Democracy, or corruption, in action?
No announcement today of the Supreme Court’s decision(s) on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. A big letdown.
Another big letdown: The court did issue an unsigned decision declining to revisit is 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that opened the spigot for unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.
A 5-4 majority summarily reversed a Montanan Supreme Court decision that refused to follow the U.S. high court’s Citizens United ruling. It ruled that, on the question of whether Citizens United applied to Montana state law, “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
The court’s four liberals dissented, reasoning Citizens United itself was a mistake.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, “Even if I were to accept Citizens United this court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the state had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.”
“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so,” Breyer added.
Already in Virginia, it has generated a flood of independent campaign advertising in the presidential and U.S. Senate races, much if not all of it negative. So, a question:
June 25, 2012 - 2:07 PM
Breyer wrote for the minority. It is a sad day for democracy, the Founders are spinning in their graves.
Liberal media corporations (NBC,CBS,ABC, NYT, WaPo, etc etc) have been “giving” cover to the Democrat party for 50 years, without fail.
This seems more than fair to me.
Democrats like a rigged game, always have.
Oh for crying out loud Lake Claytor, that is so wrong and so unfair. As for a “rigged game”, that is the only one the TP/GOP can play in. The power of wealth and business has been “giving” cover to the TP/GOP for over 200 years, without fail, even when it is a detriment to this nation.
The Chamber of Commerce and all business groups, the wealthy who outnumber us, the powerful businesses that outnumber us and the PACS and deliberately political “think tanks”, right wing media and activist churches have ALL been in the TP/GOP column for longer than any of us have memory.
If the Dems had such influence and “cover”, the tax, judicial, education and labor structures would not all be in favor of wealth and power. The proof is in the pudding. Always has been.
Sadly, you are not kidding, but you should be!
#3 Let’s see now…The Chamber of Commerce (radical bunch), businesses, PACS (sic), think tanks, right wing media, activist churches, should be silenced.
This from the great advocate of tolerance….and, oh yeah, the Constitution.
All for government sponsored elections.
The World According to…..Saunders.
“The Chamber of Commerce (radical bunch), businesses, PACS (sic), think tanks, right wing media, activist churches, should be silenced.”
I missed that in Sandi’s response, I must have the abridged version.
It amazes me that intelligent people still speak of a “liberal media.”
Lake, if the media is incredibly biased and “giving cover” to the Democratic party, why is it that Reagan and both Bushes, as presidents, oversaw and participated in criminal behavior and walked, no trial, no prison time, yet Clinton (also criminal behavior) was crucified in the “liberal press”? Why has the liberal press dwelled so long on the “birther” issue; why did they cover it all (as ridiculous as it was/is)?
Because the press covers what sells. They are a multi-billion dollar institution, in it to make money.
Jim, I don’t see where Sandi said they “should be silenced.” ? Please clarify.
Sorry about previous post. I was attempting to respond to Art’s comment in #5 about intelligent people still speaking of “liberal media”…they don’t.
The Palinization of this country will lead to our destruction.
Clinton crucified???
Ken Starr was..but Clinton was “cool” for his transgressions.
#6 “89Hoo, I do not disagree that they are all the same and ergo none should be donating money to politics. I am all for getting ALL outside money and influence out of politics. Give each candidate the same amount of public funds and the rest is their own hard work. Even individuals should not be allowed to donate because that will always tip to the wealthy who have that “disposable income”‘
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 25, 2012 @ 9:16 pm
#5 “The Chamber of Commerce and all business groups, the wealthy who outnumber us, the powerful businesses that outnumber us and the PACS and deliberately political “think tanks”, right wing media and activist churches have ALL been in the TP/GOP column for longer than any of us have memory.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 25, 2012 @ 9:44 pm
OK, Bud, how about (instead of “crucified”), “actually put on trail and said trial covered extensively by the press” which stands opposed to the complete lack of coverage of the criminal activity of the other three presidents mentioned in my post (#6).
The point is that all the crying about the “liberal media” is simply nonsense.
I am, quite used to Jim Lucas putting false words and meaning in my posts. Sad isn’t it.
BUD, the truth is that no, the right wingers could not convince the nation to “crucify” Clinton for his personal failing and lies but it was damn sure not for lack of trying. Honesty would prevent anyone trying to say otherwise. Bush/Cheney were not even asked to account for their crimes.
The Roanoke Times and almost all other newspapers, radio stations, and television stations/networks are owned by corporations. Should only corporations that have media company holdings have first amendment rights? Money always has and always will corrupt politics. I doubt this will corrupt politicians any more than direct contributions to campaigns already does.
Thanks for the clarification, Jim, but I don’t see how her comment translates into groups “being silenced.” Are you implying that money is the only voice citizens (and corporations and Political Action Committes…) have in a democracy?
Libs can say what they want…but, the fact is, they don’t like competition. Never have. That fact alone explains a multitude of bizarre beliefs on the Left.
Why do NEWS corporations have the freedom to promote the issues and people they want, day after day after day?
It isn’t just their “NEWS”. It is their morning, afternoon and nightime programming. Everything is geared towards the agenda.
