Hello:

Let me tell you how a civil war can start right here in this great country of ours... I'm a lib. I believe in ONE view of America. Some of you are conservatives. You believe in ANOTHER view of America. But, I DON'T believe you're my enemy.

I'm NOT sure you view ME in that same light. This is how Ted Nugent views me.. “If you can't go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made of.”

Vile? Evil? America-hating? Nugent doesn't just characterize those with different political views as misguided or wrong. He seeks to paint them as alien and anti-American — as enemies of this nation, rather than citizens with whom he disagrees. In a subsequent interview, Nugent called Nancy Pelosi a “sub-human scoundrel” and referred to liberals as cockroaches to “stomp” in November.

This is what distinguishes the flame-throwers of the far right from those of the far left. Nugent and his ilk seek to deny their political opponents the very right to believe in a different philosophy. Agree with me, he says, or be stomped.

Thanks to Eugene Robinson for some of those words...

Now, I'm NOT a nice guy. In fact, I'm a TRAINED killer who swore an oath to this great land. If somebody views ME as their ENEMY, who am I to change their minds?? But, I KNOW what to DO with our enemies, and it AIN'T asking him to be nice.

excon

I'm not big on political discussion but I have to say, I don't view you (or any other liberals) as an enemy. You're simply someone with a different point of view than mine... and I can live with that.

Although I believe in the right to own guns, and have many myself, I am really not a supporter of the NRA. I think that people like Nugent are giving the NRA a bad name. I have thought this about the NRA for years now and let my membership lapse as I didn't really want to associate with such a group. Yes, I want to maintain the right to keep and carry all my guns, but I don't want a group like that to try and help me do it.

I know many others who think the same as I do. Some are NRA members because they believe in the cause, just not the tactics. It doesn't make them dangerous. However, on the other side of the coin, I also know many that are, or could be, dangerous.

I was part of a "club" of gun owners here in PA that were all for gun rights. It was a fun group that consisted of hundreds of active members. As time went by, I started to see that they were using some hard tactics to get noticed and to test the laws legally. I got involved in one such legal incident against town cops. Sure, the cops were wrong for how it was handled and I won a suit but what I realized was this... the situation was set up in such a way that it was bound to happen. I was an unwitting participant as I hadn't caught on at that point. Through the legal proceedings I started to see that this wasn't a group of people that I wanted to associate with. I left them and haven't talked to any of them in years.

I did see that there were many already calling for "revolution" and such and this was 3 years ago. These are people that I am supposed to agree with... but I don't... I can't. Unfortunately, I see some of these people as dangerous, or potentially dangerous if given the chance. Some were just smoke blowers but there were a few that are the people you seem to be talking about, ex.

I'd like to be able to say you're wrong, and I wish I could. Sadly, I don't really think you are. I do have to say, not all of us think this bad way. Most of us just want to live and get along.

I'd like to be able to say you're wrong, and I wish I could. Sadly, I don't really think you are. I do have to say, not all of us think this bad way. Most of us just want to live and get along.Hello odinn:

Thanks. Men of good will CAN change things...

There IS an undercurrent of angry white guys on the right, most of them armed, that is NOT duplicated by ANYBODY on the left. Oh, they point to the 5 New Black Panthers, and the OWS'ers, and I have to laugh..

excon

Hello odinn:
There IS an undercurrent of angry white guys on the right, most of them armed,

excon

I know this... I have seen and met some. As I said, I am armed too... I have a few assault rifles even... but I don't place myself in the same category as them. Unfortunately for me, when anyone finds out that I do own, and am licensed to carry a gun, they place me in that category.

Unfortunately for me, when anyone finds out that I do own, and am licensed to carry a gun, they place me in that category.Hello again, odinn:

It's not ALL armed white guys. Personally, I support the Second Amendment with the same vociferousness as I do the rest. I don't think I'm a liberal anomaly, either.

I'm a political animal. I LOVE the back and forth. But, having spilled MY blood on the battlefields of Vietnam, it PISSES me off when I get accused of being ANTI American by a DRAFT dodging SOB like Nugent. If He thinks I'm his enemy, I'll oblige the bigmouthed bastard.

excon

Hello ,I'm a conservative ;and I am concerned that over the top rhetoric from the left can cause a civil war. Here are some examples of what I mean.

This is how Rosanne Barr views conservatives views of wealth redistribution .“I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay… back anything over 100 million in personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of 100 million dollars and if they're unable to live on that amount then they should go to the reeducation camps, and if that doesn't help, then be beheaded.”And Sandra Bernhard said that Sarah Palin would be gang raped by black men if she visited NY . Alec Baldwin called for the stoning of Henry Hyde ."We would stone him to death! ...Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families."

NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu on his "All Things Considered" segment stated, "The evaporation of four million who believe in this Christian cr@p would leave this world a better place." Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stated, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux expressed her opinion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on PBS: "The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease.
I could go on ,it permeates all the way to the Obama Homeland Security Dept that thinks that Tea Partiers are domestic terrorists.Or how about this gem from the Village Voice's Michael Feingold " “Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”
There are countless examples of liberal entertainers and pundits who have said similar things. I could talk about the movie made in the last decade that had it's premise that someone wacked President Bush. I could speak of liberal radio host Randi Rhodes who said on air that Bush should be taken fishing like Fredo in the movie 'Godfather II (Fredo was executed )
I could make a separate posting just on what was said about Sarah Palin.
But Laura Ingraham had the best line for entertainers who speak out and spew their ignorance about politics... :"Shut up and sing" .

