes I do ,because before Citizens ,Congress tried to exclude speech from the public forum by denying associations of individuals their rights to air political opposition ads. Further ,the restrictions also served to exclude associations of individuals from their freedom of the press ;which I'm sure you would agree ,is not exclusionary to state approved press corporations . In fact , New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971),removed the threat of government censorship from American media under the very logic that the NY Slimes as a corporation had the legal definition of a 'corporate person'. Even the lib justices would not argue that the Slimes does not have the same legal right to speech that an individual has. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the left would deny that same speech rights to corporations that they don't like . Again;you NEVER heard them complain when Unions confiscate money from their membership in the form of dues ,and use the money to influence politics.

Yes I do ,because before Citizens ,Congress tried to exclude speech from the public forum by denying associations of individuals their rights to air political opposition ads. Further ,the restrictions also served to exclude associations of individuals from their freedom of the press ;which I'm sure you would agree ,is not exclusionary to state approved press corporations . In fact , New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971),removed the threat of government censorship from American media under the very logic that the NY Slimes as a corporation had the legal definition of a 'corporate person'. Even the lib justices would not argue that the Slimes does not have the same legal right to speech that an individual has. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the left would deny that same speech rights to corporations that they don't like . Again;you NEVER heard them complain when Unions confiscate money from their membership in the form of dues ,and use the money to influence politics.

Hi Tom,

According to Wikipedia, Justice Stevens said in a dissenting opinion he would like to point out that in a previous BCRA challenge it was evident that contributions gained favourable political access, a point that was not contested by the majority. However, it was considered by the majority that this represented insufficient justification to limit free speech.

Seems to me you are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. No one disagreed with Justice Stevens, yet, any attempt at implementing some type of political pluralism is seen as an infringement of free speech.

Did they forget that free speech doesn't have to be an absolute? You don't have to cut off the nose to spite the face.

Tut

No one disagreed with Justice Stevens

Did you actually read the opionions ? Because if you did ,you would find Scalia's concurring opinion addresses Steven's comical minority opinion. "The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment."
Steven's over the top dissent did not object to corporate speech as much as object to the very nature of corporations. He talks of Jeffferson's fears of corporations "subverting " the republic; "corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men." .He calls them "souless" . This is left wing demagogery at it's worse ,and it has no place in a serious judicial decision.

What Steven fails to mention in his Jefferson reference is that in the days of Jefferson ,the corporation were essentially state approved monopolies ,like today's Fannie Mae . Jefferson would've in fact approved such entities as private owed subject to market competition entities. Most of the founders, being enterprising sorts ,would've agreed with the majority opinion .

But it clearly demonstrates the divide in the country . Private business is to be held in contempt and suspicion in the eyes of the Stevens of the country . They have to be "comprehensively regulated" by the benevolent Leviathan....all for the public good ;for a "level playing field " and "fairness" .What that he led to is the government seizing banks and auto makers ;... oh yeah ,and a $1 trillion reorganization of the private health-care system, actions that would make Hugo Chavez proud.
In the world of the Stevens ,the entities under assault have no right to speak out in their defense or to influence the politics in the nation..

There I addressed Stevens..

There I addressed Stevens .


Hi Tom,

You did, but for forgot to say Stevens was right.

Decisions like these need to be addressed, 'in splendid isolation'. Is there any more a complex issue than the First Amendment.
Doesn't common law dictate that a person incite a crowd to riot?
Can we only cite the First Amendment when it comes to hate speeches?
Does one not have to consider the facts? Tort and/or criminal law will never come into it?

Yet, when it comes to the High Court political decision we are suppose to believe that somehow the First Amendment is the fundamental principle.

Well, I guess that's right when you are try to ascribe rights to a mythical personhood.

When it comes to politics ,free speech meets the requirements of legal fiction. I couldn't think of a better way to drive a wedge between people and the democratic process. There is nothing wrong with corporations. They are not soulless or evil, they are just anti-democratic.

Tut

Good points TUT, corporations are about profits, and cheap labor is part of that equation. So is spending a lot of money to sway law makers and regulators.Its the business model, and though we see more and more rich guys supporting politicians of both sides, I think its up to the informed voter to know what he is voting for.

There is no lobby for the poor, no pac for the homeless, or the unemployed, just unions who collect voluntary dues, NOT confiscate them (nice spin Tom, inaccurate though it is), and who have to solicit DONATIONS for any political endeavors. So corporations have money, but they can't vote, only people can, and that's where the real power lies.

