I've got lots to say but many won't read or listen because I'm such an EXTREMIST (TM-Schumer).

(04-15-2011 03:06 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I've got lots to say but many won't read or listen because I'm such an EXTREMIST (TM-Schumer).

But you got a devote following of liberals in DC that are more extreme than at any time in history.

Mile High, great post. Too bad a liberal will never understand what you wrote.

(04-15-2011 01:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-15-2011 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I am well aware of what it was about. I stated it quite clearly. It is about corporation BUYING elections so that laws that favor them get enacted. Pretty simple. As for race, we all knew what you meant-even if someone didn't come right out and say it.

You either are misinformed or a damn liar, I'll let you decide.

Citizens United, a non profit company, wanted to release a 90 minute film about Hillary. This is not any different than Micheal Moore releasing F911 during a presidential election year.

The problem is that McCain Feingold forbade Companies or Unions from 'electioneering' within 30 days of a Primary or 60 days of the General Election. This, in effect muzzles third party (as in not directly released by a candidate or Political party) political speech (both left and right) starting in January of an election year! (because primaries are creeping into February.

Can you see how this is a first amendment violation? The supreme court did.

Citizens United allowed the people who form Private Corporations, Non Profits, Public Advocacy groups who are organized as a Corp, and Union, to make use of their first amendment right.

This is why even the frickin ACLU was on the side of Citizens United..

Sorry. Yes, you are correct. It was just the radical rightwing activist judges made the case into something it wasn't and allowed the outcome to be that corporations can buy our political sysytem.

(04-15-2011 02:49 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I'm waiting for Obama to give that same speech in front of a group of adults that aren't his usual bunch of yes men, or in this case, indoctrinated students who think he is cool. They are clueless that the fool they so admire has and is selling out their future. THEY are the ones who will be hurt the most, yet they don't understand the implications of what he is doing and most importantly, how it WILL affect themselves. To them, politics is stupid and Obama is cool. It is not their fault that they weren't astute enough to know that their education has been slanted in order to make them easy to manipulate and become good little leftist sheep.

Barack, if YOU are the "adult in the room" then why not make that speech to the nation so that other adults and business leaders can hear you regurgitating the same tired old talking points and vague ideas? Oh, that's right. It wasn't a policy speech, it was the kickoff for the re-election campaign. Gotta give it in front of one of the few groups not paying attention who might still vote for me (other than blacks).

The libs love to tout diversity - but diversity of IDEAS on a college campus can not be allowed. Only liberal ideas are allowed and/or tolerated. Watch how this self proclaimed tolerant bunch reacts when speakers come to campus with a different set of values and ideas. Either they shout them down and disrupt the speech or they attack the speakers. Cream pies, anybody?

By the time these kids begin to realize that they have been had, it will be far too late for them.

Did ANYBODY hear or read any plan in that re-election speech? It sounded like another fable about unicorns and fairies that will find the waste and abuse that has been talked about and investigated for years but that nobody has been able to stop or hardly even slow down. Criminals are pretty clever - far smarter than our politicians. This idea of finding savings by cutting waste and abuse and of course, the standard liberal TAX INCREASES are how Obama is going to cut the deficit. Riiiiiight.

I'm disgusted by the rank partisanship and low class shown by BO. He denigrates the office of the Presidency every time he does this stuff. But what else would you expect of a "community organizer?" They are rabble rousers and instigators, nothing more - or more aptly put, they are shakedown artists. Yet, some still wonder what he believes in. Our President is THE MOST TOXIC President in our nation's history. That anybody thinks that this clown is a leader blows my mind. Just what issues has he led on? Voting present is his M.O.

I'm starting to believe that nothing will get done to address the deficit and the whole house of cards will come crashing down. As awful and painful as it will be, it may be the only way for delusional leftists to see demonstrated (in a manner they will may understand) what results from magic unicorn policies and other fantasies pushed by the left. Even then, folks like our own Robert will probably still be in denial, still blaming Bush and claiming that it is a revenue problem and we can tax and spend our way out of it.

Both parties have caused this problem. One SAYS that it is trying to be serious and has laid out an actual plan. Not sure that I trust/believe them but at least they are trying. The other? They punted multiple times on an actual budget and now STILL have laid out no real plan. All while calling the side that DID produce one the un-serious group. Name calling and demonizing is not a plan (it's dem SOP). Calling a real plan for spending cuts "Un-American" is not a plan. Using fear tactics with seniors, children, etc. is not a plan.

Ball is in your court, dems. Produce a plan or STFU. A real plan. Not a bunch of magic unicorns and fantasy wishes.

One final thought: When we hear the fear mongering attacks against Ryan and the GOP plan, it might be wise to stop and think not about their message but the motivation behind it and the implications.

If this many people are scared of losing a benefit "from the government" does that not suggest that far too many of us are too dependent on government already? Instead of listening to the message of fear - realize that those pushing the message WANT YOU DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT. It is where liberal power comes from - Dependency.

You certainly got the Republican talking points down. Nice job.

(04-16-2011 02:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sorry. Yes, you are correct. It was just the radical rightwing activist judges made the case into something it wasn't and allowed the outcome to be that corporations can buy our political sysytem.

