 |
This coming form the guy who offered up this.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So dude, are you calling the president of the Teamsters Union and the President of the United States wackos? Really? MY first six quotes 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. 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...
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.Quote:
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 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.
Civil war? You betcha, and the left started it.
Poor Region VI Administrator.
??Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hydraulic fracturingQuote:
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.
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 dayQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 speechQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
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.Quote:
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
Interesting argument . Waiting to hear how restricting free speech promotes free speech.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 .Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 themQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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
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 objectivesQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 PM. |