Pick up a New York Times or a Washington Post, read their slant every day for a week. Watch NBC news…CBS news…ABC news. Watch their brazenly biased “reporting” every night.
Then try watching David Letterman…for as long as you can.
These networks are agenda-driven, political machines. 95% of them are so far Left they are about to flip over.
“Former TV Producer On MSNBC Edits: ‘I’m Done’ Denying Liberal Bias”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-tv-producer-on-msnbc-wawa-edits-im-done-denying-liberal-bias/
“Forget it. I’m done. You deserve what they’re saying about you. It’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more. You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.
Good job.”
He said what we all know is true.
No, E. William, he is implying that he is obsessed with my posts and making them say what he believes they say. I am for campaign finance reform and I am honest about the influence of money and power but I have not said anyone should be “silenced”.
“liberal media” is nonsense..
When discussing the mainstream media, that which is print and TV, it is hardly nonsense. Look at the misrepresenting of tapes in the Trayvon Martin case and Romney’s Wawah’s sandwich episode.
Look back at recent coverage of presidential candidates. Edwards had an affair, producing a love child. The mainstream media wanted no part of it and a tabloid ended up breaking the story. In February 2008, during the campaign, the NY Times alledeged that John McCain had an affair with some woman named Iserman. Never happened and the Times ended up settling out of court.
Who broke the Lewinski story? Matt Drudge only after Newsweek spiked the story.
Back in July 2004, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said the following: “The media, I think want Kerry to win..They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic…that’s going to be worth 15 points.”
A few weeks back the 2000th American died in combat in Afghanistan. Did you see it widely reported, was that featured on the evening news as similar milestones were reported concerning Bush’s Iraq war?
Mainstream media bias is present, liberal and constant.
It is true, “Facts and Reality have a well known liberal bias”. I don’t think it can be helped. Conservatives have to work so hard, distort the language, twist the point and massage the convoluted message constantly to make anything work in their favor. That alone proves that “liberal bias” and “liberal media” is just code for telling it like it is. People too intelligent to drink your koolaide are not necessarily wrong.
I am sick to death of the Edwards story being used to indict the media. The story WAS in the media after it broke, but in their one act of humanity, not dragging a dying woman and young children through the dirt, you right wing judges have used that over and over as a cudgel. It is symptomatic only of your degradation of news and decency.
The Clintons (both of them) were vilified in virtually every media outlet in the world. The salacious details (with no real relevance) were splashed everywhere. But also look at the disgusting “Clinton Chronicles” and lies about Vince Foster, the BS over “WhiteWater”, “Troopergate”, “Travel Office”, Lincoln Bedroom, pardons, foreign money…on and on it went. The Blago mess, Fast & Furious, Weiner, ALL front and center. For you people to pretend your message is not heard, does not get out, is not listened to is just ridiculous dishonest whining!
Mayhap you should ask why intelligent, dedicated, honest, fair, patriotic and credible people don’t agree with you instead of accusing them of not being same.
What moron has portrayed MSNBC as the “mainstream media”? They are a direct answer to the FOX “faux news” drones also on cable and neither are ever to be taken as unbiased by anyone with more than a few brain cells. Despite his high dudgeon, did you miss the part where for 25 years he defended them? Sour grapes anyone?
#15 You’re welcome. If you think we will ever “go back” (we never were there, no such time or place exists) to some “utopia” of direct democracy with no political affiliations and advocating associations POV, well that’s your Plato’s plain. Some people belong to the NRA & others to the Brady Center to Reduce Violence…..some people belong to the NEA. They have every right to express their opinions & concerns. How would they do this without funding? They have the right to support nominees that reflect their opinions and concerns. SCOTUS agrees with me….free speech. Obama was the one who pledged to run (2008) with no PAC money, almost immediatly reneging. Funny how now that Romney is out fundraising Obama…such concern.
#10 “Even individuals should not be allowed to donate…” My false words, or yours?
Seems to me that the SCOTUS has chosen to ignore the very first sentence in the Constitution and I quote: “We the People of the United States…”
It doesn’t read we the corporations, nor we the chambers of commerce, nor we the churches, nor we the media, nor we the PACS nor any other politically motivated and funded organization. It says We the People…individuals…one vote per one person.
This is possibly one of the most outlandish and destructive decisions handed down by the court in decades. Mark my words, this is not going to bode well for any of us with the possible exception of corporate leaders, foreign leaders of corporations and the top one percent of income earners.
I don’t think the founding fathers had the intention of excluding people from the process. This decision takes the country a great distance away from that.
God how I wish some of you people would learn the difference between news and opinion organizations.
FOX and MSNBC ARE NOT NEWS ORGANIZATIONS!
They are opinion media outlets that try to disguise themselves as news outlets. They espouse their opinions but the vast majority of the simpletons who listen to them take their words as gospel.
Like lemmings to the sea, the general public has become too lazy to read and research to formulate an educated opinion…they have to be spoon fed.
By the way Lake…can you cite an example of where liberals don’t like completion? That sounds like typical right wing rhetoric that means nothing.
