Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Controversial Topics Controversial Topics
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > >

Political Hypocrisy and Off-The-Wall News


(!)

Wino's Avatar
Wino has a Photo Album
Computer Specs
Member with 18,565 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Republic of Texas
Experience: Advanced
09-Mar-2012, 10:11 PM #1891
Quote:
Originally Posted by eggplant43 View Post
I get that, but darn it, I'd sure like to see a politician in my lifetime in whom I can believe. For me, a good start would be to get corporations out of politics.
Well, you can thank the Bush Supreme Court for that bit of manure.
poochee's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 108,407 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Experience: Intermediate
09-Mar-2012, 11:42 PM #1892
Quote:
Originally Posted by eggplant43 View Post
I get that, but darn it, I'd sure like to see a politician in my lifetime in whom I can believe. For me, a good start would be to get corporations out of politics.
I agree!
Littlefield's Avatar
Member with 13,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
10-Mar-2012, 12:33 AM #1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wino View Post
Candidates, regardless of party, cannot coordinate with, have contact, nor have any control over Super Pacs. Thus none of the candidates can be hypocrites.

As for Maher (who supports Limbaugh's faux pas) and Limbaugh - The comdian was correct along with the word ignorant, and Fat Boy just made it up as he went along as his target was an unknown. Considering both Bill and Rush are comedians, what they have to say is of little import except to those dumb enough to take what they say seriously. In any case, I've called Palin and GWB names much worse, privately and publically.

I must say, though, with heavy heart, I'm enjoying watching the Oxyman twist in his self made stew.
Nice talking points but Obama could make it known he wanted Bill Burton to return the money without breaking election law and as far as PAC raising money blame the 1st amendment not the Bush Supreme Court.
eggplant43's Avatar
Member with 17,180 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Thermopolis, WY
Experience: Been there, done that, st
10-Mar-2012, 12:49 AM #1894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlefield View Post
Nice talking points but Obama could make it known he wanted Bill Burton to return the money without breaking election law and as far as PAC raising money blame the 1st amendment not the Bush Supreme Court.
Where in the first amendment does it say corporations are people, and have the right to free speech?
Littlefield's Avatar
Member with 13,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
10-Mar-2012, 01:58 AM #1895
No where in the first amendment does it require corporations to be considered as a person before they have first amendment speech rights .
Wino's Avatar
Wino has a Photo Album
Computer Specs
Member with 18,565 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Republic of Texas
Experience: Advanced
10-Mar-2012, 10:46 AM #1896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlefield View Post
Nice talking points but Obama could make it known he wanted Bill Burton to return the money without breaking election law............
That would be coordinating / collusion with a SuperPac, but guess you're okay with that regarding Maher's money, but if Obama did anything else to coordinate with a Pac the right would be calling for his impeachment. I didn't hear a loud hue and cry from the right when Romney said he had no control over Pacs when they ripped Gingrich apart (truthfully).

Quote:
................................... and as far as PAC raising money blame the 1st amendment not the Bush Supreme Court.
The 1st amendment gives me the right to blame whomever I wish, and I rightfully blame the Bush Supreme Court that gave us the ridiculous Corporate Personhood. Based on this premise, should the CEO of a large corporation break the law and gets caught, everyone, right down to the janitor, should be prosecuted and sent to prison - that would put a corporation on the same level as individuals - and it isn't going to happen anymore than a corporation is a single entity as the Bush SCOTUS made them - not the 1st amendment. Corporate Personhood has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, but has everything to do with power, control and corruption of our political process.
__________________
WINO http://forums.techguy.org/group.php?groupid=24
in vino veritas - Old Yiddish saying, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there". "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H. L. Mencken
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw."
"Ignorance is not an opinion." - Dilbert
poochee's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 108,407 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Experience: Intermediate
10-Mar-2012, 12:58 PM #1897
Why would Koch brothers want to refine Cato Institute?
By Ezra Klein, Published: March 8