It's the responsibility of the individual voters to elect those who work in the peoples interest, and end the extraction of wealth, and the hoarding of dollars to circulate the economy to reach all of us, not just those who have super pacs and a greedy agenda.

I have to tell you Tom, as eloquent of a case you make for the conservative point of view, the cause and effect is sweat shops, low wages, and a lot of poor people, which includes a lot of conservatives, with misdirected anger, and misinformed voting interests.

I submit, the corporations have no left, right agenda, just money and power, and they screw you as well as me. They are good at dividing to conquer us, and taking what they want from BOTH sides. So its odd that you would rather get rid of the government of the people and replace them with the corporations of the rich and powerful. Or support in any way the rich and powerful controlling YOUR government.

Trust me, they care about the constitution like YOU do, nor do they care about you and yours the way you do. They ain't passing out any silver spoons, nor are they wanting the poor to have food stamps.

I mean how easy would it be to limit all workers to 40 hours, or 32 per week, and hire more help?? Naw that hurts the JOB CREATORS bottom line, so forget that. Just work the crap out of the few you have, and get rich. The term job creators, and the excuse to allow them even more extraction is an insult to those who do work, and are poor.

It's a big fat lie, and marketing gimmick that make total fools of the ones who believe it. Even the job creators don't believe that fallacy.

Is there any more a complex issue than the First Amendment. Actually it is the least complex of all the amendments.

What part of "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW....abridging the freedom of speech don't you understand ? Where does it restrict it to individuals ? Answer ,it doesn't .


corporations are about profits, and cheap labor is part of that equation What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities... They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

I think a proper balance so one does not give undo leverage over the other parts of the society is not only fair, but necessary. If your goal is to restrict the many in favor of the few, through literal interpretations, then we disagree greatly as too many things have entered the equation since the writing of the constitution. It's a framework, not an end all,l be all strictly defined document, and a changing world and society have to be served.

This ain't 1776, its 2012. Time to update to fit changing conditions and circumstances. I guess you don't want to recognize those changes and stay in 1776 huh? Wonder what Franklin, or Madison would say about going to the moon, or investing derivatives on the global market? Or paying the slaves minimum wages?

We have grown a lot since they laid the foundations to this country. Maybe its time to get new boots, and stop trying to make the baby shoes fit.


What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities... They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

How about a fair balance? And equal influence. That's what I approve of. What you don't?

How about a fair balance? And equal influence. Thats what I approve of. What you don't?

Agree with you Tal but you won't get Tom and his ilk to agree, it might cost them their prescious money

Yeah ,my ilk

yeah ,my ilkHello again,

I ain't got no ilk.. I don't even have uice..

excon

Actually it is the least complex of all the amendments.

What part of "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW....abridging the freedom of speech don't you understand ? Where does it restrict it to individuals ? Answer ,it doesn't .

What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities ...They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

Just so there is no confusion, Tom is addressing my concerns in his first response, and Tal in his second.

I would rather not respond to Tom's question to me relation freedom of speech.

Tut

It's OK Tut they have many freedoms over there excepting the freedom of thought

Oh wise one... why don't you tell me what is so hard to understand about "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech "

Actually Tom, there are exceptions to your logic, set out here.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Free_exercise_of_religion)


Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."


NOTE, edited.

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others

Actually Tom, there are exceptions to your logic, set out here.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Free_exercise_of_religion)




NOTE, edited.


Yes, some people put themselves in a difficult position when they assert that a proposition is self-evidently true and choose to ignore the distinction between what has been asserted and the actual implications.

Freedom of various pursuits always has the potential to be limited to some extent, and this is evidenced by many court decisions restricting certain types of speeches.

Tut

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others

Actually a maranda asserts the rights of the accused by informing them that whatever they say can be used against them in a court of law. This is a right exclusively for those arrrested, and police, or authorities cannot compell self incrimination. It also asserts the right to have a lawyer, whether you can afford one or not.

It also says you can waive the right to silence, and to NOT have an attorney present.

Argg... my web editing background is screaming at me. :-)

Here's the correct spelling: Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)

Yes, some people put themselves in a difficult position when they assert that a proposition is self-evidently true and choose to ignore the distinction between what has been asserted and the actual implications.

Freedom of various pursuits always has the potential to be limited to some extent, and this is evidenced by many court decisions restricting certain types of speeches.