“Fast and Furious”…front and center?!?!
Sandi, that statement right there kills your argument.
Almost all of those stories you mentioned were HIDDEN, actively by the liberal media until they had no choice but to cover them.
Bud…
You don’t think your side is biased? How many times did Fox News haul Newt in front of the cameras about his extramarital affair while he was SOTH?
Get the log out of your own eye before you start picking at the logs in anyone else’s.
By the way Lake…that’s supposed to be competition, not completion. I hate these self spell check options on
I-pads.
No Lake Claytor #25, that is patently untrue, CBS News has been all over it, even getting into a kerfluffle over their reporter’s aggressiveness on it!
And again you present correlation as cause. No one is advocating “direct democracy with no political affiliations and advocating associations POV“. However, no one can pretend that the influence of money from special interests has been good for this nation, our political system or our governance. It is not possible.
It is simple, a voice and a vote, that is all you should have. No monetary control, influence or coercion should be available for any people or groups, regardless of their POV, affiliation, passion or desire.
24
School choice.
——-
Will, also NBC, ABC and CBS claim to be “news” corporations. We all know their bias.
From Cronkite to Rather to Brokaw to Andrea Mitchell…lefties all.
In Arizona v. US, the SCOTUS gave the Obama admin. a smack down (8-0) on the key constitutional question that states had the right to check the immigration status of detainees. The admin. had asserted that even though the government chose to ignore fed. immigration laws, no state could be allowed to enforce legitamate state immigration laws.
The SCOTUS resoundingly affirmed Citizens United and the First Amendment. In American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and held that the state law limiting corporate campaign contributions was unconstitutional and asserted Citizens United applied to state law as well as fed. law. The High Court was so confident on this position that it didn’t even bother to hear oral arguments on this case.
There was much to be happy about on these rulings. Obama was not happy with the AZ decision so his admin. will ignore AZ inquiries regarding immigration status of detainees. So now AZ can do noting about illegals even when discovered. The admin. will ignore the fed. law unless maybe the illegal has commited a felony, otherwise the feds don’t care.
Lake, Spiro Agnew died in 1996; Joe McCarthy died in 1957.
I do not know what kind of American sees “much to be happy about” in those rulings John R., but they sure do prove the distance between us.
The influence of money, lobbyists and special interests on governance is surely not a conservative ideal?
No one has disputed a state’s right to ask about immigration status on any criminal or person charged with a crime. Show me where that have. The concern is racial profiling and it is a legitimate concern given the anti-immigrant fervor and the “looks” of many Arizona citizens.
Damn shame that millions of Americans will be affected and democracy will suffer for generations based on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy rolls out of on any given morning. The system is broken, it’s time for the people to take it back.
Brokaw a liberal, that’s a good one.
#26 Will….
“Bud..you don’t think your side is biased?”
Will,
Point being the MSM is not supposed to take sides,it’s supposed to report news. Certainly, Rush is biased, Hannity is biased. The fact that you said “your side” admits that the MSM is NOT my side but YOUR side and IS biased…THANK YOU.
Secondly, I don’t understand your point about Gingrich being hauled in front of cameras by Fox to explain his affair while he was Speaker of the House. He resigned as speaker right after the Nov election of 1998. He left congress in January of 1999. At that point, no one knew of his affair with Calista Bisek- now Mrs. Gingrich. In November of 1999, there was some sort of legal proceeding where Bisek testified to her affair with Newt. It wasn’t until March of 2007, that Newt admitted to the affair.
So to answer your question why didn’t Fox or anybody else haul Newt in front of a camera earlier than March 2007? Did anyone know of it? Newt wasn’t occupying office or running for office…he was yesterday’s news and off the radar.
Lake….
Don’t know about you, but where I live, kids can go to the school of their choice, whether public or private. Is that not choice? Not sure where the lack of competition is there.
During a 30 min news broadcast on either NBC, CBS or ABC, I see pretty even coverage given its only about 21 minutes of news time given commercials.
You seem to leave out your Hannity’s, your O’Reilly’s, your Beck’s, your Palin’s when including those who are guilty of media bias. Damn that log.
John R, if you’re happy that corporations can now determine the course of the political landscape, then I don’t want to hear or read one peep out of you about the trampling of The Constitution by anyone else because the court just crapped all over it by affirming the Citizens United bull.
We will all live to regret that decision and one can only hope that a more constitutionally focused court will over turn that decision in years to come.
BUD, are you now admitting that FOX is not “the media”? Thanks for that!
Will, silly you, it is not choice, if you have to pay for it! Until people can have their private schools paid for, their is no “competition”.
Sandi,
Fox has different segments….the Hannity’s, Orielly’s are NOT mainstream news.Their Sunday program and their 6 o’clock news program are every bit as good as Meet the Press and Brian Williams Nightly News.
#30 “It is simple, a voice and a vote, that is all you should have. No monetary control, influence or coercion should be available for any people or groups, regardless of their POV, affiliation, passion or desire.”
Your words, right? Just checking.