Quote:
It seems that the effort by billionaires Charles and David Koch to take control of the libertarian Cato Institute is going poorly. “We are not acting in a partisan manner, we seek no ‘takeover’ and this is not a hostile action,” Charles Koch told Bloomberg News. When you are denying partisanship, takeover ambitions and hostile intentions in one sentence, you probably need to rethink your PR strategy.
Quote:
What’s puzzling is why the Kochs started this campaign in the first place. It’s easy enough to see what they hoped to achieve: They would quietly take control of Cato and then leverage its credibility to help elect a Republican president. Unfortunately for them, the cries from inside Cato made the “quietly” part impossible. But it would have been impossible in any case: Cato’s credibility is derived from its independence; it wouldn’t last long separated from it.

What the Kochs have in Cato is an advocacy organization that matters in the years between elections, even when the brothers’ preferred candidate doesn’t win, even to people who don’t share their ideology. Cato is an organization that can have more than a marginal impact on elections. It can have a significant impact on policy and governance. That’s a level of influence that even the Kochs can’t buy. When two of the right wing’s most influential funders don’t recognize that, it should cheer liberals immensely
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...m_business_pop
eggplant43's Avatar
Member with 17,180 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Thermopolis, WY
Experience: Been there, done that, st
10-Mar-2012, 01:08 PM #1898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wino View Post
That would be coordinating / collusion with a SuperPac, but guess you're okay with that regarding Maher's money, but if Obama did anything else to coordinate with a Pac the right would be calling for his impeachment. I didn't hear a loud hue and cry from the right when Romney said he had no control over Pacs when they ripped Gingrich apart (truthfully).


The 1st amendment gives me the right to blame whomever I wish, and I rightfully blame the Bush Supreme Court that gave us the ridiculous Corporate Personhood. Based on this premise, should the CEO of a large corporation break the law and gets caught, everyone, right down to the janitor, should be prosecuted and sent to prison - that would put a corporation on the same level as individuals - and it isn't going to happen anymore than a corporation is a single entity as the Bush SCOTUS made them - not the 1st amendment. Corporate Personhood has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, but has everything to do with power, control and corruption of our political process.
Exactly!
poochee's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 108,407 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Experience: Intermediate
10-Mar-2012, 02:10 PM #1899
Boehner: Some of America’s ‘dumbest’ and ‘raunchiest’ serve in Congress
By Sam Baker - 03/10/12 10:57 AM ET

Quote:
Boehner (R-Ohio) told the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan that it can be difficult to wrangle misbehaving members of Congress, while arguing that the chamber is not uniquely corrupt or scandal-prone.

"We got 435 members. It's just a slice of America, it really is,” he said. “We got some of the smartest people in the country who serve here, and some of the dumbest. We got some of the best people you'd ever meet, and some of the raunchiest. We've got 'em all."
s

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ve-in-congress
poochee's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 108,407 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Experience: Intermediate
10-Mar-2012, 02:18 PM #1900
Elise Foley
Celinda Lake: No Democratic Conspiracy With Sandra Fluke (UPDATE)
Posted: 03/ 9/2012 3:39 pm Updated: 03/ 9/2012 4:16 pm
Mike McAuliff contributed reporting.


Quote:
"I appreciate the paranoia and conspiracy theory -- coming from the land of black 'helicopters,'" Lake wrote in a comment Friday on a WND.com "exclusive" report. "I am also really flattered by the perception of our influence and strategic involvement. That said, we had nothing to do with organizing the Sandra Fluke incident and reaction."
s

Quote:
UPDATE: 4:15 p.m. -- After this story was published, Lake reiterated to HuffPost that neither she nor the other Democrats accused were now conspiring to protect the president. She said Republicans are in a bad place because language like "slut" and "whore" would turn off women voters in general, even those who disagree with the birth control rule.