Tut

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others


I usually don't respond to people who can't spell what they are debating, but I'll make an exception.

Do you know the actual wording of Miranda rights is not controlled by the US Government? It's State by State. At any rate, I don't know a Police Officer who doesn't READ the rights, no matter how familiar he/she is with them, how many times he/she has said them. The warning is basically: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? If you are without the ability to retain an Attorney one will be appointed for you if and when you go to court.”

It's about self incrimination and nothing about free speech. I've seen "suspects" talk over the Police Officer reading these rights.

In my State the "suspect" has to VERBALLY agree that he/she understands these rights before questioning can continue and/or be admitted to Court. A nod or whatever does not count.

I don't understand the jump from free speech to Fifth Amendment Rights.

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

Whose stopping you from doing that?

You know what's sad? That some people are more concerned with making sure corporations are allowed to anonymously throw heaps of money at the politicians while this goes on daily in your country: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/how-do-recieve-medical-care-lupus-653584.html

Just a random thought. I know I'll get assaulted here for voicing it.

Whose stopping you from doing that?

Tut mentioned "restricting certain types of speeches." You think corporations should be restricted, no?

You know what's sad? That some people are more concerned with making sure corporations are allowed to anonymously throw heaps of money at the politicans while this goes on daily in your country: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/how-do-recieve-medical-care-lupus-653584.html

Just a a random thought. I know I'll get assaulted here for voicing it.

You're entitled to your opinion. I have no idea what this has to do the subject but you have every right to distract from the subject at hand.

Tut mentioned "restricting certain types of speeches." You think corporations should be restricted, no?

In a fair and balanced way, HELL YES!! Just common sense to me, either all of us contribute to the welfare of all of us, through circulation of economics and social opportunity, or many will fail, and so will this nation.

I sound like fox news, FAIR, AND BALANCED. With me though it's a belief, with them its only a slogan.

What you think corporations should be unlimited and dictate what we do? They would make you a slave in a sweat shop for life. That's why they left America in the first place, cheap labor, lax laws, and no responsibility for workers or the environment.

Didn't know you believed in exploiting the weak and defenseless.

You know what's sad? That some people are more concerned with making sure corporations are allowed to anonymously throw heaps of money at the politicans while this goes on daily in your country: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/how-do-recieve-medical-care-lupus-653584.html

Just a a random thought. I know I'll get assaulted here for voicing it.

My thoughts exactly, it's a damn shame. There I said it. Priorities are screwed up, I said that too!

In a fair and balanced way, HELL YES!!!! Just common sense to me, either all of us contribute to the welfare of all of us, thru circulation of economics and social opportunity, or many will fail, and so will this nation.

The left thinks a bunch of rich Democrats taking from Republicans is fair. I call it theft.

My thoughts exactly, its a damn shame. There I said it. priorities are screwed up, I said that too!

No Tal it's a difference in practice. I'll help someone in need personally, I won't wait for the government to confiscate someone else's money to do so. Twenty bucks out of my pocket will buy a lot more groceries than a wheelbarrow full of hopenchange.

LOL, you are free to give your 20 bucks to whomever you want, but its theft also when Rich republicans steal from poor democrats. Even worse when they steal from poor republicans, and conservatives. Have they no shame Speech?

Mitt Romney Budget Promises Leave Tough Cuts To Social Programs, Domestic Agencies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/mitt-romney-budget-promises_n_1445368.html?ref=tw)

We all know his cuts, like fellow repub Paul Ryan, are all programs that poor people, kids, and the elderly need and enslave the young to sweat shops, and service to the rich. 20 bucks doesn't cure cancer either, or build schools and roads. All these things YOU oppose, by supporting repubs.

The left thinks a bunch of rich Democrats taking from Republicans is fair. Thank goodness the left doesn't think that so it's not much of an argument.

Thank goodness the left doesn't think that so it's not much of an argument.

Ah, so all this "fair share" crap is just that. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Thank goodness the left doesn't think that so it's not much of an argument.

What do you expect from a party that supports a rich guy who has said that he will get richer by making everyone poorer. Sweat shop jobs are JOBS they created aren't they?

Ah, so all this "fair share" crap is just that. Where does the "fair share" stuff say it's rich democrats taking from republicans?

LOL, you are free to give your 20 bucks to whomever you want, but its theft also when Rich republicans steal from poor democrats. Even worse when they steal from poor republicans, and conservatives. Have they no shame Speech?.