What sort of diatribe is that Tom, nothing to do with reality? You talk about strawmen but I see you will always trot out a few of your own

Um did you read the op ? It is consistent with the theme about over the top entertainers spewing ignorance.

In true excon fashion I present a video interlude into this thread ;)

Hate Liberals? This is for you. Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/35282/)

um did you read the op ? It is consistent with the theme about over the top entertainers spewing ignorance.

Over the top and spewing ignorance, I sense a lot of that around here and it isn't only confined to has been entertainers. As I recall Excon was spewing something about an american hating administration. He must have got up with his knickers in a knot.

Way I see it it your politicians, not the administration who hate americans. They spend their time blocking every initiative, what a bunch of noers

Hate Liberals? This is for you. Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/35282/)Hello dad:

I liked it. Libs are STILL better than wingers...

excon

Way I see it it your politicians, not the administration who hate americans. They spend their time blocking every initiative, what a bunch of noers
Every initiative that advances your utopian dreams .

every initiative that advances your utopian dreams .

Tom I don't have utopian dreams, I live in a utopian reality. What I know is it could be like that for your people too if you would realise that the rich can't have it all their own way. What finances our model is a good mixture of capitalistic endeavour, and social responsibility financed by an efficient and fair tax system. Why we even have socialistic governments reducing the public service and talking about budget surpluses. Such things are unknown in your free market haven

You can only dream of what we have because your mean attitudes lock you into outcomes that empoverish a large percentage of your population

Yeah that's what passes for dialogue with you... My mean attitudes ;my ilk .

yeah that's what passes for dialogue with you ... My mean attitudes ;my ilk .

Exactly; your fixed minded approach unable to see that there are other ways and they work

Five years ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/veto-proof-majority-139899-2.html#post666474) you were a libertarian. What happened?

Anyway, just exactly how should we respond to being called bitter clingers by our president that vowed "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun?" The guy who told you how to be a good neighbor, "I want you to argue with them, get in their faces." Who wanted Latinos to "punish our enemies." You know, the guy that told Republicans "they gotta sit in back," "I want them just to get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking."

Or that Union guy that cheered his goons to "take these son of a es out?" Should I bring a gun to that fight?

Or how about Janeane Garofalo who called Tea Partiers "functionally retarded adults, the racists." How should I respond, "thank you sir may I have another?"

Five years ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/veto-proof-majority-139899-2.html#post666474) you were a libertarian. What happened?

Anyway, just exactly how should we respond to being called bitter clingers by our president Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.. I'm no different NOW than I was then. My approach to libertarianism is from the left. I think I said it the linked post, but until we GET to the unfettered marketplace of a libertarians dream, I'm going to come down on the ones who are keeping us from getting there. And, it's NOT the Democrats. It's the RIGHT WING oligarchs who would rather HAVE a politician in their pocket, than HAVE good business sense. With his paid politician, he can tip the so called "even playing field", into one that favors him. The rich have been doing that for 30 years.

Next is the palpable DIFFERENCE in the language of the right, from the language of the left.. You CAN'T see it. You SAY it's the same. It isn't. It's not even close. Who does odinn know that you don't?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.. I'm no different NOW than I was then. My approach to libertarianism is from the left. I think I said it the linked post, but until we GET to the unfettered marketplace of a libertarians dream, I'm going to come down on the ones who are keeping us from getting there. And, it's NOT the Democrats. It's the RIGHT WING oligarchs who would rather HAVE a politician in their pocket, than HAVE good business sense. With his paid politician, he can tip the so called "even playing field", into one that favors him. The rich have been doing that for 30 years.

Need I remind you that union bosses have been shilling for Democrats while padding their pockets for years, too? Oh, and why does Obama publicly go for Wall Street's throat while holding his hand out for their money? How many Democrats are the richest in Congress? Don't play that card, ex, the left is no better than the right and additionally want to take from one and give it to another just so they can assuage their guilty conscience, pat themselves on the back and say "now wasn't that fair?"

Give me a break. I'll take my chances of succeeding on my own rather than submit to codified thievery.


Next is the palpable DIFFERENCE in the language of the right, from the language of the left.. You CAN'T see it. You SAY it's the same. It isn't. It's not even close. Who does odinn know that you don't?

What? Was I supposed to say you aren't my enemy? I figured that went without saying. Or am I supposed to cop to knowing all those friends of mine that want a revolution? What? Do you forget the 8 plus years of Bush Derangement Syndrome followed by Palin Derangement Syndrome? I have not seen likes of those unhinged masses before or since, surely you didn't miss that.

Do you forget the 8 plus years of Bush Derangement Syndrome followed by Palin Derangement Syndrome? I have not seen likes of those unhinged masses before or since, surely you didn't miss that.Hello again, Steve:

The DIFFERENCE is, Palin derangement syndrome is perpetrated by HIPPIES. Right wing derangement syndrome is perpetrated by WELL ARMED angry white guys.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

The DIFFERENCE is, Palin derangement syndrome is perpetrated by HIPPIES. Right wing derangement syndrome is perpetrated by WELL ARMED angry white guys.

Unlike the harmless, completely unarmed union thugs being told to "take these son of b*tches out?" I agree the right is probably more armed than the hippies but you wouldn't want a bunch of stoned geezers running around packing would you?

P.S. Marion Barry doesn't like Asians (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/marion-barry-and-the-chinese) in his neighborhood.