"I'm flabbergasted. I think it's bizarre," she said of the conspiracy claims. "All I can say is they're trying to deflect because they won't condemn Rush Limbaugh. They can't cut their losses and so they're trying to deflect, but they sound like raving maniacs. ... I don't think it's going to even remotely work."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?ref=topbar
poochee's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 108,407 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Experience: Intermediate
10-Mar-2012, 02:37 PM #1901
BREAKING: 98 Major Advertisers Dump Rush Limbaugh, Other Right-Wing Hosts
By Judd Legum on Mar 10, 2012 at 11:31 am

Quote:
“To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory...They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).
Details here: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/...ugh/?mobile=nc
Littlefield's Avatar
Member with 13,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
10-Mar-2012, 05:25 PM #1902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wino View Post
That would be coordinating / collusion with a SuperPac, but guess you're okay with that regarding Maher's money, but if Obama did anything else to coordinate with a Pac the right would be calling for his impeachment. I didn't hear a loud hue and cry from the right when Romney said he had no control over Pacs when they ripped Gingrich apart (truthfully).


The 1st amendment gives me the right to blame whomever I wish, and I rightfully blame the Bush Supreme Court that gave us the ridiculous Corporate Personhood. Based on this premise, should the CEO of a large corporation break the law and gets caught, everyone, right down to the janitor, should be prosecuted and sent to prison - that would put a corporation on the same level as individuals - and it isn't going to happen anymore than a corporation is a single entity as the Bush SCOTUS made them - not the 1st amendment. Corporate Personhood has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, but has everything to do with power, control and corruption of our political process.
You are funny Obama endorsed the PAC and I know you are not so naive as to think he could not influence the return of the money without breaking any law Corporations have free speech rights and Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion acknowledged this , "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment."
eggplant43's Avatar
Member with 17,180 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Thermopolis, WY
Experience: Been there, done that, st
10-Mar-2012, 05:27 PM #1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlefield View Post
You are funny Obama endorsed the PAC and I know you are not so naive as to think he could not influence the return of the money without breaking any law Corporations have free speech rights even without personhood and Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion acknowledged this , "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment."
And look at the results.
Littlefield's Avatar
Member with 13,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
10-Mar-2012, 05:32 PM #1904
Quote:
Originally Posted by eggplant43 View Post
And look at the results.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-m...ited-decision/
A lot of things about Citizens United are misconceptions like the decision allows the Sugar Daddy of Newt to finance his campaign.

Buckley v. Valeo Date of Decision: January 30, 1976
Quote:
The decision greatly changed campaign finance laws. Perhaps, the most significant change was the finding that no restrictions on contributions from individuals and groups could be set so long as the contributions were not directly part of an election campaign.

Quote:
The Court noted that, "Virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Chief Justice William Rehnquist equated free speech with the spending of money to promote political views. He wrote,

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.

As long as expenditures were not funneled through the candidate or the candidate's campaign, they would be allowed.

http://www.enotes.com/buckley-v-vale...uckley-v-valeo

Last edited by Littlefield; 10-Mar-2012 at 07:22 PM..
Wino's Avatar
Wino has a Photo Album
Computer Specs
Member with 18,565 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Republic of Texas
Experience: Advanced
10-Mar-2012, 05:59 PM #1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlefield View Post
You are funny Obama endorsed the PAC and I know you are not so naive as to think he could not influence the return of the money without breaking any law Corporations have free speech rights and Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion acknowledged this , "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment."
Corporations have free speech rights - no argument. Unlimited sums of money does not "free speech" make and I don't care how you parse it. Next you'll be telling me that if a corporation has 6,000 employees they will be allowed that many votes in the voting booth. They should have no more voice in the process than you or I. The Bush court made a really bad decision and they will eventually walk it back. If they do not this country will be in a world of hurt. This country is already governed by money whores - we do not need to lift them to prostitute / call girl status.
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