This would include the NAACP advocating for civil rights? How’bout women’s suffrage groups? Anti-Klan organizations? Oh….that group in Giles County? Anti-pedophile efforts?
Interesting POV from someone who so often cites advocate groups she agrees with.
Who enforces this Taliban regime of banned expression of opinion? Scary.
Bud…
I grew up watching Cronkite, Huntly & Brinkley. We didn’t watch ABC because we didn’t get a clear signal with rabbit ears back in those days. My family was ultra conservative and not once did I hear them condemn either as being liberally biased. I don’t think during a 30 minute broadcast one has time to be biased and even get a news headline out.
Again, you’re confusing the opinion side of the network with the news side. I don’t disagree that MSNBC is liberally biased any more than Fox’s opinion shows are biased.
As far as Newt goes, I believe he was a candidate for president not too long ago. Was his infidelity a major talking point on the right wing media outlets? I don’t believe he was yesterday’s news at that point.
The hypocrisy goes both directions whenever it is politically expedient. Just so you’ll know, I’d cut John Edwards privates off and hand them to him in a mason jar if his punishment was left up to me.
BUD, the reality is that FOX, the entire network of news and talk genre, the Chamber of Commerce, and the WSJ, all come from the POV of “the right”, support of wealth, and big business and you have NO problem with that. FOX even dares to call themselves “fair and balanced” in the face of a different reality and you are still OK with that. ABC, NBC and CBS NEWS are all as middle of the road as a newscast can get. You are insisting that talk programs and websites of theirs pretend to be newscasts and automatons and that is both unreasonable and a standard you do not hold FOX to. THAT is my point. I have no problem with bias, I have a problem with selective accusations of bias.
Justice Scalia rips Obama in his dissent in the AZ v. US decision!
“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind…” Scalia wrote.
The conservative Justice Scalia ridiculed Obama for selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that Obama finds appropriate while ignoring others. He remarked that the original states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to have such power.
Any student of American history would know that the Founding Fathers feared an imperial president like Obama having just fought a war of independence from the British king.
Obama ignores the Constitution as it suits him!
Once again Jim Lucas, you are twisting my words. “the NAACP advocating for civil rights” is not about giving money to candidates. “women’s suffrage groups” are not about giving money to candidates. Do you believe all lobbying and expression of POV is about money to candidates? THAT is the problem!!
John R….
Seems to me that the SCOTUS just as conveniently ignored the Constitution in its failure to reverse the Citizens United stance?
Why should it come as any great surprise that Scalia would ridicule any liberal president…to otherwise would be out of character for the justices that rule on political leanings as opposed to rule of law or fairness for that matter.
As you state, any student of American History would know that the founding fathers feared power being centralized on the few rather than on the total citizenry as proved for in the Constitution.
Justice Scalia ignores eschewing politics too. Of course that doesn’t matter to you unless it is a more liberal justice who does so. Sad.
#45 I twist nothing. You are either naive, or hypocritical. Do you think for a second these groups to not contribute to politicians they think will support their views?
Or is it OK….because they are (whose going to enforce?) the good ones?
#23 Will, & #45 Ms. Saunders…..”We the people” is (also) plural. The 1st Amendment explicitly protects freedom of assembly.
This means that you and I have the right to associate with others in like-minded purpose. It is the very essence of freedom of speech, assembly & redress.
Sometimes abused (first you must define your terms), sure. What else, including everything else in the first & all Amendments, isn’t. Art versus profanity? Assembly versus pointless riot? Speech versus “fire!” in a crowded theatre?
It comes with the freedoms. The solution is usually worse than the problem. And, again, SCOTUS agrees with me.
CBS and Cronkite presented a very biased anti-US version of the news regarding the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive was a US military victory but was presented as a defeat by the media.
The anti-war peace demonstrators were always shown out of proportion to their real influence. The public opinion polls of the time supported the US envovement in the War almost the entire duration and did not change until the very end.
The Grenada invasion during the Reagan admin. was presented as Reagan “war mongering” by the media till the truth came out that it was blocking militant communist expansion in the Caribbean and rescuing American students from another Iranian-style hostage crisis. Then US public opinion strongly supported the effort and the media changed its tune.
Jim Lucas…
The first sentence of the Constitution reads “We the PEOPLE”…not we the corporations or any other collective.
The intention was and should continue to be today that one individual’s voice shouldn’t be trumped by that of another. By giving the voice to Corporate entities, you’ve thereby diminished the voice of the individual.
If like minded people want to gather, then that’s fine. Let them give as individuals but not channel corporate profits to campaigns.
And by the way, just because the SCOTUS and you happen to agree on this issue does not…I repeat, does not make it the correct position.
John R…
Vietnam was the first televised war. It was the first time that the horrors of war were seen real time. The people were able to see and formulate their own ideas about the war.
While Cronkite reported the facts, the opinion as to the “winnability” of the war was already shifting prior to any words he uttered.
We saw war real time as opposed to being packaged as something glamorous and exciting. The images of that war spoke more than any word of any journalist or news anchor.