“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops," he said at an April 3rd campaign event. "They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now."

Oh wait, he explained that wasn't racism, it's "culturism." That must be what you mean by the "palpable difference" in the left's rhetoric and the right's. Them Asians "ought to go" is "culturism" while criticizing Obama's policies is "racism." Am I right?

And Marion Barry is the spokeman for who again? LOL, he is one big screw-up... that gets re-elected!

And Marion Barry is the spokeman for who again? LOL, he is one big screw-up...that gets re-elected!

Oh, so unless one is a "spokeman" (that would be "spokesman" I think) they're irrelevant. Thanks for pointing out the irrelevance of Ted Nugent's remarks.

I agree that Ted Nugent is irrelevant, he's trying hard to be though. There are no lack of screwy people in the US - I know you'll find the ones that make your point :-) And I guess they become representative of the US in a way.

I also agree that my typing sucks LOL.

Marion Barry was mayor of DC for 16 years and is currently a city council member in our nation's capitol, so he IS an elected representative.

Pretty sure he doesn't represent the left or the right, he's in his own little screwed world.

True he is, but the guy I mentioned first represents this country. Should he get a pass?

Thanks for pointing out the irrelevance of Ted Nugent's remarks.Hello again, Steve:

Let me see. He was speaking an an NRA event. He had a microphone and an audience. Given the above, it LOOKS like he's a spokesman for the NRA. They wouldn't give ME a microphone, or you either..

excon

Hello ex,

Let me see, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa said this at a Labor Day rally to warm up the crowd prior the address by the President of the United States:


“We are going to hear from President Obama in a few minutes, and I am so glad that he has come to Michigan because this is where he sees the real America. He looks out on this army of people and you know what I say? President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. President Obama, we want one thing: Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs…

That’s what we are going to tell America….. When he sees what we are doing here, he will be inspired, but he needs help. And you know what? Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, we keep the eye on the prize, lets take these sons-of-b*tches out and give America back to America where we belong."

I believe the left would call that "militaristic" and "threatening" to say the least had it been Nugent warming up a crowd for the last president. But a Teamster president rallying the troops for President Obama, with a microphone and an audience? That's just some of that speech that will be exempted under the newly amended first amendment, right?

Speaking of the Civil War and unions, an Indiana union is invoking a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment in its lawsuit against Gov. Daniels over the Right to Work law. From Page 27 of the complaint (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/archives/2012/Indy%20Union%20Lawsuit.pdf):


“In this case, the Defendants have exacted compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude from the Union through the combination of the passage of the Right to Work law and the existing federal requirement of the duty of fair representation. Through these laws, the Union is compelled to furnish services to all persons in bargaining units that it represents, but it may not require payment for those services because of the Right to Work law. The statute also requires dues-paying union members to work alongside non-union personnel, and that is compulsory service and-or involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment.”

Apparently not only is working side-by-side with a non-union member slavery, the union is now a slave because it is forced to represent non-union members. But of course, compulsory membership and coerced union dues are the definition of freedom I'm sure.

And isn't this precious? Occupy Portland protesters wish they had guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GX5pCOclBBE) (content warning).


If I had a f–king AK right now…

I have a solution dude, let’s go get guns.

Meanwhile, OccupyMay1st.org has a nice image on its website file-named “rainbowunicorncopkillwsa (http://www.occupymay1st.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rainbowunicorncopkillwsa-600x440.jpg)," of a unicorn with a cop's head in its mouth and blood spewing from the headless body.

More of that "palpable difference" in rhetoric for you.

More of that "palpable difference" in rhetoric for you.Hello again, Steve:

I know I am, but what are you?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I know I am, but what are you?

excon

You know you're what? I'm a peaceful conservative. I don't threaten to "take these sons of b*tches out" at the President's rally, consider working next to a non-union member "slavery," wish I had an effing AK or proudly display bloody images of headless cops.

California Highway Gunman Byron Williams Aimed for "Revolution," Say Cops - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20011219-504083.html)

targeted workers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, said Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg in court documents.

Officer Jeff Thomason, an Oakland police spokesman, claimed Williams targeted the two nonprofit organizations because of their political ideologies. The Tides Foundation works to advance progressive social change, according to its Web site.

I-580 shootout suspect mad at left-wing politics

A 45-year-old parolee, described by his mother as angry at left-wing politicians, opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers on an Oakland freeway early Sunday and was hit by return fire while wearing body armor, authorities said.

Shooter Wearing Bulletproof Vest Guns Down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, Upset Over Losing Job | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512560,00.html)

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and "lying in wait" opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.


Also: http://www.harikari.com/politics/right-wing-wackos-want-to-kill-democrats.html

Let's see, a lone wacko from 2010, a guy in 2009 that lost his job under Obama's economy whose "motive for the shooting isn't clear" and a link to a blog entry from 2010 titled "Right Wing Wackos Want to Kill Democrats?" This proves what exactly? Which of these like Hoffa, Obama and the self-proclaimed guardians of "the 99 percent" represent someone?

It obviously shows that republicans want to kill their foes... c'mon.

Hello again,

I give up. If the only answer you got is to point out a$$hole left wingers, then we might as well stop here. You think it's tit for tat. It isn't. Here's a secret. You have LOOK for nuances, Steve.. They don't jump out and bonk you on the head... But, nuances AIN'T a right wing thing.

excon

It obviously shows that republicans want to kill their foes...c'mon.

