| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2010 10:24:02 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure is a good thing the Republicans did away with judicial activism, eh? |
Yeah, now the unions can really buy votes... I'm so excited (bleh)
I think most agree this is not a good thing. |
Well, the Unions are pretty weak at this point. I mean, the Auto Industry Unions doesn't have shizzle, for example.
It's a very, very "Right-Wing" court and generally they rule in favor of big business, unadulterated free markets etc. At this point I'd like to see a roll back to the time when we broke up ATT. We've allowed entities to emerge that are too big to fail and too big to stop and their hands are creeping even further up our asses.
The court used to look at this issue somewhat like the old Monopoly laws but in effect they've just awarded anyone with deep pockets a monopoly on Freedom of Speech.
Too big to shut up...and now imagine how our Representatives will vote if they can count on easy and fast millions from Exxon, Goldman, the Insurance Industry to do their bidding...which is piss in the ocean to them BTW. In short...we're fucked! |
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 10:52:14 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure is a good thing the Republicans did away with judicial activism, eh? |
Yeah, now the unions can really buy votes... I'm so excited (bleh)
I think most agree this is not a good thing. |
Well, the Unions are pretty weak at this point. I mean, the Auto Industry Unions doesn't have shizzle, for example.
It's a very, very "Right-Wing" court and generally they rule in favor of big business, unadulterated free markets etc. At this point I'd like to see a roll back to the time when we broke up ATT. We've allowed entities to emerge that are too big to fail and too big to stop and their hands are creeping even further up our asses.
The court used to look at this issue somewhat like the old Monopoly laws but in effect they've just awarded anyone with deep pockets a monopoly on Freedom of Speech.
Too big to shut up...and now imagine how our Representatives will vote if they can count on easy and fast millions from Exxon, Goldman, the Insurance Industry to do their bidding...which is piss in the ocean to them BTW. In short...we're fucked! |
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
I am just waiting for the first politician to sell his naming rights.....I can see it now- "The floor recognizes Exxon AIG from Minnesota." "Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my fifteen minutes to Bank of America Ford from Delaware." |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:25:59 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:31:24 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:44:42 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
To put it mildly! :-)
However, the point is that laws need to be in place to prevent buying elections. It's not good enough to say "Well, there is always some way to peddle influence, so why bother making laws that people can just find a way to get around?" (Not that you said that.) |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:49:49 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure is a good thing the Republicans did away with judicial activism, eh? |
Yeah, now the unions can really buy votes... I'm so excited (bleh)
I think most agree this is not a good thing. |
Glad to hear you say that, but LOTS of Republicans and Conservatives are coming out in favor of this decision. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:58:02 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure is a good thing the Republicans did away with judicial activism, eh? |
Yeah, now the unions can really buy votes... I'm so excited (bleh)
I think most agree this is not a good thing. |
Glad to hear you say that, but LOTS of Republicans and Conservatives are coming out in favor of this decision. |
not the "little people" republicans I know (meaning those I am around frequently). all of them, even the most staunch of conservatives are kinda scratching their heads thinking, "and this is good, how?" |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 12:17:10 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure is a good thing the Republicans did away with judicial activism, eh? |
Yeah, now the unions can really buy votes... I'm so excited (bleh)
I think most agree this is not a good thing. |
Glad to hear you say that, but LOTS of Republicans and Conservatives are coming out in favor of this decision. |
As are LOTS of unions and well funded liberals. is this really worth an argument? It's bad for everyone that can't afford to buy votes. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 12:19:45 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Glad to hear you say that, but LOTS of Republicans and Conservatives are coming out in favor of this decision. |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
As are LOTS of unions and well funded liberals. is this really worth an argument? It's bad for everyone that can't afford to buy votes. |
If not too much trouble, could you give a few examples of who? |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 02:26:49 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
I am just waiting for the first politician to sell his naming rights.....I can see it now- "The floor recognizes Exxon AIG from Minnesota." "Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my fifteen minutes to Bank of America Ford from Delaware." |
I think it was Dave Ross who suggested that Congress should just go the way of NASCAR and sew their sponsors' logos on their suits so that C-Span watchers could tell at a glance who was buying their votes.