Naturally, you missed the point entirely. I don't know a conservative one who wants to take government assistance away from those who need it, arguing otherwise is a straw man.

On the other hand, we can't pay for what you're giving away already. You think a few billion from the "Buffet Rule" is going to cover that? You guys on the left need to go back to the old math where you knew $46.7 billion wouldn't cover a trillion dollars in entitlements.

Add the fact that the left wants to remove the church from its historical benevolence role and that twenty bucks the government now has isn't going to be worth a warm bucket of spit, just like all that hopenchange.

Add in the fact that the left wants to remove the church from its historical benevolence role Well that's a big lie.

You are making this stuff up, must be the coffee. Read my link, Romney wants to cut assistance from the poor, and needy, and put it in his swiss account. Don't ignore the facts, face them. Need a link to the Ryan budget? He says the same thing, and it was passed already in the TEA PARTY controlled house.

They would have taken your 20 bucks before you could give it to a poor guy for sure, do the math yourself and lets see the results.

Well that's a big lie.

Excuse me? I have already documented the changes the contraceptive mandate makes in redefining what qualifies as "religious" numerous times, which will result in the church being forced to abandon its health care, education and other ministries that existed long before the federal government got involved - or violate their beliefs.


A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets;

You are making this stuff up, must be the coffee. Read my link, Romney wants to cut assistance from the poor, and needy, and put it in his swiss account. Don't ignore the facts, face them. Need a link to the Ryan budget? He says the same thing, and it was passed already in the TEA PARTY controlled house.

They would have taken your 20 bucks before you could give it to a poor guy for sure, do the math yourself and lets see the results.

You need to be more specific, what precisely did I make up? By the way, did you forget that Obamacare cuts $500 billion from Medicare starting next year? That's OK, he's going to try and fake seniors out (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_billion_trick_ImTBFfz7MeuZLJY7JzXEIJ), but the GAO is onto his scheme (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/auditors-call-on-obama-administration-to-cancel-medicare-bonuses-gop-sees-as-political/2012/04/22/gIQAvoFuaT_print.html).

Again, my twenty bucks will go a lot farther than a wheelbarrow full of hopenchange.

... which will result in the church being forced to abandon its health care, education and other ministries that existed long before the federal government got involved...Nope, not even close. How many have closed shop so far?

New laws requiring adoption agencies to adopt to same sex couples has led to the church closing adoption agencies in 3 states so far, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California. The Catholic church has already warned (http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx) that if the mandate stands, "she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations." That's going to be a void the federal government is not going to be able to fill.

Surely by now you should know I rarely speak without the facts on my side.

Let me know when hospitals close their doors.

You need to be more specific, what precisely did I make up? By the way, did you forget that Obamacare cuts $500 billion from Medicare starting next year? That's OK, he's going to try and fake seniors out (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_billion_trick_ImTBFfz7MeuZLJY7JzXEIJ), but the GAO is onto his scheme (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/auditors-call-on-obama-administration-to-cancel-medicare-bonuses-gop-sees-as-political/2012/04/22/gIQAvoFuaT_print.html).

Again, my twenty bucks will go a lot farther than a wheelbarrow full of hopenchange.


The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said it's not clear that the $8.3 billion Medicare Advantage bonus program will improve quality because most of the money is going to plans just rated average. The auditors did find, however, that the bonuses would temporarily ease the pain of unpopular cuts to insurance plans under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.

Ahead of presidential and congressional elections in which seniors are a key group of swing voters, the administration has been working hard to portray itself as a good steward of Medicare, by cracking down on waste and fraud, improving benefits, and keeping costs under control. The GAO report could become a blemish on its record.

Lets look deeper into this one, and I can speak with confidence since my 83 year old mother has been under this part D scam for a while. It carrys a yearly limit, DONUT HOLE its called where seniors have to pay full price when they reach that limit for drugs. The ACA, eliminates the do nut hole and reduces the cost of drugs 50 percent, after next year, 25% this year, but the drug companies raised prices 100%. HMM!

You do know that this "popular" medicare advantage plan is an extra insurance that seniors pay for to fill the do nut hole don't you? Well it didn't, so be careful who you listen to on this one. Smart seniors shop off shore for cheaper drugs, but GAO never mentions that fact.

Are two insurance policies logical to you? Me either.

Let me know when hospitals close their doors.