I know a LOT of Republicans and not a one of them wants to kill liberals. C'mon. I want to beat the living daylights out of excon and Tal in fantasy baseball, but after that we can go have a beer and chill. Sound good?

Hello again,

I give up. If the only answer you got is to point out a$$hole left wingers, then we might as well stop here. You think it's tit for tat. It isn't. Here's a secret. You have LOOK for nuances, Steve.. They don't jump out and bonk you on the head... But, nuances AIN'T a right wing thing.

Excon

Ex, I'm a musician. I know nuance.

Dude, it's never been about tit for tat. But while you're busy trying to convince me about 'nuances' on the right you're brushing off in your face hatred on the left. To you guys the same thing is defined differently depending on how it affects you. Jonah Goldberg explained it:
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296543/manufactured-mommy-war-jonah-goldberg)

My complaint isn’t about distractions, it’s about the press’s tendency to treat controversies that help Republicans as “distractions” and ones that hurt Republicans as Very Serious Issues.

Nugent is a distraction, not a "Very Serious Issue." Just like the manufactured "war on women."

I know a LOT of Republicans and not a one of them wants to kill liberals.
Same goes with liberals versus conservatives, so stop digging up the wackos, it serves no purpose.

Same goes with liberals versus conservatives, so stop digging up the wackos, it serves no purpose.

This coming form the guy who offered up this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/civil-war-653255-4.html#post3094667).

So dude, are you calling the president of the Teamsters Union and the President of the United States wackos? Really? MY first six quotes (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/civil-war-653255-2.html#post3094036) were from the so-called 'leader of the free world,' not some old rocker from the 70s.

My post was satire obviously, I guess we need a font for that.

It was in reference to your post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/civil-war-653255-4.html#post3094535). I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn't.

Your quotes are no different than some of the stuff that Palin said or posted. So what? What does it prove?

LOL, those quotes are from the President, the man that's supposed to represent ALL Americans. Palin holds no office, nor does Ted Nugent. What the president says IS relevant.

This guy must have taken Obama seriously when he said if they bring a knife you bring a gun...

ze3GB_b7Nuo


Washington D.C. - Today, Wednesday, April 25, 2012 Senator James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, will take to the Senate floor to put the spotlight (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=e96c8bac-802a-23ad-4aaa-b2100b330def) on a little-watched video from 2010 which reveals a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA's "general philosophy" is to "crucify" and "make examples" of oil and gas companies.

Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best - and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.

Just another example of this administration's bullying tactics and apathy to actually doing something this country's energy needs. And you guys bristle at the notion the EPA is an out of control, unaccountable bureaucracy. They'll just crucify a few they arbitrarily deem to be offenders and the rest will fall in line.

Civil war? You betcha, and the left started it.

Poor Region VI Administrator.

Poor Region VI Administrator.

??

Hello again, Steve:

I submit that if you spent your day on the internet, you could come up with foul mouthed, or stupid lefties... Uhhhh, I can too. So what? I'm NOT going to convince YOU that your guy's are MORE foul mouthed than mine or whether they're more dangerous... And, you ain't going to convince me either...

THAT just ain't going to happen on this here website today, or ANY other day... So, let's just call a truce about that. Even though I'm going to feel COMPELLED to show you how WRONG you are, I'm not going to.

Unless you want to keep going... I don't know what the point is any more. As much as the RESPONSIBILITY for actions of government rests at the top, NOBODY thinks the president is in CONTROL of government... That's what WRONG with government. It's UNCONTROLLABLE.

So, I'm not going to let you say that because some stupid bureaucrat says something stupid or mean, that it MEANS something about Obama. It doesn't, and you KNOW it doesn't.

Truce or no?

excon

Hey, you brought up this civil war and war on women nonsense but I'm all for a truce, even though this jerk's words DO represent this administration's attitude, and I find that much more relevant than Ted Nugent running his mouth.

But truce it is.

But truce it is.Hello again, Steve:

Like our friend Bill O'Reilly, you had the last word.

excon

The problem is not what Armendariz said . It's what he subsequently did that is the concern. I think bureaucrats like him are a huge problem in this country.

EID has followed closely the actions of EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas, and specifically its decision to issue an endangerment order against Range Resources back in 2010 despite clear scientific evidence in contradiction of its charges (embarrassingly for the agency, EPA had to withdraw that order earlier this year). This includes pointing out how the Administrator for that office, Al Armendariz, gleefully emailed activists in the area (prior to the official announcement) that EPA was “about to make a lot of news” and that it was “time to Tivo channel 8.”

That news, of course, was that EPA “determined” Range Resources had contaminated drinking water in Parker County, Texas. Local anti-shale activist Sharon Wilson cheerfully responded, “Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!”

But as it turns out, the story behind Mr. Armendariz's actions is much deeper, and indeed much more troubling.

Hydraulic fracturing (http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/hydraulic-fracturing/)

No he didn't wait for scientific evidence ,or anything resembling due process . He issued an emergency order against Range Resources and compelled them to take remedial action in 48 hrs after his decree. This was at the very same time he was bragging about crucifying companies he was charged with regulating.

The problem is not what Armendariz said . It's what he subsequently did that is the concern. I think bureaucrats like him are a huge problem in this country.

Hydraulic fracturing (http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/hydraulic-fracturing/)

No he didn't wait for scientific evidence ,or anything resembling due process . He issued an emergency order against Range Resources and compelled them to take remedial action in 48 hrs after his decree. This was at the very same time he was bragging about crucifying companies he was charged with regulating.