Question to all those "conservative" judges who are so big on interpreting the "original intent" of the founding fathers: exactly where does the Constitution mention corporations? Do corporations get to vote? Run for President? The "personhood of corporations" is not even a judicial position -- it was "snuck into" the language of a decision by a court clerk in a case back in the late 1800's ...
As for unions: their money comes out of the pockets of their workers, corporate profits (Exxon/Mobil made about $40 billion last year) comes out of our pockets. To paraphrase Anatole France, "the law, in its majestic equality, permits the poor as well as the rich to spend all of their money on political campaigns." |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 02:41:35 PM · #86 |
| oooooooooo, I know! This is that whole reaching across the aisle to work together thing in action. . . . |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 02:59:26 PM · #87 |
| On The Road With "Granny D": Supreme Court sends Doris a Birthday Greeting. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 10:52:15 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by karmat:
oooooooooo, I know! This is that whole reaching across the aisle to work together thing in action. . . . |
The sad thing is, he (Obama) tried to do just that. He should have just done what he wanted. So much for idealism. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 12:05:17 AM · #89 |
5 supreme court justices, Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh have all openly praised the ruling.
Good luck finding a comparable list of "liberals" |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 11:20:07 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
Hey, we already know that both parties are beholden to the special interests to one degree or another, in part due to the corrupting influence of big money. The point is that the Supreme Court has now reinforced and institutionalized the perverse incentives that were already in place in this regard. It will be virtually impossible for any individual politician to refuse money from these sources now, even if they want to (and some of them still want to refuse or limit it).
And as posthumous said, the Republican Party leadership support this SC decision, the Democratic Party leadership do not. No surprise there. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 09:21:35 AM · #91 |
| The truly horrible fact that America needs to face is this: Most of the people who are running for office are not looking out for the interests of the nation. Its become about "staying in power" or trying to figure out how to get back in power. Politics have become so polarized that it is crippling this country. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 10:39:50 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
Hey, we already know that both parties are beholden to the special interests to one degree or another, in part due to the corrupting influence of big money. The point is that the Supreme Court has now reinforced and institutionalized the perverse incentives that were already in place in this regard. It will be virtually impossible for any individual politician to refuse money from these sources now, even if they want to (and some of them still want to refuse or limit it).
And as posthumous said, the Republican Party leadership support this SC decision, the Democratic Party leadership do not. No surprise there. |
Probably not. But, the Republicans will support the decision and take the money. The Democrats will not support the decision, and still take the money. Makes the ground level the way I see it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 11:46:31 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
Hey, we already know that both parties are beholden to the special interests to one degree or another, in part due to the corrupting influence of big money. The point is that the Supreme Court has now reinforced and institutionalized the perverse incentives that were already in place in this regard. It will be virtually impossible for any individual politician to refuse money from these sources now, even if they want to (and some of them still want to refuse or limit it).
And as posthumous said, the Republican Party leadership support this SC decision, the Democratic Party leadership do not. No surprise there. |
Probably not. But, the Republicans will support the decision and take the money. The Democrats will not support the decision, and still take the money. Makes the ground level the way I see it. |
I don't know how it "levels the ground." Yes, they'll take the money. They will be required to take the money if they ever want to win another election. That was my point. So it's better to NOT support this decision, to try to fight it or reverse it or limit it, no? Which is what the Democratic leadership will attempt to do, according to their statements now at any rate. Isn't that better than what the Republicans will likely do? |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 11:56:50 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I agree with you, this sucks for everyone. Just don't forget the left wing money that comes in for left wing special interests, they have plenty of money to buy votes too. This goes both ways, everyone is fucked! |
Ask yourself who is going to be happiest about this decision. Broadly, it's going to be banks, Wall Street, pharamaceutical companies, etc. Generally not the bastions of democrats. |
Generally speaking, you are correct. But, to assume that the democrats will say, "no, I don't want your money; you are a special interest group" is probably a bit unrealistic. |
Hey, we already know that both parties are beholden to the special interests to one degree or another, in part due to the corrupting influence of big money. The point is that the Supreme Court has now reinforced and institutionalized the perverse incentives that were already in place in this regard. It will be virtually impossible for any individual politician to refuse money from these sources now, even if they want to (and some of them still want to refuse or limit it).