You'll know.

Lets look deeper into this one, and I can speak with confidence since my 83 year old mother has been under this part D scam for a while. It carrys a yearly limit, DONUT HOLE its called where seniors have to pay full price when they reach that limit for drugs. The ACA, eliminates the do nut hole and reduces the cost of drugs 50 percent, after next year, 25% this year, but the drug companies raised prices 100%. HMM!!

You do know that this "popular" medicare advantage plan is an extra insurance that seniors pay for to fill the do nut hole don't you? Well it didn't, so be careful who you listen to on this one. Smart seniors shop off shore for cheaper drugs, but GAO never mentions that fact.

Are two insurance policies logical to you? Me either.

I get it, Obama is trying to scam seniors why exactly?

I seriously doubt the catholic hospitals will give up the revenue that supports their ministries for anything the government does. The states have already imposed limits and exemptions on the churches, so this is another straw argument.

Like catholics are the only game in town, and they are too big to fail. Your facts are suspect, please send links of verification, besides one guys opinion.

I get it, Obama is trying to scam seniors why exactly?

The GAO cannot score facts NOT in evidence, and the funding is targeted at specific carriers that have under preformed. Even the GAO admits the funding was transitional for those that have not come into compliance with the new law. The scam is how the right spins it.

DIG DEEPER>


The administration defended the program, saying without bonuses many plans would not have an incentive to improve.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the GAO report suggests that the administration abused its authority, pumping money to the plans to avoid more criticism over the cuts.

Medicare Advantage is a popular private insurance alternative to the traditional health care program. More than 3,000 private plans serve nearly 12 million beneficiaries, about one-fourth of Medicare recipients. They offer lower out-of-pocket costs, usually in exchange for some limitations on choice.

Hatches rhetoric doesn't tell seniors they are being ripped off to start with, and will have more economical choices when the law is implemented fully, in two years.

Did you want me to continue elaborating what the do nut hole is doing under those plans, or can you find them yourself? You do know that the seniors prescription program was intentionally set outside of Medicare to begin with don't you? It cost the government NOTHING because it shifted costs to seniors. That's a republican idea by the way, and a vision of what you guys want, seniors paying for there own health care, as well as drugs.

Um, WaPo is hardly a right-wing spinmeister.


The auditors did find, however, that the bonuses would temporarily ease the auditors did find, however, that[B] the bonuses would temporarily ease the pain of unpopular cuts to insurance plans under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

Ahead of presidential and congressional elections in which seniors are a key group of swing voters, the administration has been working hard to portray itself as a good steward of Medicare, by cracking down on waste and fraud, improving benefits, and keeping costs under control. The GAO report could become a blemish on its record.

Again, why is Obama trying to scam seniors? This is HIS health care plan, why on earth would he need to delay "the pain of unpopular cuts" in HIS OWN plan come October?

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

Hi Steve,

You or your candidate speaking an opinion and the right not to be offended are two different things.

In theory you have a say because of indirect democracy, Your candidate puts forward your views because your views can be tied to a plurality of various interests.

The right not to be offended is different. The First Amendment has never stopped the abridging of speech( as opposed to the freedom of speech) The speeches I was actually talking about were the usual ones excluded by the First Amendment. Things like copyright, causing people to riot, obscenity and that type of thing.

My reference to corporations does come under the umbrella of political plurality. On this basis SCOTUS got the Citizens United decision wrong.

Justice Kennedy in summing up says that the First Amendment purposefully keeps government from interfering "in the market place of ideas" and "rationing" speech, He says that it is not up to the legislators or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.

But where does the First Amendment say or imply this? It says that government shall not abridge freedom of speech. Where does it say or imply that governments can't PROMOTE freedom of speech. Before Citizens United decision was handed down there was at least some attempt to create plurality( plurality in this instance implying equal access of competing interests).

Corporations may well represent you best interests, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But Corporations sponsoring the current administration and corporations that will sponsor the next Republican government have no appeal for me. For me it would Hobson's choice. Where is the plurality in that?


Tut

Um, WaPo is hardly a right-wing spinmeister.
Again, why is Obama trying to scam seniors? This is HIS health care plan, why on earth would he need to delay "the pain of unpopular cuts" in HIS OWN plan come October?

What part of private insurance companies that cannot comply with the law in 2014 will not survive. The companies that offer cut rates, and cut rate care will no longer be viable. We see them becoming unviable now, and others more competitive are spring up. Mostly larger companies underwriting smaller ones. Same company though, that already are in compliance.