Two recurring threads here:
Nothing better examplifies the liberal bias in the media than F&F. The general media & the RT have refused to cover until forced to by it’s escalation. Yes, Cheryl Atkinson at CBS broke the story, since then how much have you seen of her?
As to F&F…there is a very simple solution to the quagmire, and determining who is being truthful. Release the documents.
#51 I, as an individual, choose such associations, including corporate. Vote & spend & contribute where you see fit.
Citizins United, in effect, helpled level the playing field between corporations & unions. Don’t remember much complaining before.
Obama is doubling down on the Bain outsourcing jobs propoganda.
Without going again, for now, to the distinction between private & public sectors, international companies & trade (including the job market), balace of trade, tax laws, etc.
I suggest any jobs are better than none and regardless of some on this blog that have repeatedly stated the American voter is ignorant…this will backfire (again).
One interesting consideration in VA…Allen will trounce Kaine…Romney would win here anyhow, but now benifit from Allen’s coattails.
Jim Lucas…
And you better bet that I will.
I suspect that at some point in the not too far distant future, you’ll be singing a different tune about CU.
Just so you’ll know, I fought with my Dad about union giving to campaigns. I thought it was wrong when I was 18 and still do.
It would have been a better decision had the SCOTUS prohibited campaign contributions from unions, chambers of commerce and any other collective organization than to have opened up the process to the corruption that is both corporate and union America today.
Two wrongs didn’t make it right.
@55 Jim Lucas says, “…some on this blog that have repeatedly stated the American voter is ignorant…this will backfire (again).”
Certainly not all voters are ignorant but…..
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/26/gop-poll-shows-that-propaganda-works/
… The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. By contrast, 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats shared that view…
According to this poll, an even larger proportion of Republican respondents who said Iraq had WMD — 64 percent — said they have either always believed (or have come to believe) that Barack Obama was born in another country, which he was not….
There’s so much manure being spread here I don’t know where to begin.
First, John R. Tet was a turning point in the war because it was then believed the communists lacked the ability to mount such a potent offensive. Cronkite had nothing to do with it although that didn’t stop the Right from a decades-long smear campaign that has continued to this day. The rest of your post is too ridiculous to warrant a reply.
Jim Lucas 1, Union membership and influence (read money) is at an all time low. It is preposterous to suggest Citizens United “leveled the playing field.” The partisan SC has just given us the best government (Republican) money can buy.
Jim Lucas 2, If Issa really cared about the deceased drug agent why isn’t he trying to get documents related to the actual program? Why is he only demanding those documents related to the Justice Department’s response after the program had been terminated? I believe they call this a “partisan witch-hunt?” This will go nowhere, in spite of Fox News. Why won’t you allow a vote on the transportation bill, Mr. Boehner?
If Virginia elects Allen again, the state will have taken the worst step backwards they could possibly take.
Allen did nothing for Va when he was governor and did even less as senator. He is a puppet with the same brains God gave a green apple and thats being unkind to the apple!
Will, we are not as far apart, on this issue, in principle, as you might think.
I see no practical way to reach your objectives, and see a lot of hypocricy & delusional elitism in many who promote it. As such, again, IMO the solutions are worse than the problem. Like all markets, caveat emptor.
Art Hill 1; if union membership is at an all time low, and their influence, that is there doing. Are you suggesting CU is the cause? Where people are no longer required to join & contribute to political parties, they don’t.
Art Hill 2; release the documents. Then we’ll see.
No Jim Lucas, I am not “naive, or hypocritical”. If you asked if I thought “these groups” don’t contribute money to pols, of course not and I never said they didn’t. I said they shouldn’t. NONE of them should. Now maybe in your world, none only means those you disagree with, but here in the real world, none, means none, right/left, good/bad, agree with/disagree with, NONE means none.
AGAIN, I have said nothing against any right to “assembly”, but there is no right, constitutional or other to buy the government you want and it should not be possible.
Please do “associate with others in like-minded purpose” but NONE of you, or us, should be able to buy legislation, tax breaks, or competition killing protection. THAT is nowhere near “the very essence of freedom of speech, assembly & redress”.
You are simply twisting my words, denying that you are, and twisting them some more. It is ridiculous.
BTW, when SCOTUS does not agree with you, that makes you wrong? Good to know. I’ll not be granting them that power over my POV.
John R, maybe it is a memory lapse but the local and world news used to be a 30 minutes a day (including commercials) affair and nothing like what you say is the reality of the Cronkite generation. He did not have the luxury of showing anything “out of proportion” FGS!
I am so well aware of the right wing position on “releasing the documents” as long as they are in the hands of anyone except them of course. Be careful what you wish for.
Issa has tipped his empty hand and this will not end well for him. Perhaps he is realizing that. Perhaps not. But like Issa, you all are all fired up to embarrass America, jam up investigations, out covert sources, and maybe risk it all being in vain, just so you can oust a president. Considering how protective you were of Bush and defensive you were of torture and cherry picked intel, how you cheered the lack of regulatory oversight that crashed our economy, etc. I do not think you should EVER see the documents. Learn to live without justice, like we have.