Hi Tom,

Due process? Interesting isn't it? Why not have corporations avail themselves to all the benefits to substantive due process. All you need is some smart lawyer to go through the Bill of Rights and claim more and more benefits for the mythical individual (personhood).

Do we really need individuals to participate in a pluralistic system. Why not have corporations take on this role?

Tut

So the government can impose fines ,penalities and demands of action ,without the guarantee of challenging it ? That's what happened in this case. The company did nothing wrong . But an over zealous ideologue environmentalist with an agenda ,was put into the position ,by the President ,to punish the company for the crime of doing a legal business in an industry he opposes.

And don't think that this is a rare case. The only thing different is that this one got publicized because he allowed his SOPs to be video taped.

I have dealt with government regulators for years . Nothing extreme like this happened to me . But this is what usually happens . A regulator comes into the operation and performs an audit.
Based on that audit they write up observations that they expect corrective actions to take place. The corrective actions are taken ,sometimes at considerable expense. Then after time another regulator repeats the process and has observations that find that the actions taken to satisfy one regulator are completely inadequate for the next regulator /inspector ,even thought they were accepted by the 1st regulator. And on and on it goes.

So often ,it's the perception of the auditor that matters most . Trust me ,they are less than perfect people. Some of them go through the motions ,and some of them strap on crusader armor.

Are you seriously telling me that a company does not have due process rights to address cases when the regulator erred either unintentionally ,or in the case above maliciously ?

Are you seriously telling me that a company does not have due process rights to address cases when the regulator erred either unintentionally ,or in the case above maliciously ?


Hi Tom,

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that legal process law covers the rights of a company when governments act in an arbitrary fashion. Well, in my country it does anyway.

There was a case here recently when the E.P.A launches prosecution under the some type of clear water act pertinent to the mining industry. The company challenged the proceeding on the basis that it was not going to respond to the relevant notices on the ground of self-incrimination.

This was rejected on the basis that self-incrimination is only applicable to individuals. The company had their day in court and were afforded the benefits of legal process laws, minus the self-realization.

I am also saying is that corporation have no self-realization as part of their non-human condition. The only reason natural rights came into existence was because of the human condition.

On that basis I have to rethink original intent as a valid argument. Valid in this case anyway. So, yes, there is original intent when it comes to natural rights because humans have a teleology, corporations don't.

So yes, you are right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say such things as freedom of speech applies only to individuals. However, I would say it was the original intent of freedom of speech that it should only apply to individuals.

Tut

So yes, you are right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say such things as freedom of speech applies only to individuals. However, I would say it was the original intent of freedom of speech that it should only apply to individuals.

Tut

Arguing the sublime to the ridiculous will get you nowhere with Tom Tut his mind is made up, the founding fathers said it so it must be true, notwithstanding that their original intent had to be quickly corrected for all the intent they left out, if I remember correctly wasn't freedom of speech one of those things they left out, probably too sedicious for their day

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.

arguing the sublime to the rediculous will get you nowhere with Tom Tut his mind is made up, the founding fathers said it so it must be true, notwithstanding that their original intent had to be quickly corrected for all the intent they left out, if I remember correctly wasn't freedom of speech one of those things they left out, probably too sedicious for their day

It depends ;Hamilton did not think a Bill of Rights was needed because rights were implicit in the text.But the majority of the founders thought otherwise. There was an understanding that with the signing, a Bill of Rights would be added through the amendment process. So it is not true that it was an oversight.

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.


Why not the beginning? It is just as good as the middle or the end.
SCOTUS does this any time it hands down a decision. It makes a ruling based on some type of historical precedent. It may even choose to go against previous decisions, but a again this is a political/historical decision. You can't extract the politics.

Where you choose within history to stem your argument depends on your political point of view. You choose the point of reference based on your politics.

I want to promote freedom of religion so I choose Jefferson as the primary architect because I know this was his original intention when he first thought of the First amendment. If someone disagrees with me because it doesn't suit their politics then they might like to consider other secondary inputs and claim that this was the original intent.It seems to me one starting point is as good as another.

I agree that we can discuss the spirit and letter of the First Amendment, but for the reasons just outlined, intent is an entirely different matter. You can't tack original intent on to spirit and letter of the law and claim they are the same thing. So leaving aside original intent let's have a look at freedom of speech.

SCOTUS got Citizens United wrong. The majority decision supports the claim that the First Amendment stops government from "interfering in the market place of ideas" Where does it say this? It says that governments can't abridge freedom of speech. It doesn't say the government can't promote freedom of speech. On this basis the Citizens United decision could be looked at in a different light. A different starting point if you like.

Tut

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.

A very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no separate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech

a very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the rediculous. a corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no seperate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech


Yes, I was going to address this issue before. I am not a lawyer but I think Tom is failing to distinguish between substantive due process and procedural due process.

I want to promote freedom of religion so I choose Jefferson as the primary architect because I know this was his original intention when he first thought of the First amendmentJust a quick correction . Thankfully ,Jefferson was on assignment in Europe at the time of the founding and was therefore not able to input some of his French Revolution type philosophies into the construct of the Constitution.


It says that governments can't abridge freedom of speech. It doesn't say the government can't promote freedom of speech. On this basis the Citizens United decision could be looked at in a different light. A different starting point if you like

Interesting argument . Waiting to hear how restricting free speech promotes free speech.


a very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no separate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech

The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artificial constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artificial construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.