Did you even know you could keep your primary insurance, and make Medicare a secondary one? Dude no matter what math you use, that's a savings for many seniors. Orrin Hatch doesn't tell you that either, and he was the spinmeister I was referring to and cited in bold. He is running in his first primary since 1976, and faces stiff tea party opposition. He has to attack, can you imagine that? The most conservative senator in the senate isn't conservative enough!

Hi Steve,

You or your candidate speaking an opinion and the right not to be offended are two different things.

I know this, Tut. It is the left in this country and this stupid attempt to amend the first amendment that doesn't get it.

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced. They have been trying for years to silence Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives whose speech they find offensive. They don't believe that a corporation should have the right to have any (conservative leaning) influence. In short, if it offends them it shouldn't be allowed or it must be mandated that an opposing view be presented. As tom explained it:


"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ,except for corporations they don't like . This provision will not apply to trade unions ,public service unions , press institutions we favor ,or special interests advocacy groups that Democrats approve of ." ?

I on the other hand, will defend their right to free speech whether I find it offensive or not. I believe in the free speech enshrined in our constitution. If expressing my conservative views offends someone they'll just have to get over it.

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

Is there too much big buck influence? Yes. The problem is the left only wants it to end where it doesn't benefit them.

What part of private insurance companies that cannot comply...

What part of any of that explains why Obama wants to scam seniors on his own healthcare plan?

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

The answer to that is to require full transparency and to have term limits . The answer is not limit speech.

We are not talking about campaign contributions here . We are talking about groups of people pooling their resources to air advertising . The specifics of the Citizen's United case makes that clear. All they wanted to do was air a film about Evita Clintoon but found that it was in violation of the unconstitutional law called the "McCain–Feingold Act " .

a film about Evita Clintoon Who's that?

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.
I see M. Limbaugh is doing just that!

Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/01324118624/rush-limbaugh-issues-dmca-takedown-to-censor-video-criticism.shtml)

Take a break and you righties run amok. Nobody is doing a thing about the right wing yakety yaks or the church for that matter, its just you have no respect for us lefties that believe in fair, and equal, or informed about the yakety yak in the first place.

I don't agree with you righties, and have as much RIGHT as you do to express my disagreement. Now having said all that, and just MY opinion, your level of true facts is severely challenged and doesn't go deep enough to paint more than a superficial examination of the cause and effect of policies that you have shown a real deficiency of understanding. You are good people but only barely informed to get beyond the rhetoric, and cleave issues beyond the basic concerns of talking points.

In short, I would propose multiple links to make a point, and not just one that you agree with. Just in case, on the off chance, that you are wrong and closed minded like Rush the Clown, and the network that claims fair and balanced but delivers the opposite.

Confession- I don't disagree with the ideas most times, it's the implementation that lacks clarity or precision, or the lack of considerations that an open mind gives to solutions and to be stuck in a lack of independent analysis.

Conclusion, Righties think everyone else is WRONG! Your designation is aptly earned. Love you any way. No matter what facts I give you, you may never believe it.

Oh well, back to rhetorical sparring.


Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.


Observation and rebuttal by Talaniman, stolen from his right wing buddy,
They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.

Of course I don't expect you to see my point.

COMING SOON, TALANIMAN VEERS RIGHT!!!

I see M. Limbaugh is doing just that!

Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/01324118624/rush-limbaugh-issues-dmca-takedown-to-censor-video-criticism.shtml)

Since when is copyright infringement claims on your property the equivalent of silencing someone else? I'd absolutely love for Kos to take on Rush, that could be quite entertaining. Especially for a guy like Kos who enjoys scrubbing his site of things that might be embarrassing to him.

Take a break and you righties run amok. Nobody is doing a thing about the right wing yakety yaks or the church for that matter, its just you have no respect for us lefties that believe in fair, and equal, or informed about the yakety yak in the first place.

I don't agree with you righties, and have as much RIGHT as you do to express my disagreement. Now having said all that, and just MY opinion, your level of true facts is severely challenged and doesn't go deep enough to paint more than a superficial examination of the cause and effect of policies that you have shown a real deficiency of understanding. You are good people but only barely informed to get beyond the rhetoric, and cleave issues beyond the basic concerns of talking points.