The respect shown on this blog for all of the voters who chose President Obama would sure argue against any of you thinking so highly of the American voters. Selective memory is another right wing ideal, I see.
#50, John, your representation/recollection of the situation in Grenada is wholly inaccurate. The American medical students on the island were never in danger of being taken hostage, and the “evidence” of “communists taking over” was deliberately misrepresented by the Reagan administration. I don’t fault you on this, as many Americans believed the story from Reagan’s people, but the facts stand in contrast to what you’ve purported.
As far as Tet, it may have resulted in an American military “victory,” but that’s a tough sell to the thousands of civilians executed by the Viet Cong and the destruction of Hue. Additionally, Westmoreland himself admitted that the resolve of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army would require at least 200,000 more American soldiers, a direct contradiction to the administration’s claims that the war was all but over.
The reporting of the war happened as it unfolded, and it took a little more than a week for the U.S Army to repel the Viet Cong and reclaim the territory initially lost to them. It is easy to armchair quarterback this event, and claim “liberal media bias” but the press reported it as it happened. As it unfolded, in the immediate, it was a victory for the Viet Cong, it took a week to become an American victory. Understand the perspective now?
@61
Nice dodge, you addressed neither of my points. I’ll ask again, how exactly does CU “level the playing field” and against whom was it leveled? Why is Issa only demanding documents detailing the Justice Department’s response AFTER the program had been terminated rather than details of the program itself? You are long on rhetoric and short on substance. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.
Obama…selective memory…voting…ahhh yes
Here’s a guy who gets elected with 53% of the pop vote, has an approval rating on inauguration day in the mid 60s. Then as he governs, and later rules, his administration is one mess up after another. Deficits spike, unemployment rises,poor legislation etc etc…
So now the reason he’s in danger of losing in November..WE’RE RACISTS. 10% of once Obama voters are now leaning the other way after finding out Obama is black. It has nothing to do with policies or results or progress. If you’re not voting for Obama this time..admit it..you’re a racist, there can be no other explanation.
Yeah ..showing respect for Obama voters..well some of them, the dependent and the sheeple.
“I’ll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one.”
-unknown-
#66 It levels the playing field exactly as I said. Corporations & PAC’s can contribite the same as unions. Can I say that any clearer? I can say it a third time in case you got the “abridged version” (again).
The discussions after termination will shed light on who initiated, who approved, who manifested & who is covering up….and when. Do you think all that is somehow known because Holder (says he) terminated the operation (as soon as he heard of it)? By the way, which of the dates that he’s said he did so should we use? Want the truth? Very simple. Release the documents. Should I say that again also?
Bud…
You’re the only one who has raised the racist card on this blog so far as I can see. If Obama looses, I don’t think the color of his skin will be the issue.
Given the multiple financial debacles that were handed to him when he took the oath of office and given his opponents lack of understanding on economic matters, things could have been lots worse.
Look what the Republicans did to the country in 29…
#66 cont’d (the eggs were boiling)…..and perhaps you might explain why businesses/corporations & PAC’s (the ones you don’t like?) should be excluded from the political process…..but unions, with mandatory enrollment & dues, dues that go to political candidates/nominees that the rank & file might not support, dues that are collected at times by the very politicians, should?
Maybe the latter is why union influence is at an “all time low”.
There are those on this blog that are revisionist when it comes to Vietnam War history! No surprise there. I lived it, I know from where I speak!
#62 You have also said individuals should not be “allowed” to contribute. You have repeatedly called voters ignorant, and now claim we have no right to know what transpired in F&F.
Who, pray tell is left? Right, tax paid elections ran by the very government trying to (re)elect itself. Now there’s a plan for accoutability.
@69
You’re obfuscating. We both agree the unions do not have near the resources that corporations do, you even claimed it was “there (sic) doing” How is this “leveling the playing field?” We know who initiated Wide Receiver, the Bush administration. We also know that evidence shows knowledge of Fast and Furious was never traced higher than a deputy AG. Why the witch-hunt? Why now? Where are the jobs?
Yep, “Here’s a guy who gets elected with 53% of the pop vote, has an approval rating on inauguration day in the mid 60s”. Then as he tries to govern during an economic tsunami, the lies, obstruction and distortion go viral and ODS is diagnosed. His administration is handling one crisis after another. The Stimulus helps, the jobs hemorrhage stops and slowly begins to reverse, he has to deal with poor legislation, a dysfunctional Congress and a right wing lying machine. All in all he has been remarkably successful in the face of all of that!
Some of the same haters are no doubt racist, but most are just koolaide drinking right wingers who never verified a fact or made any effort to see both sides of any issue. Those were votes he did not get last time and had no hope of ever getting this time.
The voters who are not rabid, who do not listen to ODS radio and TV, who can see what Wall Street has done to this nation, who see the wealth protection measures being fought for as they are still ignored, those voters will not vote for Willard Romney. Will they vote for Obama? Stay tuned. It ain’t over by a long shot. No matter what you hope.