Just a quick correction . Thankfully ,Jefferson was on assignment in Europe at the time of the founding and was therefore not able to input some of his French Revolution type philosophies into the construct of the Constitution.



Interesting argument . Waiting to hear how restricting free speech promotes free speech.



The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artifical constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artificial construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the correction my American history is rather poor. However, my wrong example doesn't change the substance of my argument.

We can pick any point we like in the historical process and claim that point represents true original intent. I am saying that someone else can pick a different point and claim that point to be the actual original intent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me going right back to the beginning and claim that the original intent can be found in the formulation of natural laws and these natural laws only apply to individuals. This point is as valid as any other point in history.

When SCOTUS hands down a decision some people want to complain that this is judicial activism. Legislation from the bench if you like.
However, when SCOTUS hands down a decision from the bench they agree with,these very same people agree that it is within the keeping of the letter of the law, the spirit of the law and original intent.

This is tantamount to saying that sometimes SCOTUS hands down decisions that suit my politics and at other times it hands down decisions that are against my political views.

How does restricting freedom of speech promote freedom of speech? Glad you asked that question. I can out line my argument in relation to access speech versus content of speech, but first I will make a few comments in relation to substantive due process and procedural due process.

You seem to be saying that corporations have no legal rights unless they have the opportunity to access a civil code. What is the basis of your argument for this position?

Tut

You seem to be saying that corporations have no legal rights unless they have the opportunity to access a civil code. What is the basis of your argument for this position?



To bring this back to the case at hand, Armendariz imposed fines and costly corrective actions on Range Resources even thought the facts showed that they had done nothing that justified such impositions by the government. The 14th amendment guarantee of due process would seem to mean that they have both the right to procedural due process and substantive due process .

When life, liberty, or property is deprived , it is essential to notify why the deprivation will happen. The person(s) must also be given the occasion for others to hear their side; officials need to conduct the hearing in a fair manner. If these requisites are not followed ,then a violation of the person(s)constitutional rights exists . That is their procedural right. Substantive due process, deals with the right to live without unnecessary and arbitrary government interference.

But without the gurarantees of the Constitution then I am not going to assume that a corporation has any protections from anything. How many people in this country would cheer if the plug was pulled on the life of a corporation (lets say Haliburton ,or Goldman Sachs ) by the government under any pretense ? Who would shed a tear if the government went in and seized the assets of Chase ;or silenced FOX ?

I ask you , what happened to the legal protections of the General Motors bond holders when the Obots completely ignored their rights in the government takeover of GM ? They used taxpayer money to do the takeover . They then steered the company through a unique bankruptcy procedure that included placing the investors stock in a Motors Liquidation Company( MTLQQ).
After the reorganization they held a new public offering for GM.. 20.1 billion shares were sold at around $35 per share.
The shares in TLLQQ were rendered useless. Who received the new stock ahead of the IPO? The General Motors Trade Union and the U.S. Treasury. The old share holders were left out even though their interest had to be represented under anything that resembles due process ;either substansive or procedural.

A precedent has now been set where the government can confiscate the ownership of a company, reorganize it, and pay off its political supporters. The former investors were betrayed by political decree .

And that happened in a land where corporations have constitutional protections. This type of Hugo Chavez fascism where corporations exist to serve the interest of the state or the people is not an economic model for a free people.

The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artifical constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artifical construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.

How you love to run with the strawman Tom, a political party is an artificial construct and it represents the opinions of its members It has no life of its own and no opinion of its own, As soon as the members are of a different opinion it adapts or ceases to exist. Political parties and corporations exist because men have found it convenient for them to exist as as soon as it is no longer convenient they will be consigned to history as was the idea of democracy as founded by the greeks or liberty as conceived by the French. Already we see the political process within your country being modified by convenience. Do corporations have the right of assembly or the right to vote, to suggest they have right of free speech is a nonsense.

No strawman there at all . Corporations are organizations made up of people. The strawman is to say that groups of people exercising their right of speech collectively is an individual . I'm also not wrong in saying that corporations need and have the right to expect the same constitutional protections from arbitrary government action that every citizen has. That includes a socialist style seizure of corporate property . Your voting example is nonsense. Every individual in the corporation that meets the requirement to vote ,can vote. A corporation voting would then be a 'more than their fair share ' case (that should make you thrilled that I used the concept of fair share in my position). But that is not the case in speech. As I've said already ,all that happens in the case of speech is that individuals are speaking "collectively" (another turn of phrase you should be thrilled about). .

no strawman there at all . Corporations are organizations made up of people. the strawman is to say that groups of people exercising their right of speech collectively is an individual . I'm also not wrong in saying that corporations need and have the right to expect the same constitutional protections from arbitrary government action that every citizen has. That includes a socialist style seizure of corporate property . Your voting example is nonsense. Every individual in the corporation that meets the requirement to vote ,can vote. A corporation voting would then be a 'more than their fair share ' case (that should make you thrilled that I used the concept of fair share in my position). But that is not the case in speech. As I've said already ,all that happens in the case of speech is that individuals are speaking "collectively" (another turn of phrase you should be thrilled about). .