In short, I would propose multiple links to make a point, and not just one that you agree with. Just in case, on the off chance, that you are wrong and closed minded like Rush the Clown, and the network that claims fair and balanced but delivers the opposite.

Confession- I don't disagree with the ideas most times, its the implementation that lacks clarity or precision, or the lack of considerations that an open mind gives to solutions and to be stuck in a lack of independent analysis.

Conclusion, Righties think everyone else is WRONG! Your designation is aptly earned. Love you any way. No matter what facts I give you, you may never believe it.

Oh well, back to rhetorical sparring.





Of course I don't expect you to see my point.

COMING SOON, TALANIMAN VEERS RIGHT!!!

In other words I've been right all along. You lefties think we're clueless idiots and pay no attention to facts presented or what we actually say. Case in point, I've only asked three times why Obama wants to scam seniors on his own health plan and you have done nothing but swerve away from the question asked.

Here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/then-now-pay-play-culture-obama-white-house-651700-12.html#post3094282)
Here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/then-now-pay-play-culture-obama-white-house-651700-13.html#post3094317)
Here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/then-now-pay-play-culture-obama-white-house-651700-13.html#post3095367)

You ask for multiple links and I deliver. Now how about answering the question?

Since when is copyright infringement claims on your property the equivalent of silencing someone else?.
Abuse of DCMA (of which there has been plenty since that law came into effect), since it's fair use. Plus why does he not want footage of himself on his own broadcasted show? How can that possibly work against him?

Of course he's too stupid to know about the Streisand effect. This will get more play than he had not made a big deal of it.

The video can be seen on that site I linked to. He's truly a vile person, no?

Abuse of DCMA (of which there has been plenty since that law came into effect), since it's fair use. Plus why does he not want footage of himself on his own broadcasted show? How can that possibly work against him?

Sorry, but protecting your copyrighted material is entirely different than telling someone else to shut up.


Of course he's too stupid to know about the Streisand effect. This will get more play than he had not made a big deal of it.

LOL, yeah he's pretty dumb to have amassed that big a fortune and a radio empire.


The video can be seen on that site I linked to. He's truly a vile person, no?

Sorry, I don't consider Rush a vile person. Over the top sometimes, yes, but for the most part the left gets outraged over him because a) they don't actually listen, b) he's effective and c) they have no sense of humor. Other than that I'll let Rush defend himself and I await Kos taking him to court and letting them decide about the fair use stuff.

I know this, Tut. It is the left in this country and this stupid attempt to amend the first amendment that doesn't get it.

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced. They have been trying for years to silence Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives whose speech they find offensive. They don't believe that a corporation should have the right to have any (conservative leaning) influence. In short, if it offends them it shouldn't be allowed or it must be mandated that an opposing view be presented. As tom explained it:



I on the other hand, will defend their right to free speech whether I find it offensive or not. I believe in the free speech enshrined in our constitution. If expressing my conservative views offends someone they'll just have to get over it.

Hi Steve,

I think there is a need to separate the content from how the content is presented. If someone is offended by a political commentary on the radio it can be convenient to say they are offended by the politics when in fact they are offended by the way it is presented, not the content. In other words they might be offended by vulgar, obscene and the derogatory way the item is presented.

People have the right to freedom of speech but they don't have the right to speech per se .Strictly speaking you don't have the right to present your views in an offensive manner if this manner violates common laws.


Tut

LOL, yeah he's pretty dumb to have amassed that big a fortune and a radio empire.If that is the only way you value someone's worth then I see why we differ.

Also you seem to think that repeatedly calling someone a slut is all good fun. We differ there as well.

Hi Steve,

I think there is a need to separate the content from how the content is presented. If someone is offended by a political commentary on the radio it can be convenient to say they are offended by the politics when in fact they are offended by the way it is presented, not the content. In other words they might be offended by vulgar, obscene and the derogatory way the item is presented.

In a way you're right, but I say it's much more who says it then how it's presented. Case in point, and tom will attest to this - last June someone was complaining of name calling or some such by conservatives. I merely linked to a story by an Obama supporter and only MY post was removed because it was "offensive." The name calling was by others, I just reported a story.

That same subject was infamous because after the story came out Paul Shanklin wrote and recorded a parody. All hell broke loose after that. Same with Rush's remarks on Sandra Fluke (for which he apologized), the left is still trying to silence him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/now-rush-limbaugh) over that yet that unfunny 'comic' Bill Maher can say much worse with no apology and get a complete pass (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html).