Sure “Corporations are people”. So are Unions. So are Churches. So are Schools. So are Clubs. So are political parties. So what? They still can’t vote and they still should not be contributing to political campaigns. Are people pretending anyone has been unable to contribute to political campaigns or candidates before the stinky CU decision? Really?
Correction Jim Lucas, I have “repeatedly” called SOME voters ignorant, because some voters are. President Obama would not be president if they all were!
It remains to be seen if we have a “right to know what transpired in F&F”. This is a representative democracy and we often have to settle for those in government being allowed to “know” what we are not allowed to “know”. Been here long?
Publicly funded elections would be no more invasive or hard to account for than the mess we have now. How can you even argue they would? No one said the government would “run” the elections. They don’t now.
@71
You have a habit of reading things that aren’t there. I don’t advocate unlimited political campaign contributions by anyone. You made a ridiculous statement about “leveling the field” when you knew it was pure baloney. (Putting it mildly) I merely pointed that out. AS for F&F, not sure if the RT allows links, but from the Daily Beast, What Issa really wants.
Enjoy your eggs.
#74 No such thing, you’re hearing what you want to hear. A level playing field does not necessarily mean an equally well played game.
There is no real comparison between Wide Receiver & F&F or how the respective administrations have handled them. I suspect you know that. Did someone say “obfuscating”?
“We also know that evidence shows knowledge of Fast and Furious was never traced higher than a deputy AG.” We know what the Obama administration wants us to know. Release the documents
“Where are the jobs?” Good question.
John, lol, “revisionist history” is a great label to use when the truth of the events doesn’t match how you need it to be, or when an alternative perspective to the meaning of those events conflicts with your predetermined vision.
Many of my family members also lived through these events and were in Viet Nam when Tet happened; all of my History professors in college also lived through the war years, and several of them were in Hue during the offensive; It is from them and my own research that I draw my knowledge.
Interesting read on CNN from Fortune this morning:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?hpt=hp_t2
You may want to take a look. Whether you will agree or disagree with its content, it certainly is indicative of the political climate today.
John R…you’re not the only one who lived during the Vietnam War era. I was on tap to head out when the draft ended so you don’t have any single handed knowledge that any of the rest of us in those days had my dilusional friend.
#80 As a history teacher, how would you evaluate first hand experience. I too was around during the Viet Nam War. Yes, first hand experiences will differ, are limited & obviously subjective. So to, are the chronicles that are taught. I was also a political science student in college during Viet Nam. All of my professors were notoriously anti-war, to the point of ridiculing those who dared question their perspective. No doubt some went on to write history books.
There is no doubt, “right” or “wrong”, good or bad, Cronkite & CBS turned the tide of public opinion. Johnson said so himself; “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America”.
As to your history professors, Obama was a Constitutional law professor. Heller, McDonald, Citizins United, the main thrust of the Arizona immigration law, ….and then there’s tomorrow.
#77 The ones who agree with you are not ignorant? Should they be allowed to contribute? Or should the under-taxed American citizin be forced to fund politicians they do not support? What about the nomination process? What about 3rd (or 4th, or 5th….) party candidates?
“It remains to be seen if we have a “right to know what transpired in F&F”. This is a representative democracy and we often have to settle for those in government being allowed to “know” what we are not allowed to “know”. Been here long?”
What about Congress? Are they part of your “representative democracy”? Do they have a right to know?
Long enough. Thanks for asking.
Jim Lucas, I guess since you are still struggling with “constant” having more than one meaning, you would have trouble grasping “none” as well, but when I say none, I mean none, as in no one should be allowed to contribute, even if they agree with me, even if they are not ignorant, even if they expect no service or boon in return. None.
The problem in politics is too much money and too much influence bought with it. The only way to fix that is to remove the money.
BTW, sure, some of the people who agree with me are still ignorant, it is just harder to hold that against them when they agree with me. Ignorance can be cured, it does not have to be the fatal flaw some represent it to be.
First hand experience is a lot like eye witness testimony. Not always comprehensive and sometimes quite wrong.
My fav Ben Franklin:
“Experience keeps a dear school, fools will learn in no other”
Sadly, some can’t even learn in that one!
#84, 85 & 86 Three posts and still a complete dodge.
Ms. Saunders, yes, words have differing meanings. What distinguishes the proper meaning is context. You used “constant”, many times now as you dig deeper, in, “constant demand for oil”. This is patently false as everyone but you knows.
Your biggest fallacy is exposed in that you originally rationalized your terms in that demand was always increasing, in itself, once again, contradictory by definition & context. What can possibly be your rational now that demand is falling?
Please answer in direct terms, sans the piety and obfuscation. Or drop your pretensions
My #82, …and E., as to professor Obama; denying the precedent of judicial review (again today), fraudulent recess appointments, unfounded claims to executive privilege, ignoring SCOTUS rulings, legislating by executive order (fiat), etc., etc.
If I were a student of professor Obama, I’d want my tuition back.