Individuals cannot speak collectively Tom any more than corporations can speak collectively, in fact few if any corporations existed at the time when freedom of speech became popular and enshrined in law so suggesting that corporations, an artificial construct that post dates the amendment, are heirs to the constitutional rights is an absurdity. Corporations can exercise only those rights which are confired under corporations law and their governance is according to those same laws. Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead them

Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead themHello again,

Isn't THAT a fact? Now, if a corporation VOTED on a political position to take, THAT would "collective" free speech.. But, when the CEO speaks, that ain't collective anything. It's HIM getting MORE free speech because he has more MONEY. Republicans think money is speech.

excon

individuals cannot speak collectively Tom any more than corporations can speak collectively, in fact few if any corporations existed at the time when freedom of speech became popular and enshrined in law so suggesting that corporations, an artificial construct that post dates the amendment, are heirs to the constitutional rights is an absurdity. Corporations can exercise only those rights which are confired under corporations law and their governance is according to those same laws. Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead them

I would agree. It is a fallacy of composition to say that if something is true of its parts, it must be true of the whole. I guess this is why it is regarded as legal fiction.

As I said before, original intent says that natural rights were only every designed to apply to individuals. So I would agree corporations inheriting individual rights is an adjunct, or amendment.

Tut

Hello again,

Isn't THAT a fact? Now, if a corporation VOTED on a political position to take, THAT would "collective" free speech.. But, when the CEO speaks, that ain't collective anything. It's HIM getting MORE free speech because he has more MONEY. Republicans think money is speech.

excon

Hi ex A CEO speaks for the corporation but the views expressed are either his own or the views of the Board. A corporation cannot vote, only the members of the Board vote, usually on policy presented by the CEO. This is not collective free speech. When a corporation publicises a view it is the view of the CEO not a collective view and the view is worth no more than an individual view even if it represents the result of accumulated financial resource. A corporation is not a collective, it is according to law an individual entity with a right to own assets and conduct commercial pursuits for the benefit of its stockholders. Nowhere is it confered a right to pursue political objectives

Hello again, odinn:

It's not ALL armed white guys. Personally, I support the Second Amendment with the same vociferousness as I do the rest. I don't think I'm a liberal anomaly, either.

I'm a political animal. I LOVE the back and forth. But, having spilled MY blood on the battlefields of Vietnam, it PISSES me off when I get accused of being ANTI American by a DRAFT dodging SOB like Nugent. If He thinks I'm his enemy, I'll oblige the bigmouthed bastard.

excon



Im going to try to steer this thread back to where it began. What we are seeing in today's times and will see throughout this election is the dragging out of the wackos on both sides. Each with their own agendas. Does this amount to civil war? No not yet. I say not yet because as Obama was making his rise in the presidents seat many states were reaffirming the second amendment rights for their states and signing packs of secession. Are there angry people who are ticked off at today's situations.. Yes. Do they have a right to be angry for the way the current situation is treating their cause? Yes. But true believers and true countrymen will reserve their anger for the law to settle it out and the ballot box to change the laws. Is there rederick and division being spewed by both sides. Yes. But in this election year we can change direction once again and calm the swell of division. Its going to be a nutty year with the election and the coming of 12-21-12 (mayan calendar ending) and the nuts will be highlighted by our media. But by exposing out faults to the world we also find that we do have much in common on both sides. And together we can all stand in unison to meet the future head on.

Im going to try to steer this thread back to where it began. What we are seeing in todays times and will see throughout this election is the dragging out of the wackos on both sides. Each with their own agendas. Does this amount to civil war? No not yet. I say not yet because as Obama was making his rise in the presidents seat many states were reaffirming the second amendment rights for their states and signing packs of secession. Are there angry people who are ticked off at todays situations .. Yes. Do they have a right to be angry for the way the current situation is treating their cause? Yes. But true believers and true countrymen will reserve their anger for the law to settle it out and the ballot box to change the laws. Is there rederick and division being spewed by both sides. Yes. But in this election year we can change direction once again and calm the swell of division. Its going to be a nutty year with the election and the coming of 12-21-12 (mayan calander ending) and the nuts will be highlighted by our media. But by exposing out faults to the world we also find that we do have much in common on both sides. And together we can all stand in unison to meet the future head on.

Dad I applaud your attempt to get back to somewhere rather than debating absurdity but in doing so you have exposed your own dilemna. First you say there are those who would succeed, I had a crazy idea that a) you fought a war against such ideas and the matter was decided b) that the idea that succession was possible was a dullision and that you say you stand in unison. Make up your mind; succession or unity and just maybe the new Mayan calendar ushers in a better period one without the wars of the last twelve thousand years

We use to solve our problems and meet our needs by meeting in the middle, but now all we can do is sit in our corners and grab for the power to do it whatever way we please. One side blasts the other, and nothing gets done. At least nothing that helps. Even more evident is the assault on people by the multinationals, you know the ones, who lobby congress for laws and regulations to make more money and invest it in overseas sweat shops, swiss bank accounts and foreign investments they shelter.

And we wonder where the economy went. Or where our rights are going, not just to bear arms, worship, or speech, but our rights to self govern through our votes. We use to trust the ones we voted for to do right by us, but now we must insure, through information that's what they do, and if we don't and keep listening to others with agendas tell us what to do, we get the government we deserve that's no longer of the people, for the people, and by the people.

November 2012, the next chance to win back our own country, democracy, and government from those that rob us blind so they can use us to get what they want. Power, and wealth. It's a very old story.