And as posthumous said, the Republican Party leadership support this SC decision, the Democratic Party leadership do not. No surprise there. |
Probably not. But, the Republicans will support the decision and take the money. The Democrats will not support the decision, and still take the money. Makes the ground level the way I see it. |
I don't know how it "levels the ground." Yes, they'll take the money. They will be required to take the money if they ever want to win another election. That was my point. So it's better to NOT support this decision, to try to fight it or reverse it or limit it, no? Which is what the Democratic leadership will attempt to do, according to their statements now at any rate. Isn't that better than what the Republicans will likely do? |
I guess I just see it ironic that they will fight it up front and put the money in their pockets behind. To me it looks like they are bemoaning the decision, but secretly (yes, speculation on my part) rejoicing the fact that they now have a bigger base from which to get money. Perspective perhaps. Lack of any trust on the part of the politicians that supposedly represent me, definitely.
"What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say." RWE |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 11:57:25 AM · #95 |
I think the message is loud and clear which side is more closely tied into big business and thats who's applauding the decision. Which is not to say the Dems don't have their relationships, as well BUT if they don't solidify more on the side of those who afford to spend them into the ground they will perish. Now, they have to accept more money from the rich and powerful just to compete.
Clinton moved to the center and befriended big biz along with tons of money which caused a great deal of discomfort to the Right and they went for his throat but before that the Dems were backed primarily by the little guy. I mean, the Bush admin's energy policy was created by oil companies which is why Cheney wouldn't release who was sitting at those policy meeting. I never could understand why that wasn't transparent or subject to Executive Privileged UNLESS it was funky from the word "go". |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:07:43 PM · #96 |
The US has two political parties. The purpose of both parties is to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
The Republicans do it openly and use "trickle down" theory to justify it.
The Democrats lie about it.
The voters get to go to the polls and pick one. I almost always pick Democrats because at least their lying makes them vulnerable. But sometimes when I'm particularly disgusted, like when Clinton ran for re-election, I vote third party.
And they tell us that third party voters are foolish. Yeah, right. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:09:43 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The US has two political parties. The purpose of both parties is to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
The Republicans do it openly and use "trickle down" theory to justify it.
The Democrats lie about it.
The voters get to go to the polls and pick one. I almost always pick Democrats because at least their lying makes them vulnerable. But sometimes when I'm particularly disgusted, like when Clinton ran for re-election, I vote third party.
And they tell us that third party voters are foolish. Yeah, right. |
I'm about this close ---->||<------ to becoming a third party voter.. . (it would be closer, but that is as close as i could get it) |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:14:08 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm about this close ---->||<------ to becoming a third party voter.. . (it would be closer, but that is as close as i could get it) |
I think it's a wasted vote. Not foolish but wasted. I usually go with the lesser of two evils or the scumbag that's appears to be on my side...? |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:20:22 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The US has two political parties. The purpose of both parties is to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
The Republicans do it openly and use "trickle down" theory to justify it.
The Democrats lie about it.
The voters get to go to the polls and pick one. I almost always pick Democrats because at least their lying makes them vulnerable. But sometimes when I'm particularly disgusted, like when Clinton ran for re-election, I vote third party.
And they tell us that third party voters are foolish. Yeah, right. |
I hate to admit it but I agree almost entirely with this post. There is virtually no hope that the Republicans will do anything progressive, pro-individual rights (unless it happens to coincide with the interests of big business). So the Dems are what you're left with, and there are still some individual Democrats who I believe try to do the right thing more often than not. But for many years I voted only third-party candidates. I did vote for Obama, even though I didn't hold out much hope for his progressive tendencies winning the day, just because if McCain/Palin had won I never would have forgiven myself, especially after eight long and disastrous years of George Bush & Co., Inc. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:21:20 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm about this close ---->||<------ to becoming a third party voter.. . (it would be closer, but that is as close as i could get it) |
I think it's a wasted vote. Not foolish but wasted. I usually go with the lesser of two evils or the scumbag that's appears to be on my side...? |
yea, it is wasted. so we get to either waste a vote or perpetuate the system. |
|