Tell you what John, as soon as you become Editor then President of the Harvard Law Review, graduate Magna Cum Laude with your J.S from Harvard, teach Constitutional Law at University of Chicago’s Law School for 12 years, get elected as a U.S Senator, then get elected U.S President with more then twice the Electoral College votes than your formidable opponent, THEN you can talk all the smack you like with some semblance of validity. Until then, though…your clear and present bias just makes you look like a sore loser with an axe to grind. Sorry, man, but that’s the way it is.
Jim Lucas, it is not “patently false” and in the context I used the word constant, it is clearly not wrong. YOU are the one digging. Your insults abound but the facts remain!
“…But since you brought it up, demand is constant, supply is manipulated by OPEC and all of it is sold on the world market to whomever will pay the price set in the commodities market place. That world market consists of all developed and developing countries with money to spend. Do you understand now?”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 30, 2012 @ 11:17 am
There is never a time when nobody is buying oil. I have offered you the definitions for constant that fit perfectly in my context. I do not misuse words. I cannot not let it go, because you are wrong and because you will not let it go.
#82, interesting that you ask…I recently had a long discussion with one of my U.S History classes re: studying history as told by those involved in the events themselves. There is great value in the perspectives of those who lived through a particular time/event; at the same time one must acknowledge the biases of those same folks. This does not negate their stories, but understanding their biases help us to balance the emotion and the facts.
Sorry about your experiences with the college professors and their biases…do you think that experience in turn biased you against their points-of-view (making you, in essence, a “pro-Viet Nam war” person, not capable of seeing the negative side of that conflict?) This question is asked with honesty and sincerity, and not in a mean-spirited rhetorical way. I too had professors who had great bias, both Liberal and Conservative, and it definitely shaped how I listened and responded to their presentations.
Ms. Saunders, there never is a time that nobody is buying whale sperm oil, or buggy whips, or hula hoops. Is their demand constant also?!
#89 I’m not losing. I cited but a few of Obama’s, all directly related to his expertise & your argument that college professors are the end-all of knowledge credibility.
I also know who to direct my missives to. Jim.
#91 “Sorry about your experiences with the college professors and their biases…do you think that experience in turn biased you against their points-of-view (making you, in essence, a “pro-Viet Nam war” person, not capable of seeing the negative side of that conflict?) This question is asked with honesty and sincerity, and not in a mean-spirited rhetorical way.”
Sure, just after I got turned down for that teaching job. (Insert smiley face here). By the way, who said I was “pro-Viet Nam”, the thread was bias in media and “history”, E., the parens are that only to express there is more than one interpretation of history. I’m sure you agree.
89. E. William – indeed!
Jim Lucas, if indeed “there never is a time that nobody is buying whale sperm oil, or buggy whips, or hula hoops” and demand for all is “regularly recurrent; continual; persistent” in nature, then yes, they too could be called constant in the context I was using.
If liberal bias is so pervasive, how on earth do people become conservative? On any issue, there are conservative “experts” as well as liberal. Where do they come from if we are so prevalent in the mind molding business and how do we ever lose an election if we have indoctrinated everyone? Sometimes you folks make no sense.
#96 Yep…and they could be called “Betty”. And Betty, when you call me, you can call me Al.
Jim, show me where I claim “college professors are the end-all of knowledge credibility.” You can’t, because I don’t. I also never claimed you were “pro-Viet Nam war”; I ASKED if that was a possible outcome of your experience with biased professors. I also never said you were “losing,” I said your clear and present bias MAKES YOU LOOK like a sore loser…I don’t know if you intentionally misrepresent what I say or if you’re just not reading too carefully…E.
#97 Not withstanding your myopic view that the entire world consists of “liberal” & “conservative” (as you define them)…..the answer to your question within that perspective is that some people are still able to think for themselves.
By the way, here E., is where we might get into my opinion of what is called public education.
How do people become conservative?
Obviously we want to be happy and optimistic.
Conservatism is a product of life experience and acquired wisdom.
Like homosexuals..we’re born that way.
“Conservatism is a product of life experience and acquired wisdom.”
Studies show it’s more a product of fear and closed-mindedness.
http://www.salon.com/2010/12/29/conservative_brains/
#99 You’re right E. You never say anything specific, only innuendo & loaded hypotheticals. Then fall back on “plausible deniability”.
Play your Psych 101 games with someone else.
“By the way, here E., is where we might get into my opinion of what is called public education”…No thanks, I’ll pass on that.
Jim Lucas, you have GOT to be kidding? How on earth you bat things around for weeks, haunting points that have no relevance and constantly referring back to a point not made, and then accuse someone else of playing “Psych 101 games”? Wow, just wow!
Let’s keep it down to a dull roar, please.
For anyone wishing to go beyond the right-wing hype machine on Fast and Furious here is an excellent article from Forbes Magazine. Forgive me if it has been linked before.
Correction: Fortune Magazine. I also didn’t know there was a Roanoke connection. Enjoy!
#103, perhaps you play games, but my queries were genuine. Sorry you couldn’t handle them. You know perfectly well I didn’t say those things, and you got called on it, now you’re defensive…deflect by throwing baseless accusations if you need to, but it doesn’t phase me.