Good luck with that

Dad I applaud your attempt to get back to somewhere rather than debating absurdity but in doing so you have exposed your own dilemna. First you say there are those who would succeed, I had a crazy idea that a) you fought a war against such ideas and the matter was decided b) that the idea that succession was possible was a dullision and that you say you stand in unison. make up your mind; succession or unity and just maybe the new Mayan calendar ushers in a better period one without the wars of the last twelve thousand years

What you have to understand is my standing goes with the law. I was using the example to show the mood of the country at a certain period. Now the time is different. We are nearing the election cycle and we have greater division in this country then before. I am a firm believer in the constitution and states rights as covered by law. What was happening 4 years ago was legal and was in the wings to be put into place.

So the mermerings of a "civil war" were already being talked about in some sectors years ago. The reality is that it didn't happen.

Yes Dad it is unfortunate that your electorate is polarised, this happens when you have ineffective government, but that is the result of the actions of the electorate who have censored the administration as well as continuing to censor the actions of a past administration.

It ia fortunate we are a great country despite our failures, because only in America, can we wage war, yet command the disagree greatly, have a polarized electorate, yet command the safest most sought after haven for investment in the world.

The American dollar, be it weak, or strong, is the best investment in the world. Ask China!

don't mistake China's need for a stable market in america for support of your currency, they are happy for the value of your currency to erode rather than have to revalue theirs. Always remember the communist maxim, we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself. Russia couldn't do it but China might.

You have made the mistake of making China strong and entwined your economy with theirs, they can't afford for you to fail but at the same time they can't afford for you to win either. We may have made the same mistake but our exports are ultimately your imports

Our own exports are rising also Clete, especially to China. Actually it helps a lot when the villagers move to the city, and the tribes exchange their rural rice patties for the conventional city jobs. It makes more consumers in every country, especially China.

For the Chinese to survive, they must accommodate more of their population into the global economic system, both as consumers and producers, or fall under their own weight. Any nation that cannot meet the demands of its own people will change, and that includes us here also, and that change has begun.

China is no threat to us, neither was Russia, as we are capitalistic, therefore need as much competition as we can get to thrive and survive. Sure we may argue fight and throw rocks, that's also what we do, but we are evolving to get better, and so is the rest of the countries in the world, as they experiment in their own way.

The result for us all is a common consensus on how to do business with each other.

Pax Americana, Tal, but what happens in China is they fill those potemkin tower blocks with peasants, there are no nice city plots just concrete. If China is as benign as you say, withdraw your forces from the Pacific, you see you don't believe it, the vision of the yellow peril is still strong. Your trade with China has fueled movement of a few hundred million people from the country but you still have a billion to go. Your economy, in fact the economy of the world doesn't have the capacity to fuel and fund the movement of the rest of the population, it is niaive to think it can.

Of course they have the capacity to fuel, and fund the recovery of the global economy, its been done before, after WWII to give one example. They rebuilt Europe. They can do it again with the same co operation. Why haven't they, or us for that matter? GREED, pure and simple. The new slavery is economic dependence. Those that say what can't be done are those that are afraid to risk themselves. They are the few, but they are also very rich.

And look at your map again, as the yellow sea is not just the province of China, but also a gate way of trade between many nations around it. Not all of them good neighbors to any of us. One in particular NK, and another where we have a vested interest SK. Never know what NK, and Iran are cooking up do we?

Tal I am not worried about NK and Iran. NK are paranoid and I think Iran also. And with good reason perhaps. They don't want the interference of outside interests particularly the US. Iran has modified its rhetoric now that the US has left Iraq and will do more so once they leave Afghanistan. I don't think they want the bomb but their influence in Iraq is disturbing, but then if it is what the Shiia population want who can deny them.

We would all like to see NK come in from the cold war but it is hard to say to the people we have been wrong. SK is the best hope there, not foreign intervention.

We need to be much more concerned with what is going on in Africa, there is potential for open warfare there and no ability to send a gunboat up the river. Both your special forces and ours are there and you have to wonder, why? Your President must have a special interest in what is happening in Kenya even if he says nothing.

The vexing question is what to do about Pakistan, it has become a haven of terrorist activity directed at Afghanistan and it is nuclear armed. If anything fuels Iranian aspirations it is having a neighbour like Pakistan nuclear armed. Really the situation there is little different to the situation which sent the US after Al Qaeda and I don't believe the rhetoric surrounding the attack on that Pakistani outpost. They have played both sides for a long time and got caught that time. Pakistani's have figured promently in many terrorist attacks

How about Iran in Syria, and Obama has just announced he will be in Afghanistan for a while to come. Lets not forget the interest of both Russia, and China of having Iran doing what they are doing.

What, another proxy cold war. Iran is a long time client state of Russia and China needs their oil so neither needs any escalation which will disrupt business as usual. Perhaps Iran is fueliing what is happening in Syria, a little payback maybe. Baathists are no friend of Iran and they have been oppressing shiia populations, but no one is rushing to the aid of Syria.

Obama will get out of Afghanistan as soon as he practically can, he is talking about agreements with the Taliban. The US reputation in Afghanistan is on the nose and a quick exit is called for. Culturally the US and the Afghans just can't mesh. He is made it plain, the US will no longer police the Afghan cities and towns so what that really means is no more direct offensives, they will sit and wait and let the Afghans do the heavy lifting. Back to the days of military advisers and we will see how many of those the Afghans shoot

Just came across this. Tell me ex is setting trends on the net. 5-3-2012


?We are Preparing for Massive Civil War,? Says DHS Informant | Beacon Equity: Penny Stocks, Stock Alerts (http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-preparing-for-massive-civil-war-says-dhs-informant-2012-05-03/)

You have to love the un named sources they get information from, bet it is EX!! He gets around you know!