They ruled that people can electioneer be they Unions, Corporations, or Individuals. Wow, never thought I would see the day you called the ACLU right wing..

That's how in touch RobertN is regarding the political spectrum. Perhaps he is so far left that nearly everything looks right wing to him.

I realize my screed is too wordy for many to even bother reading. That's the diff between me and Robert. He snipes with standard short (attention span) talking points. I tried to express ideas - anathema to leftists like himself. Hard to express ideas in short sound bite form.

(04-16-2011 03:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 02:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sorry. Yes, you are correct. It was just the radical rightwing activist judges made the case into something it wasn't and allowed the outcome to be that corporations can buy our political sysytem.

They ruled that people can electioneer be they Unions, Corporations, or Individuals. Wow, never thought I would see the day you called the ACLU right wing..

Please explain to me how a corporation is a person.

(04-16-2011 05:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 03:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 02:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sorry. Yes, you are correct. It was just the radical rightwing activist judges made the case into something it wasn't and allowed the outcome to be that corporations can buy our political sysytem.

They ruled that people can electioneer be they Unions, Corporations, or Individuals. Wow, never thought I would see the day you called the ACLU right wing..

Please explain to me how a corporation is a person.

I could just ask you to explain how a Union is a person but I'll answer your question:

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations several rights they had not previously had in the case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.

This is when the Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.

If you want to know what that case was about, I bet you don't, it was about a state government trying to abolish a private college and make it public by revoking the charter so that the state could choose the person to run the college. Basically NH was trying 'nationalization' at the state level. The Supreme Court saw that a corporation was nothing but a *collection of individuals* utilizing their right to free assembly.

In order to protect the investments people make in order to start, grow, and save, businesses Corporations needed protection. Before this point you could not even get a corporate charter approved without special permission fro the government (yea no chance that would be abused by politicians for money/votes).

The Corporation has been a person for 192 years under US law. Through democrats and republicans.

Now... Please tell me why you think a Union should be a 'person' under the law but a corporation should not be?

(04-16-2011 06:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 05:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 03:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2011 02:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sorry. Yes, you are correct. It was just the radical rightwing activist judges made the case into something it wasn't and allowed the outcome to be that corporations can buy our political sysytem.

They ruled that people can electioneer be they Unions, Corporations, or Individuals. Wow, never thought I would see the day you called the ACLU right wing..

Please explain to me how a corporation is a person.

I could just ask you to explain how a Union is a person but I'll answer your question:

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations several rights they had not previously had in the case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.

This is when the Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.

If you want to know what that case was about, I bet you don't, it was about a state government trying to abolish a private college and make it public by revoking the charter so that the state could choose the person to run the college. Basically NH was trying 'nationalization' at the state level. The Supreme Court saw that a corporation was nothing but a *collection of individuals* utilizing their right to free assembly.

In order to protect the investments people make in order to start, grow, and save, businesses Corporations needed protection. Before this point you could not even get a corporate charter approved without special permission fro the government (yea no chance that would be abused by politicians for money/votes).

The Corporation has been a person for 192 years under US law. Through democrats and republicans.

Now... Please tell me why you think a Union should be a 'person' under the law but a corporation should not be?

Not sure either should be considered "a person". THey are both a collection of people. THe main difference I see is where the money comes from. One comes from the people with the ability to give(or not) towards the campaign and the other comes from profits with no separate pot and one or two people at the top deciding where the funds will go and how much to spend.

I would vote against raising the debt ceiling without a realistic deficit reduction plan in place.

Sorry, but Rep. Ryan's plan isn't. Of course, it's better than Obama's, at least what we can tell of Obama's. The only concrete thing I heard from Obama was repealing the "Bush tax cuts" for the "wealthy." That gets us a whopping $70 billion toward a $1.65 trillion deficit. Whoopee!!!

The bipartisan deficit reduction commission had a better approach (at least, 11 of its 18 members did, from both parties) than either Ryan or Obama. And they recommended lower tax rates across the board.

Why don't the republicans just agree to let those tax cuts go? Maybe then the democrats will STFU about them. Republicans have let the idea gain traction that the "Bush tax cuts" and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned Bill Clinton's surplus into a deficit. Almost every single part of that is incredibly wrong, but that's what the dems and the MSM have Americans believing. Last I saw, the war in Iraq is now costing $40 billion a year, the war in Afghanistan (which Obama owns at least as much as Shrub) is costing $100 billion a year, and the "Bush tax cuts" for the "wealthy" are costing $70 billion a year--a total of $210 billion out of a $1.65 trillion deficit, or a whopping 12%.

Tell you what dems, you end the "Bush tax cuts" and the wars tomorrow--and then let's expose the blatant hypocrisy in your demagoguery. And tell you what MSM, when those lies become exposed, then you admit them too, and admit you've been actively assisting the dems in deceiving the American people.

While we're at it, tell you what republicans, why don't you figure out how to cut about $200 billion from the military budget. You could do that much without affecting our ability to defend this country so much as one iota.

I don't think that failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a worldwide recession. I do think that failing to deal responsibly with our budget deficit will cause the US to become Argentina within a generation--and possibly Zimbabwe within two. And it looks to me like both major political parties are far more interested in politicizing this problem than in solving it.