It's not what is said in this country that sends the left into a fury, it's who says it. It's free speech no matter how offensive, unfunny, hateful, vile or threatening or beneficial for them, but everyone else needs to get on board with them or just shut the hell up. It's not about laws Tut, it's hypocrisy plain and simple. The first amendment is as much for me as it is for them.

If that is the only way you value someone's worth then I see why we differ.

Back to the fallacious arguments, eh? Let's see, the subject was his intelligence. Your assertion was "he's too stupid" and the answer was of course, he's so stupid he managed to amass a fortune in building a radio empire, a massive following and managed to land himself as the left's number one target for destruction.

I didn't see in there where I even hinted at how I personally measure someone's worth, but I'm sure you'll make something up.


Also you seem to think that repeatedly calling someone a slut is all good fun. We differ there as well.

Do you never tire of just making things up? Really, NK, don't you think it's petty and childish to attempt to impugn my character by making things up that are obviously untrue? I think that's cowardly in my opinion, you seem to think it's noble - we differ there.

Maher didn't get a free pass, the right jumps on him regularly. Like the left jumps on Rush. Tit for tat.

Hello again:

Close this thread.. It's stupid. One side thinks their farts don't stink, and they NEVER will.

excon

That's because the conversation drifted away from the subject... The pay for play culture in the Obama White House.

I wonder how much access Maher gets for his cool million dollar donation?

that's because the conversation drifted away from the subject....Hello tom:

Drifted... Like a stinky one drifts... I never understood what this thread was about anyway.

excon

I wonder how much access Maher gets for his cool million dollar donation?

I would imagine the same access, any right wing donor will get from there really cool million dollar donations, wouldn't you?

I wonder how much access Maher gets for his cool million dollar donation?Hello again, Steve:

It's like I said, you think the access Maher gets stinks... But, the access your right wingers get to Romney, is like the smell of violets in the spring...

I say again, CLOSE this thread.. There are WORLD shattering events going on and all you can do is say neener, neener, neener..

excon

Really, NK, don't you think it's petty and childish to attempt to impugn my character by making things up that are obviously untrue? I think that's cowardly in my opinion, you seem to think it's noble - we differ there.The object of the video is his 3 day attack on the woman where he repeately calls her a slut. You defend it by saying "b) he's effective and c) they have no sense of humor.". Obviously you think he's being funny. How else are we supposed to take it?

Forget it NK, the right thinks contraception is about free sex, and has no health value, even though the sluts in question have never mentioned sex. But of course they have to be lying. Rush says its about sex, so they swallow that crap hook line, and sinker. Now leave Rush alone, he is the right wing beacon of light, in a cold cruel misguided world of evil, and right wing enemies that are everywhere.

That's why they never sleep, least the devil sneak in to say BOOOOOOOOOO!!

The object of the video is his 3 day attack on the woman where he repeately calls her a slut. You defend it by saying "b) he's effective and c) they have no sense of humor.". Obviously you think he's being funny. How else are we supposed to take it?

How else? Oh I don't know, by not playing stupid games for starters.

Wait a minute, the left has the right to play the same stupid games the right does.

Wait a minute, the left has the right to play the same stupid games the right does.
Not in the eyes of the righties on this site. But in their defense they simply parrot the talking points of the day.

Forget it NK, the right thinks contraception is about free sex, and has no health value, even though the sluts in question have never mentioned sex. But of course they have to be lying. Rush says its about sex, so they swallow that crap hook line, and sinker. Now leave Rush alone, he is the right wing beacon of light, in a cold cruel misguided world of evil, and right wing enemies that are everywhere.

Thats why they never sleep, least the devil sneak in to say BOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I'm just going to start calling these fairy tales what they are, bovine excrement. If you ever care to know I actually think, just ask before you answer.

Wait a minute, the left has the right to play the same stupid games the right does.

I argue based on facts, not fallacies.

Hello again, Steve:

It's like I said, you think the access Maher gets stinks... But, the access your right wingers get to Romney, is like the smell of violets in the spring...

I say again, CLOSE this thread.. There are WORLD shattering events going on and all you can do is say neener, neener, neener..

excon

LOL, I suppose we should get back that "war on women" thing, eh?

Hello tom:

Drifted... Like a stinky one drifts..... I never understood what this thread was about anyway.

excon

Well let's suppose I had posted something different about Abramoff during the last Presidency. I think you would've gotten it then.